Kim Ki-duk's 3-IRON

In Kim Ki-duk's enchanting 11th feature, 3-Iron (Bin-Jip), we first meet Tae-suk (Jae Hee), a handsome young man wandering around the city on his motorcycle pinning flyers on doors in various neighborhoods. After a few days he checks on those flyers to see if they’ve been removed. If not, he breaks in concluding that the owner is absent and takes residence, although, not for the purpose of stealing or destroying the property; instead, for eating their food and using their beds, he performs a few chores in compensation like laundry, cleaning, and taking care of their pets.

Tae-suk eventually ends up in a more lavish house owned by a businessman, and discovers that a young woman is there. The woman named Sun-hwa (Lee Seung-yun), a former model, is battered and bruised, results of her being married to an abusive husband and she's imprisoned in her own house. Sun-hwa chooses to leave with the intruder, abandoning her husband, and then the two drifters embark on a unique journey while forming a beautiful relationship as they go from one place to another without ever speaking a word to each other. The husband eventually catches up to them and the authorities also chime in. Sun-hwa is returned to the monster while Tae-suk is thrown in another dwelling, but this is not the end.

Director Kim Ki-duk is one of the most unique and fascinating figures in World cinema. It's remarkable that a man who has no formal training in film can orchestrate extraordinary sequences of subliminally evocative moods and tones; something he does by coalescing his narratives with symbolistic imagery - easier said than done but one can see that throughout his oeuvre. Due to the fact that he grew up in a less fortunate household, Kim has always based his films on the poor, the marginalized, the outsiders of Korean society - far away from the middle-class suburbanites one can find roaming in the films of his more popular compatriots like Hong Sang-soo, Lee Chang-dong, and Jang Sun-woo. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Kim plays up to a certain audience. Kim has a Fassbinderian quality of wounding up both the liberals and the conservatives in his country; to him everyone contributes to the miseries his characters have to endure so why limit the critique to certain factions of society?

Kim Ki-duk made his debut with Crocodile in 1996, and its sadistic central relationship is one Kim has revisited in many subsequent films. But it was the notorious The Isle (2000) which brought him much attention, albeit mostly for the wrong reasons. At the premiere in Venice, the film had audience members throwing up in the aisles, and reportedly, one Italian critic literally passed out during the screening. There were scenes involving a vagina and a fishhook, but what made them indigestible was their motoring logic as they made you think about the extremities of despair in human behavior; something I can't say about the mind-numbing, fetishistic violence seen with the likes of Takashi Miike and Gaspar Noé. Kim’s first Korean success came in 2002 with Bad Guy (a film just recently released in the U.S.) but Kim maintained that it was because of the star, Cho Jae-Hyun, who became famous during that time so it wasn’t his fault!

A more mature, more confident Kim can be located in his 2003 hit Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring, and similar to that film, in 3-Iron, Kim has relied upon his visuals to advance his narrative. The beautifully orchestrated shots of the two protagonists and the various houses they enter have their own distinct poetry. Kim has now pushed the sub-genre of modern alienation to an extreme, unlike anyone else has ever done before and now, he has asked his characters to go beyond what is real and into an imaginative state where they can find eternal peace and happiness. What a year he had in 2004. After winning the "Silver Bear" (Best Director) at Berlin for Samaria (another feature which will release in the U.S. shortly), he went on to win the "Silver Lion" (Best Director) at Venice for 3-Iron. I'm not aware of anyone who has accomplished that before.

3-Iron (reference for a golf club used by the characters in the film - but not to play golf) is shocking, hilarious, and it reaches a metaphysical state near the end which has to be seen to be believed. The themes of love and loss of Innocence are omnipresent in his films, but here Kim’s passion is transformed into something more, something magical. "We are all empty houses. Waiting for someone. To open the lock and set us free." (Kim Ki-duk)

3-IRON - Grade: A-

*Sony Pictures will open the film today in NY and LA. It will expand to other cities shortly.

*Kim Ki-duk's latest film (yup, he's already made another one) called The Bow is an official selection for Cannes next month (Un Certain Regard). This is the first time a Kim film is being presented at Cannes.

No more I can add to Arsaib4's excellent review and comments except to say this is one of the best and the most unique and enigmatic film I have had the privilege of seeing this year.

The filming stats are also impressive, the screenplay written in one month, the filming took 16 days and the editing was completed in 10 days, outstanding.

Cheers Trev.

