Dargis on Park Chan-wook's "Exploitation" Films
Submitted by jim on Thu, 03/03/2005 - 12:10
Tags:
Manohla Dargis carves up Park Chan-wook's Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (she'll get to Oldboy when it comes out in a couple weeks), as she bemoans a "dubious development in recent cinema: the mainstreaming of exploitation.":
At the 45-minute mark, however, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance transforms from a beautifully shot character study with glimmerings of political and social insight into a cavalcade of cruelty, yet another iteration of "Death Wish." Among the atrocities are a few gory baseball-bat murders; a would-be suicide via a knife to the belly; an extended torture scene involving electricity; and the lovingly photographed death of a child. The death is followed by the child's autopsy, a scene that includes unpleasant sights and crunching sounds.
I'm happy she can find the line between exploitation and tragedy, but I still can't do it. Park's no Shakespeare, but is any of this worse that what befalls poor Gloucester in King Lear?
GLOUCESTER
Because I would not see thy cruel nails
Pluck out his poor old eyes; nor thy fierce sister
In his anointed flesh stick [rash] boarish fangs.
The sea, with such a storm as his bare [lowed] head
In hell-black night endured, would have buoy'd up,
And quench'd the stelled fires:
Yet, poor old heart, he holp the heavens to rain [rage].
If wolves had at thy gate howl'd [heard] that stern [dearne] time,
Thou shouldst have said 'Good porter, turn the key.'
All cruels else subscribed: but I shall see
The winged vengeance overtake such children.
CORNWALL
See't shalt thou never. Fellows, hold the chair.
Upon these eyes of thine I'll set my foot.
GLOUCESTER
He that will think to live till he be old,
Give me some help! O cruel! O you gods!
[ Cornwall plucks out Gloucester's eye ]
REGAN
One side will mock another; the other too.
... and you know what happens next! « via GreenCine »
Shakespear had to tell it, because he couldn't show it. The exploitation of cinema lies in its ability to show these things by sight and sound, leaving only smell, taste, and touch to the imagination.
Yeah, I've considered this, but I just can't embrace the notion that the crux of the issue is what you actually see. For example, the gore of some war movies is never characterized as "exploitative", even though it can be VERY gory. There is no gore:exploitation ("exploitation", I mean) ratio to my eyes.
Heck, sometimes things are worse when left to the imagination!
But wasn't Will intimately involved (often acting in) the staging of his own plays? Didn't he make little or no effort to print these, producing them nearly (if not entirely) for the stage? And doesn't the stage potentially leave even less to the imagination?
True, convention dictated that violence in plays often took place off stage, but this was certainly not always observed, not even by WS...
I guess where I often feel left out in these conversations is in the word 'exploitation'. Taking the broad view, all art is exploitation to some degree, and I don't feel exploitation is necessarily evil in and of itself.
Even using a stricter definition, would industry survive without some degree of exploitation? If every worker was truly paid exactly what his or her work was worth, would any profit or incentive remain? Perhaps in a non-capitalist society, but that is another can of worms...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
If either of you are curious, I posted something similar on GreenCine, and there are a couple replies.
Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs