Kim Ki-duk's 3-IRON

[trevor826]

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.

[oscar jubis]

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.

[trevor826]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[trevor826]

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.