I don't think I deserve it but thanks, Trevor; you're too kind. Also, thanks for the filming stats. Was the film released theatrically in the U.K.?

"Was the film released theatrically in the U.K.?"

Not yet but I'm hoping, I bought the standard region 3 DVD and liked the film so much that I then bought the very nicely presented 2 disc collectors edition, even so they still cost less than the official UK DVD will.

Cheers Trev.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by trevor826
Not yet but I'm hoping, I bought the standard region 3 DVD and liked the film so much that I then bought the very nicely presented 2 disc collectors edition, even so they still cost less than the official UK DVD will.

Cheers Trev.

---

I'd certainly be interested in the special edition. What are some of the extras?

This seems to have just opened in NYC and is getting good reviews. I want to see it. It was shot in a great hurry I believe, not always a bad idea.

Yeah, Kim is slowly becoming famous for his expeditious nature. I hope you get the chance to see the film. There are many worthy options out there right now (pleasantly surprising for this time of the year).

There are many worthy options out there right now (pleasantly surprising for this time of the year).

Where, we're drowning in trash here. It's actually better staying in and watching TV at the moment. Next week we have 9 films from Iran and 2 documentaries, the cinemas can't compete with that.

Cheers Trev.


I'd certainly be interested in the special edition. What are some of the extras?

Sorry meant to get back to you on this.

Cast and crew info, interviews etc.

Venice film festival footage.

Gallery.

Mini making of docs.

Director's commentary.

Some good stuff but no subtitles.

Thanks for the info, Trev. Unfortunately, no subs = no sale.

The main reason I bought it was because it cost me around 8 of your earth dollars, I think the seller was a little miffed at the lack of subtitles but the packaging is very handsome and the making of's are very interesting to see.

Cheers Trev.

Originally posted by arsaib4
"We are all empty houses. Waiting for someone. To open the lock and set us free." (Kim Ki-duk)

I like this quote better than the cliched one at the end of the film. This one applies to the major portion of 3-Iron, the one used in the film applies specifically to the ending. You found the ending "something magical", I thought it was a cop-out, an easy way out. I do agree it's a very good film which I'd recommend to anyone looking for a visually splendid romance.

3-IRON - Grade: A-

Your review is 100 % positive. I'd be curious to know about any flaws you found or if none, its limitations. In other words, given your review's content, why is the grade not A or A+?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Your review is 100 % positive. I'd be curious to know about any flaws you found or if none, its limitations. In other words, given your review's content, why is the grade not A or A+?

---

I’m glad you asked, because your question now provides me an opportunity to expound upon the system I’ve employed this year.

First of all, this isn’t something I’m fooling around with. I think about a film for quite a while before adding a letter grade, even when my comments teeter around extreme sarcasm. 3-Iron is a good example to go further into this, however, it’s not a perfect one.

It may end up being unfair at times, but to me a grade doesn’t just reflect upon the film at hand. It's also relative to all the films that I've seen. So far, the highest grade I’ve given is an "A-," and that has only been awarded to 3 films: 3-Iron, Crash, and My Mother's Smile. Does that mean these films aren't perfect? Not necessarily, but rather they aren’t as good as films that deserve the highest of honors (I don't consider them "masterpieces"). If I keep giving every film I like, or even love, an "A" or an "A+," then where would I place a film that I think comes close to Sunrise, L’Avventura, Tokyo Story, Apocalypse Now, Pixote, Rosetta etc. As we know, these don’t come around very often, but when they do, I’d prefer to have some gap between them and the others. There might be a genre film which I love, but it may not get higher then a "B." I intend to offset any confusion by not simply offering a grade of "B" as a lesser grade, but only use it when the films are truly worthy of it. The median grade between "A+" and "F" is "C+," and I’ve tried to work around it. I certainly need to get used to it, and I hope others will also.

In my comments regarding 3-Iron, I probably could’ve added that this film is a lateral move for Kim. But that sounds a bit negative, doesn’t it? And if I did, then it would've required me to go further back into his oeuvre, and that’s something I'd prefer not to do at this point since most aren’t familiar with his work.

I'm sure I would do a better job explicating myself at another time, but hopefully this provides some groundwork for where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to do.

