Echopraxia

And don't forget, in the interests of fomenting more discord and sharing what I learned on FLOG, Iced Earth.

Park Chan-wook's Oldboy has the misfortune of being the most prominent Korean film to be released in the US in the last five years (or perhaps ever).

Actually, that distinction might belong to The Host (link), a Korean monster movie that popped up in US theaters a few months ago.

It's the highest grossing film of all time over there and 20% of the population has seen it. The Host also received a wider release in the US and grossed more here domestically than Oldboy.

And now you know...

You forget that I'm not in walking distance of any US theaters. And did "The Host" win any prizes at Cannes? Did it? DID IT?

I think the point stands, though: Oldboy is the first Korean action film that maintream literate Americans who are not Harry Knowles are enthusiastic about. The moment I see Bill O'Reilly make reference to "The Host," I will apologize to you, and also laugh so hard that I will have to roll over on my back and kick my legs in the air.

Actually, while I'm at it: since when do you care how wide a film's release is? Or how much it grosses?

Upon rereading, I stand by the original assertion: Oldboy totally is the most prominent Korean movie to be released in the US since either of us have been paying attention.

Yeah, I mean, "prominent" is pretty open-ended. Gross has fuckall to do with it. I have heard of, and viewed, Old Boy. This other movie? A big meh!

{I just like typing "fuckall".}

{So does Ashley. Here goes: fuckall!}

Prominent? What is that supposed to mean? Er, I think box office grosses are pretty good estimate of how prominent a movie is.

It looks like you two haven't been paying attention then. The Host was all over the place a few months ago. Comedy Central, for example, was running ads for it during every commercial break, for two weeks on the Colbert Report and the Daily Show. I saw a lot of banner ads too and all the movie sites covered it. Beside the Harry Knowles types, who even knew or cared about Oldboy before this kid went crazy? It played for a week here at Cinemas 21 in Portland. The Host has been being going for two months straight down at the Fox Tower.

Sorry, you guys are off the mark on this one. The Host received more press during its release, a wider rlease, better and more reviews, more marketing and made more cash. Peter Jackson's studio even designed the monster for fuck's sake. What more proof do you want?

That said, I saw the movie and I thought it sucked.

According to this Slate article--
http://www.slate.com/id/2164753?nav=ais
-- there are two connections between the shootings and the movie slightly more compelling than the fact that Cho was Korean: a picture included in his NBC press packet, in which he poses with a hammer, mimicking a scene from the movie; and the statement by the film's director that his trilogy was about people who project blame and subsequent revenge fantasies onto the world at large due to their inability to accept responsibility for their own fucked-up lives. Which sort of seems like pretty much what happened at Virginia Tech the other day.

Brandon:

"...who even knew or cared about Oldboy before this kid went crazy? It played for a week here at Cinemas 21 in Portland."

While I'm distressed that it didn't crack the PDX-Cinemas-21 market, it did win (amongst other things) the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes in 2004. I've seen it three times in US theaters, as have many other people with better taste than me.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Bryan:

Dude, seriously? I saw the hammer shot as well (not precisely recreated, if we have to go that far) but is this really the level we've sunk to? And even so, ain't it interesting that they focus on this particular film?

"... his trilogy was about people who project blame and subsequent revenge fantasies onto the world at large... which sort of seems like pretty much what happened..." [emph added]

Quite. Hey, everybody, let's pass some laws!

At least the kid wasn't Japanese. Me and my brethren can collectively breathe a sigh of relief as our our crystal clean reputations avoid being sullied! Whew!

Man, were we off the mark on that one!

I am glad someone around here feels strongly about which Korean movie is best-known.

Hey, it's not a pointless argument about nachos but can I at least get points for trying?

Sure, but meanwhile I'm trying to figure out why I'm fetishizing Cannes all of a sudden.

"Er, I think box office grosses are pretty good estimate of how prominent a movie is."

And this is why we will look back on 2007 as the year of Wild Hogs.

Every argument is pointless and about nachos. Freud said so.

Sometimes nachos are just nachos, Danimal, but other times they are maternally enraged scorpions.

Prominent: Leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.

Oldboy can lay claim to, maybe, one of those. Wild Hogs? I'd go as far as two.

Maybe the word/phrase you're looking for is infamous, influential, notorious or critically-acclaimed.

Poor nits, they're really getting picked today.

Unfortunately I have little to say about nachos, but I might as well note that the Post is blaming John Woo instead.

Whoah! I think there's a distinction to be made between the liberal notion that art and real life intersect in ways that are interesting to discuss, and the retrograde notion that whenever something unpleasant happens some element of the popular culture must be the real culprit and that therefore someone should ban it. Also I think it's unfair to ascribe the latter attitude to someone who proposes the former. Yes, I guess it is suspiciously convenient that the movie under discussion is associated with the same foreign country as the killer. What of it?

When Charles Manson orchestrated his murders, no one had to make specious connections between his being a long-haired hippie type and the Beatles' role as the prominent long-haired hippie type band of the day, because he stated right out that Helter Skelter told him to do it. Everyone took him at his word, sort of, but everyone also knew that this was basically one crazy dude who missed the point about a lot of things. The retarded record burnings were already in the band's past, Lennon's troubles with immigration were still in the future, and the argument that the Beatles ought to be prosecuted for Manson's crimes never quite got off the ground, if anyone even suggested it, as far as I know. But still: isn't it fascinating to peer into Manson's logic? Four horsemen, really? Good stuff.

