Kim Ki-duk's 3-IRON

[trevor826]

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

[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.

[Howard Schumann]

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.

[arsaib4]

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

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!

[Howard Schumann]

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.

[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.

[Howard Schumann]

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.

[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. 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.

[Howard Schumann]

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.

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".

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?

[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.

[Chris Knipp]

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

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.

[Howard Schumann]

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.

[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:

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.

[Howard Schumann]

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.

[oscar jubis]

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.