3-IRON (Bin jip)

Directed by Kim Ki-duk (2004)

Korean director Kim Ki-duk's 3-Iron relates the odyssey of a macho teenager who breaks into people's homes when they are away in order to provide a "presence" in an empty house. It is a moody suspense thriller and "existential" love story that moves from one cruel and violent scene to another interspersed with interludes of meditative calm and ersatz mysticism. Jae Hee turns in a bravura performance as the enigmatic drifter Tae-suk. He does not utter a single word throughout the film but conveys layers of meaning through facial expressions and body movements, often breaking into a puzzling smile. A college graduate, Tae-suk finds little to do with his life other than riding his BMW motorcycle to attach pizza flyers to the front door of people's homes. When he goes back over his route, he discovers which people have not removed their flyers, concludes that they are not at home, and surreptitiously enters their house using a set of master keys.

Apparently not concerned with whether or not they are away for a day, a week or a few hours, he enters their place of dwelling and simply helps himself to what is available without stealing anything. As one critic remarked, the film should have been titled Zen and the Art of Breaking and Entering. We never find out what this character's motivations are but it is irrelevant, as he is only one of many symbols that Kim substitutes for real people. Shortly after entering a wealthy home, he finds a morose battered woman Sun-hwa (Lee Sueng yeon) and feels an immediate connection. When her husband returns and begins abusing his wife again, the teenager comes to her rescue by pounding golf balls into the man's stomach, some sort of Zen lesson I presume.

The two silent partners now form a connection and join together in their silent breaking and entering ritual. Reminiscent of Tsai Ming Liang's Vive L'Amour, they have sex in other people's beds, borrow their pajamas and help themselves to their food. They say nothing to each other, fix broken appliances, scrub bathroom floors, and do the laundry as repayment for the temporary appropriation of the home. In one of the houses, they find an old man lying dead on the floor. Without making any inquiries, alerting the police, trying to contact friends or relatives, the existential detectives simply bury the man in the front lawn of his house. When the man's son arrives, however, Tae-suk is arrested for murder, trespassing, and kidnapping and Sun-hwa is sent back to her husband to endure more abuse. The boy does not proclaim his innocence or try to defend himself but rather arrogantly provokes the anger of the police investigator and guards through his prolonged silence and disappearing acts.

While 3-Iron has a haunting quality and contains some fine acting and gorgeous shot composition, the film shouts "spiritual message" from the opening scene. The equivalent of spiritual fast food, the film panders to growing Western interest in Eastern religion but misses the essence of what it is about. Spirituality lies in making oneself visible to the world, not invisible. It is about compassion, integrity, and open communication, spreading enlightenment through example not driving golf balls into a person's stomach or violating people's right to privacy. Like Kim Ki-duk's previous effort, Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall…and Spring, 3-Iron is quite appealing on the surface. It is only when you look underneath do you find that it is hollow at its core.

GRADE: B-

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
macho teenager

I'm perplexed. Certainly doing house chores like washing clothes by hand no es muy macho...

Reminiscent of Tsai Ming Liang's Vive L'Amour

Absolutely, and uncontestably, in my opinion, a lesser film than Tsai's.

the film shouts "spiritual message" from the opening scene. The equivalent of spiritual fast food

You're not the only one to think so (Scott Foundas called it "Buddhism-for-dummies") but, perhaps because I'm not spiritually-inclined, I didn't hear the "shout". Can you enlighten me?

Quote:

---

I'm perplexed. Certainly doing house chores like washing clothes by hand no es muy macho

---

Just his look and his swagger and his aggressiveness gave me this feeling of macho, perhaps not.

Quote:

---

Absolutely, and uncontestably, in my opinion, a lesser film than Tsai's.

---

Yes, it's kind of a rip off. As a user pointed out on IMdb, in Vive L'Amour the silence emerges naturally from the loneliness of the characters. In 3-Iron, it feels like a gimmick.

Quote:

---

You're not the only one to think so (Scott Foundas called it "Buddhism-for-dummies") but, perhaps because I'm not spiritually-inclined, I didn't hear the "shout". Can you enlighten me?

---

Oh it just has this air about it and since total silence is not an everyday occurrence in the movies (except for the silent films), it seemed as if the director was trying to make it say something profound. It just seemed to be saying "look at me. how spiritual I am" and of course the other objections I cited in my review.

Sorry I was unaware that most of the points raised had already been brought up in a previous post by Oscar Jubis, I didn't do my post on site.