Similarly, Cho Seung-Hui's Napoleon Dynamite-voiced screed is just plain gripping, if morbid: a half-wit on display proclaiming himself a genius, murky metaphors all over the place. "Impaled upon a cross?" Come again? Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone here would bristle at the suggestion that it is worthwhile to investigate what sorts of random pop arcana fed into this muddy sludge of a worldview.

Also, Zerlesen, I can't figure out whether you're pointing out a flaw in my reasoning with your emphasis on selected words. I'm a bit of a dolt myself, so you may have to spell it out for me.

Bryan, you're right. I think (not speaking for him) that Zerlesen mistook what you had to say because so few people are actually saying it without some axe to grind. I'm glad you aren't grinding that axe.

It is one thing to say, that's interesting how this insane dude took these influences into his worldview this way. Aside from you, I haven't really seen anyone just say that. Most of the cacophony is, like that article WWB points to, prefacing the issue like this:

"What was the mechanism -- or was there even one? Too many movies? Too many video games? Too many rude shoves in the locker room? A genetic predisposition for mass murder? Too many date-night turndowns? Why?"

I don't think the public reaction to Manson was necessarily different. Sure, among those sympathetic to the counterculture, it was easily agreed upon that he was just a crazy dude, that Beatles music had no causal role in his insanity. And that's the narrative we've received from our self-absorbed Boomer parents, what with the Oppenheimer ads and the PBS specials and the you kids don't care about anything why aren't you protesting anything??

But I think with the older generation, he was widely perceived as a symptom of what they saw as general craziness in youth culture, and among some of those people it wasn't a huge jump to go from all these drug-taking longhairs with their monkey music to Manson. That's certainly how my grandparents saw it -- my Grandma told me so after we watched Forrest Gump together.

Now the Boomers are doing the same with the video games and the movies they can't watch on account of nightmares.

Further case in point: that Slate article you link to, Bryan? The subhead is "What Cho Seung-Hui got wrong about Oldboy." I think it's a rather sad commentary (DRINK!) on the state of the discussion that an article with this subhead was even necessary. If you are inspired by any piece of art to go slaughter 32 people in cold blood*, I'd hope we can all take as read that you got a few things wrong in your interpretation.

I think this is the kind of thing Z was reacting to.

*The only arguable exception being Thomas Kinkade. Even then, it shouldn't be in cold blood and 31 people would be innocent victims.

"Yes, I guess it is suspiciously convenient that the movie under discussion is associated with the same foreign country as the killer. What of it?"

I think it may be the only way the "man driven to kill by movie" innuendo can be made more banal: "Korean man driven to kill by Korean movie."

(It was sloppy of me to imply that you were on the same bandwagon, though; I know perfectly well that you're not. I plead rhetoric.)

As for the selective emphasis, I guess I just don't see enough of a link between the theme of "vengeance" that loosely ties Park's trilogy together and the events at Virginia Tech. By this rationale, based on the fact that Cho rambled on about himself a lot and many people were killed, the situation would be more aptly compared to Hamlet.

(However, if it turns out that Cho was kidnapped and held in a prison for fifteen years before being mysteriously released to seek his captor, I will eat my words.)

After Kip Kinkel went on his killing spree in Springfield, it was later revealed that he was a big fan of Baz Luhrmann's film version of Romeo and Juliet. He left the soundtrack playing on repeat in his parent's living room after he killed them both. In the wake of his rampage, did any pundits decry Billy Shakespeare (or Prince's "When Doves Cry")? Nope. Why? I imagine because it didn't fit into the easy "video games and incredibly violent movies make our kids nuts" argument.

Would Cho have killed all those people if Oldboy had never been filmed? Probably. Instead, he would have only taken his inspiration from another source, be it another movie or a video game or a book. Like someone said above, the "raw ingredients" were already there and he would have lost it even if his only source of entertainment was old episodes of Seinfeld. Oldboy didn't make this Cho kid go on a rampage, it was a combination of factors ranging from what sounds like an incredibly screwed-up childhood to social isolation to a bad mix of chemicals in his head. Did violent movies play a part? Sure, but only a small one. There's no one, clear motive here or a quick, easy explanation for Cho's crimes other than "the kid was frackin' nuts."

As for the pundits and the parents, they're doing what they've been doing for generations: looking for a scapegoat to blame for society's ills and their screwy kids rather than themselves. 80 years ago it was pot and booze, 40 years ago it was drugs and rock n' roll. For this generation, it's all those god 'durn video games and violent movies. What will parents 20 years from now get pissed over? I'm thinking virtual reality.

Sorry to add to the echo chamber.

Good points, all around, and thanks for jumping off the bandwagon of lumping me in with a bandwagon. Huh? Damn you, rhetoric!

I guess my interpretation of the Slate article-- and, looking back, I am willing to consider that I may have given its author too much credit-- was simply that after everything that's happened, Oldboy was just weirdly prescient.

Meaning that, okay, we have a guy who went nutso and slaughtered a bunch of his fellow students and also filmed a bizarre confession video wherein he fashions himself a messiah, and also the popular interpretation of the spectacle is that he maybe alludes to some movie most people haven't seen but with which he apparently identifies and maybe even regards as some sort of vindication for his deeds and-- HOLY SHITAKE!-- the actual point of the movie is that people who think in such terms are totally unjustified assholes, even though within a limited frame of reference even an uninterested party might identify with the anti-hero's agenda, due to the delimitation of the information set endemic to a narcissistic personality's perceptual faculties? If that ain't irony or poetic justice or something, then fetch me my glossary of literary terms.

Pardon me: I have never seen Oldboy, though I will at my first opportunity, and I happen to be drunk.

They do not have nachos in Japan. My late two yen.