Howard, normally I like your reviews but I find too many flaws in this one. You made me wonder if we saw the same film, I was surprised that you appear to have been looking for some sort of spiritual message when there isn't one, Ki-duk Kim is a Catholic not some sort of Zen Buddhist guru and your use of descriptives like "macho teenager" are totally out of place. The main character Tae-suk was far from "macho", doing peoples washing, fixing items that didn't work properly and I'm pretty sure he was beyond his teens.

Apparently not concerned with whether or not they are away for a day, a week or a few hours,

The first thing he does is listen for any recorded messages on the phone to try and find out how long the people will be away, as you know, they were caught out once and he paid the price for it.

When her husband returns and begins abusing his wife again, the teenager comes to her rescue by pounding golf balls into the man's stomach, some sort of Zen lesson I presume.

As I've already said, there isn't a spiritual meaning, Ki-duk is more interested in how humans relate to each other than any zen mysticism.

Reminiscent of Tsai Ming Liang's Vive L'Amour

Yes the minimalist approach, the lack of dialogue and the interaction of the principal characters is reminiscent of Tsai Ming Liang's films.

the film shouts "spiritual message" from the opening scene. The equivalent of spiritual fast food, the film panders to growing Western interest in Eastern religion but misses the essence of what it is about.

I'm sorry, I realise that was your reading of the film but I truly believe you're wrong.


In the words of Kim Ki-duk:

We are all empty houses
Waiting for someone
To open the lock and set us free.

One day, my wish comes true.
A man arrives like a ghost
And takes me away from my confinement.
And I follow, without doubts, without reserve,
Until I find my new destiny.

I found the film surreal, ethereal but not spiritual, more like a modern form of folk tale or myth than any sort of lesson in zen. I wish you could go and see it again with a clear mind, you may see what there was rather than what wasn't there.

Cheers Trev

I like the points you've made, Trevor. Howard's review sounds eerily similar to what Tony Rayns/Chuck Stephens have said, and I'm glad that many have taken them to task. Having seen all of Kim's work so far (like you've for the most part), certainly helps when talking about him . And no, 3-Iron is not a "rip-off" of Vive L'Amour.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4
I like the points you've made, Trevor. Howard's review sounds eerily similar to what Tony Rayns/Chuck Stephens have said, and I'm glad that many have taken them to task. Having seen all of Kim's work so far (like you've for the most part), certainly helps when talking about him . And no, 3-Iron is not a "rip-off" of Vive L'Amour.

---

There are certainly other opinions than yours and your statement that other points of view have "been taken to task" sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Perhaps issues of integrity don't make any difference to you or you think its jim dandy that criminal behavior and indifference to society's laws and people's rights is elevated into some sort of metaphysical truth but I simply don't buy it. Maybe Bonnie and Clyde should get the Kim Ki-duk treatment then we can all talk about how they shared such a beautiful love.

Trying to lecture others with your ideologies is pretty arrogant to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
Perhaps issues of integrity don't make any difference to you or you think its jim dandy that criminal behavior and indifference to society's laws and people's rights is elevated into some sort of metaphysical truth but I simply don't buy it. Maybe Bonnie and Clyde should get the Kim Ki-duk treatment then we can all talk about how they shared such a beautiful love.

---

This is coming from someone who prefers morally righteous fares like OLD BOY. Unbelievable!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4
Trying to lecture others with your ideologies is pretty arrogant to me. This is coming from someone who prefers morally righteous fares like OLD BOY. Unbelievable!

---

Issues about whether people break the law or violate people's rights is not a matter of ideology and I am stating my convictions about it, not lecturing. To me, it is a simple matter of integrity and respect for the law and for the rights of others. The fact that the homes that are broken into happen to belong to people of wealth does not justify it, in the eyes of the law or in matters of conscience.

There are many repulsive elements in Oldboy which I pointed out in my review but there is no attempt to sugar coat the violence with some ersatz metaphyisics. In any event, Daesu's is human and I can identify with his pitiful sadness and longing for redemption. The film has humanity in it which I did not find in 3-Iron.

Howard,

You revealed far too much of the plot of this little film, I'm afraid. I'm glad there is some discussion of it here, and it looks quite relevant, but I can't comment because I haven't been able to see it or anything else for several weeks.

I understand your dislike of the director and while only having seen one other, his Spring... etc., I sympathize, but feel you may have somewhat overstated your case since to base your general criticisms all on this tiny effort is perhaps to "break a butterfly upon a wheel." It would seem to me on the face of it that the 3-Iron hero's "villainy" is of a very benign sort indeed and somewhat relates to the girl in ChungKing Express. The idea is of doing good in a way that is so modest it hides itself behind misbehavior. Your moral fervor seems a bit humorless here. But I have to see the movie to say for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Howard,

You revealed far too much of the plot of this little film, I'm afraid. I'm glad there is some discussion of it here, and it looks quite relevant, but I can't comment because I haven't been able to see it or anything else for several weeks.

I understand your dislike of the director and while only having seen one other, his Spring... etc., I sympathize, but feel you may have somewhat overstated your case since to base your general criticisms all on this tiny effort is perhaps to "break a butterfly upon a wheel." It would seem to me on the face of it that the 3-Iron hero's "villainy" is of a very benign sort indeed and somewhat relates to the girl in ChungKing Express. The idea is of doing good in a way that is so modest it hides itself behind misbehavior. Your moral fervor seems a bit humorless here. But I have to see the movie to say for sure.

---

Nice to hear from you Chris. I hope you will be back soon in a newly invigorated version. I did not reveal anything of the plot after about the first 45 minutes or so, so there is a lot that was left unsaid. As far as my "moral fervor" is concerned, I wonder how you would feel if someone broke into your house when you were away. I bet you wouldn't think that the villainy was so benign. Certainly the law does not look it at as so benign.

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

trespass
n. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

You are of course quite right about the law and about how one feels about being burglarized, but you may be being too literal. This is a fantasy. What about the girl in CHungKing Express? What she was doing was "illegal," she was breaking in, but it was actually a kind of metaphor for shy love and she was an adorable character.

If somebody broke into my house while I was away and fixed things and cleaned it up and made other improvements, I don't think I would prosecute. I have a housesitter who is always here when I am away (which was three months out of last year) and there are always changes when I return, most of which I am expected to like.... of course one is possessive about maintaining the continuity and integrity of one's "property" and home, but I don't look on that as one of my really desirable characteristics which I want to cultivate. I would like to be more open to changes coming from others and to be more ready to share what I have.

I think you revealed more about the content of the plot than any other reviews I have seen, so even if the details you gave only concern the first 45 minutes (which is after all a substantial part), it was a lot. in doing this, you have subconsciously been 'trespassing' on the private property of the viewer's personal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
You are of course quite right about the law and about how one feels about being burglarized, but you may be being too literal. This is a fantasy.

---

Who said it was a fantasy? That is just one interpretation.

Quote:

---

If somebody broke into my house while I was away and fixed things and cleaned it up and made other improvements, I don't think I would prosecute.

---

Whether or not you would prosecute is irrelevant. The question is how would you feel? I venture to say that if the person entering your house with a master key was someone completely unknown to you, it would be rather frightening and you might not be so willing to "share".

Quote:

---

I think you revealed more about the content of the plot than any other reviews I have seen, so even if the details you gave only concern the first 45 minutes (which is after all a substantial part), it was a lot. in doing this, you have subconsciously been 'trespassing' on the private property of the viewer's personal experience.

---

With all due respect, if you haven't seen the movie, how could you possibly know what I've revealed and what I haven't?

If we started disliking every film that strayed out of societies rules and legislation, there wouldn't be much left. If we listed every film made that in some way contravened a law we would be here forever.

Howard, I don't know why you've got it in for this film or maybe the director but the arguments are in all honesty (considering we're talking about a fictional film) getting pretty daft and that is putting it very mildly. Robin Hood was a criminal but as a folklore tale he's a righteous hero, if you want to talk about real criminality, well I suppose I'll have to leave G W B out of the conversation but you get my drift. It is, when all is said and done a piece of fiction, nothing more nothing less.

Cheers Trev.

Indeed I have not seen the film, but it is easy for people to know when they think too much has been revealed of a film they have not yet seen.

Whether or not I would prosecute would on the contrary have a lot to do with how I would feel. When one is angry and feels wronged, that is when one prosecutes.

I have agreed with you pretty much on the director's Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. . .and Spring. However, it may be that you are carrying too much of your feelings about that film into your judgment of this one. I may agree with you in the end in your unfavorable opinion of this one, but from what I know about it it seems not to have a spiritual message as Spring...etc. did, so maybe a different set of critical principles needs to be called into play.

"Who said it is a fantasy?" you ask. Well, I can only say that from what I have read, the whole story is highly fanciful. First of all, the behavior of the young man is unusual, not to say unique. When far from usual behavior is represented in a story or film, it seems sensible enough to consider it fantasy -- though, to be sure, truth is stranger than fiction, any day!

Morally reprehensible actions are represented in fiction, fantasy, and film all the time and enjoyed by the multitudes with no undue harm suffered. It is said that the Japanese have very violent fiction as a part of their culture, but a society that in fact is relatively without violence, with few weapons privately owned, a paucity of violent crime, etc. It seems to me that whether or not we would actually want our own actual house broken into by some benign youth for peculiar, ultimately harmless purposes is not, ultimately, what is going to determine the merits of this film. When it came to Sin City, I found the violence rather disturbing, blunt, over the top, an unsuccessful, perhaps too literal, translation from comix form. But a young man slipping into houses and cleaning them and repairing fixtures -- that is hardly something to get upset about. I think trevor states the case quite rightly

Quote:

---

If we started disliking every film that strayed out of societies rules and legislation, there wouldn't be much left. If we listed every film made that in some way contravened a law we would be here forever.

---

and his citation of Robin Hood makes sense. Just about everybody enjoys movies about criminals, and they don't have to get caught in the end for our pleasure to be complete. One of the reasons why Patricia Highsmith's novels, a number of which have been made successfully into films (most notably recently Caviani's Ripley's Game), are so fascinating, is that most of the time they are written from the point of view of a critimal -- who gets away with his crimes. This opens us up to new insights into human experience that all thecrime-and-punishment dramas in the world cannot get us close to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by trevor826
If we started disliking every film that strayed out of societies rules and legislation, there wouldn't be much left. If we listed every film made that in some way contravened a law we would be here forever.

Howard, I don't know why you've got it in for this film or maybe the director but the arguments are in all honesty (considering we're talking about a fictional film) getting pretty daft and that is putting it very mildly. Robin Hood was a criminal but as a folklore tale he's a righteous hero, if you want to talk about real criminality, well I suppose I'll have to leave G W B out of the conversation but you get my drift. It is, when all is said and done a piece of fiction, nothing more nothing less.

Cheers Trev.

---

Normally this sort of thing doesn't bother me except in films that pretend to be offering some sort of spiritaul message. Recent films I have seen suggest issues of conscience, as well as legal and moral considerations for their characters, but simply do not deal with them. Accounts of young people who act without conscience makes me wonder whether or not ignoring the issue of consequences in films is reinforcing the idea that it is okay not to consider them. I have no problem with films about people who live outside accepted standards of moral and ethical behavior. Indeed one could argue that we need more films that honestly reflect the conditions of contemporary life including the growing lack of conscience. The question must be raised, however, -- does not the artist have a responsibility to not only depict contemporary conditions but to provide a sensitizing and humanistic context?

Unfortunately, I fear that the proclivity to not deal with consequences is just another marketing strategy for the entertainment industry. The tendency to glamorizing disturbed characters is not new but I believe the tacit acceptance of this behavior by failing to address consequences is recent. Even in quintessential movies about anti-heroes such as Godard's Breathless, Nicolas Ray's Rebel Without a Cause, and Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde, while the characters are glamorized, they display feelings for others and there are always consequences for their actions. In Rebel Without a Cause, the teenagers are outcasts and cannot relate to their family, yet they create close friendships and deal with their problems together. Even in Handke and Wenders Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, where the main character is emotionally detached from the moral consequences of his actions, he expects to be apprehended and spends his time in increasing isolation and disorientation.

Acting without conscience, taking no responsibility for your actions, never remaining attached to anyone or anything, seeing people only in terms of how they can be used, and having a constant need for stimulation is not "cool". It is the definition of a psychopath.

It seems to me that you are drifting pretty far from the film this thread is concerned with, Howard, which in the opinion of some other contributors was the problem with your reading of the film from the beginning, only now it is becoming more evident. You have a bone to pick: you feel the world is moving away from conscience and from the consideration of moral consequences. Very well. But again, still not having seen the film, I can only suggest the image of "breaking a buttterfly upon a wheel" -- bringing heavy judgmental machinery to bear upon a rather sweet and innocent little effort at positive naughtiness. If as trevor says, the director's message is stated thus:

Quote:

---

In the words of Kim Ki-duk:

We are all empty houses
Waiting for someone
To open the lock and set us free.

One day, my wish comes true.
A man arrives like a ghost
And takes me away from my confinement.
And I follow, without doubts, without reserve,
Until I find my new destiny.

I found the film surreal, ethereal but not spiritual, more like a modern form of folk tale or myth than any sort of lesson in zen.

---

-- then it is clear enough that there is a little positive message for human self improvement here, and not any justification of immorality or abandonment of conscience. The problem with bringing an ideology to bear on every reading of a film -- which is good, insofar as it leads you to be responsible and consistent in your readings -- is that you will fail to tune in completely enough to the language and sensibility of the particular film at hand, and will wind up, as you have here in this latest entry, simply enunciating your ideological orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
It seems to me that you are drifting pretty far from the film this thread is concerned with, Howard, which in the opinion of some other contributors was the problem with your reading of the film from the beginning, only now it is becoming more evident. You have a bone to pick: you feel the world is moving away from conscience and from the consideration of moral consequences. Very well. But again, still not having seen the film, I can only suggest the image of "breaking a buttterfly upon a wheel" -- bringing heavy judgmental machinery to bear upon a rather sweet and innocent little effort at positive naughtiness. If as trevor says, the director's message is stated thus: -- then it is clear enough that there is a little positive message for human self improvement here, and not any justification of immorality or abandonment of conscience. The problem with bringing an ideology to bear on every reading of a film -- which is good, insofar as it leads you to be responsible and consistent in your readings -- is that you will fail to tune in completely enough to the language and sensibility of the particular film at hand, and will wind up, as you have here in this latest entry, simply enunciating your ideological orientation.

---

Please don't tell me what I'm tuned in to or not tuned into. That's quite arrogant. It's quite obvious that you have no experience or understanding of anything I've been saying but choose to go along with the others. That's real support, thanks. On top of that you haven't even seen the film. There is no further discussion warranted here.

I think everyone brings his "ideology" (and other idiosyncracies) into the theatre, which has a bearing on one's opinion and interpretation of every film.
Tae-suk's opportunity to be heroic is a consequence of unlawful behavior, which results in his incarceration, but what makes him a romantic hero is his decision to save the damsel-in-distress. This is the behavior that Ki-duk glorifies, not his trespassing.
What I found lacking about the film, and Ki-duk's vision, is the depiction of Tae-suk as nothing more than a romantic hero. It's obvious to me that he is one "sick puppy". If your son or kid brother was habitually breaking and entering into households and pretending to live in them you'd rush him to a mental health professional (or so I'd hope). Ki-duk's interest in Tae-suk is limited to his role within a romantic fantasy. As such, 3-Iron is enjoyable and easy to recommend. It is not, in my opinion, a remarkable film by any measure.

Since we're discussing criminal activity within films and 3-Iron in particular, there is a far worse criminal act within the film and one that affects a far larger percentage of the population worldwide, wife battering.

The subjegation and general treatment of wives and often girlfriends by a lot of men around the world is appalling and it is probably the largest of the silent crimes, I'm surprised you made no mention of this Howard. What is to blame for this second class treatment? religion has certainly played its part and of course it's one of those wonderful things that in a lot of cases is passed on from father to son. I found this abuse of the wife as a piece of property (or as I've heard women in general descibed, a piece of meat) far more unsettling and affecting than the burgleries.

Cheers Trev.

I don't think anyone here is minimizing the gravity of domestic abuse. The issue is whether the film "glamorizes disturbed characters" (H.S.) and their illegal behaviors. It's clear that Kim Ki-duk depicts the husband, the perpetrator of domestic violence, as the villain of the piece. So, the crux of the matter is the film's posture towards the romantic hero. Howard seems concerned about the film's failure to address Tae-suk's criminality and its consequences whereas I bemoan the film's failure to address his behavior as evidence of poor mental health. You comment ignores my last post and focuses on something entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I can't argue the points made with a psychotherapist about mental health issues, all I'm doing is raising the issue of another crime that went unpunished, to me the violation of a person is worse than the violation of property. The topic has swayed in direction from the start shifting in emphasis from the spiritual to the criminal but whatever way you look at it it's only a work of fiction from a writer/directors imagination. If I picked up a novel, read it but didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't pick up another novel by the same author, although it's not quite the same for films, I most definitely wouldn't make an effort to see films from a director whose previous work I had found completely lacking.

Cheers Trev.

Quote:

---

If I picked up a novel, read it but didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't pick up another novel by the same author, although it's not quite the same for films, I most definitely wouldn't make an effort to see films from a director whose previous work I had found completely lacking.If I picked up a novel, read it but didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't pick up another novel by the same author, although it's not quite the same for films, I most definitely wouldn't make an effort to see films from a director whose previous work I had found completely lacking.

---

Trevor, I've agreed with a lot of what you've been saying but I can't quite go along with this last statement because it's an oversimplification: Spring, Summer, etc. wasn't "completely lacking"; it was exceptionally beautiful and theatricallly striking even if it was as Howard says (and I quite agree--we did agree on that, despite being out of sync yesterday) "spiritual fast food;" a director with some promise whose last movie we don't like can still turn around and come up with something really nice; apart from that the director's apparent ability to beguile and bamboozle people makes him somebody who needs watching; since there's a lot of debate about the movie and I relish a good debate, I'd want to see it to participate knowledgeably; I want to know where the hot, active new Korean cinema is going and Kim is a player; the quirky theme of the benign mute housebreaker sounds intriguing and a lot different from the previous film and I'd be curious to see how he develops it.

As for "ideology", "spirtuality" and "criminality" these are all interesting issues that have been brought up. I can't make any statement about the movie, till I've seen it. But I can say this: most of the epic heroes of various national literatures would classify as criminal psychopaths today, and most of the heroes of nineteenth century western romantic literature and poetry would be regarded as in serious need of psychiatric treatment. Indeed, most of us could probably do with some time on the shrink's couch, but if we all had the treatment and perhaps meds we need, there would be no characters or topics for movies. There is a long strain of literature of the outlaw, the poetes maudits, the Sympathy for the Devil, which appeals strongly to some of us, perhaps to most of us, and I continue to feel that the fact that a character is "glorified" or "glamorized" who is an outlaw is not the reason why any movie or other work of art fails to be up to scratch, but rather shortcomings in the style, in the observation of human behavior, development of character, etc. that fail to make the material sufficiently compelling and artistically satisfying.

Some of us are influenced by politics. Some of us are influenced by religious beliefs or moral principles. Some of us are influenced by cultural or national leanings when we watch movies. I may have a predisposition to like films with gay themes; with coming of age themes; I tend to gravitate toward noir or neo noir at times; I tend to want to see any of the films in French, Italian, or Arabic that are available to see. Those are predispositions I have. And no doubt there are others, based on my personal history and my moviegoing history. But I don't see that all those things add up to an ideology, and it may be that my leanings in movies are amoral. I remember reading in a book on sex by a husband and wife counsellor team, in which they said that what people fantisize about in sex is not to be taken as literally what they would ever do; they said it's perfectly healthy to fantisize things sexually that turn you on, that in reality you would never actually do. I think the same thing applies to movies. I would not do the things I enjoy watching people do in movies. But I like fantisizing about them, and that's one of the reasons I go to the movies. Imagination -- it's dumb to say it but it's obviously true -- is a separate world from reality. And I think that's what trevor has been saying here too.

There's a well known quote about Patricia Highsmith, who I mentioned before because her "heroes" are not only outlaws but outlaws who get away -- quite literally, and repeatedly -- with murder. It's Graham Greene and he wrote: "[Highsmith] has created a world of her own -- a world claustrophobic and irrational which we enter each time with a sense of personal danger." I like entering that world and I wish I could enter it more often in the movie theater--but despite all the violence there now, it's really a tamer and more restrictive place than the world of books.

Trevor, I've agreed with a lot of what you've been saying but I can't quite go along with this last statement because it's an oversimplification

You're right Chris, I knew it when I wrote it, the only thing I can say in my defence is that I did the post through the cable TV because my sons were arguing over who had priority on the PC and my wife wanted to see the Welsh news so it was a case of rush, rush, rush. Lame excuse I know but that's the truth. That's also my excuse for not mentioning anything from Oscar's earlier post, the internet on the cable is very limiting in what you can do, no cutting and pasting and sometimes (as in the case of Oscar's post) no access to previous posts.

As I said in my first post, normally I like Howard's reviews and I still really don't understand why 3-Iron has agitated him so much. I can't remember seeing him write in such a manner (particularly his responses) before. I know we'll never agree on the film but it seems pretty pointless going round in circles.

Howard, a few of your reviews have made me rewatch a film and have enabled me to see things I hadn't noticed or in a different light, we don't agree on this particular film, so what! I'll still look forward to your future reviews.

Cheers Trev.