Spoilers Discussion of Korean Movie "A Blind River"

[divemaster13]

Rather than tie up the monthly "watched" thread with one movie, I'll continue the discussion here.

Ok; I've watched the movie twice in the past two nights. I found it refreshingly unique and original but ultimately unsatisfying. There were individual scenes of pure brilliance and "can't look away," but to me the whole experience was less than the sum of these individual parts. I'll discuss these scenes in a bit.

The reason I wanted to watch it again, after reading some other comments, is that I did not make some of the same conclusions or connections, and I wanted to see if I overlooked something (whether obvious or not). I don't think it is a movie with a straight linear interpretation that leads itself to "aha, I put together all the clues and now I've solved the riddle!" But that's not always necessary for me to enjoy a film.

The movie is largely of an indictment of Korean attitudes toward unwed pregnancy and adoptive kids. These still carry a large stigma in Korea. My wife has mentioned on several occassions over the years about this. For example, many parents of her generation won't let their kids play with kids who are adopted or orphaned. Like it's contagious or something; or that those kids are "messed up" or are "troublemakers." I'm not talking about mix-race kids (which is another subject with its own set of issues), but just regular Korean kids who aren't being raised in a "traditional" family, or who can't trace their lineage. My wife, even, can't comprehend that parents could love an adopted child the same as a "real" child. She's not being mean about it, it just doesn't register. A biological child is a real child and an adopted child is like a pet or something that one might care for very much, but just not the same.

So it's no wonder the fellow in the movie is so conflicted. He knows that Korean society sees him as a "problem," not to solve but to hide.

My rating? First view 2.5. Improved upon second watch to 3.0. Sometimes a "3" rating means "mediocre" or blah. Not here. This movie is not blah. In this case it's the midway between pendulum swings. As I mentioned, some individual scenes are genius, but the rest didn't tie it together for me. I got distinct Lynchian vibes through a lot of the film (I a big fan of Lynch, from what I've seen of his), and at times distinct Ki-duk Kim vibes (a director I pretty much can't stand). So there's that swinging pendulum again.

Specific disussion to follow.

 

[divemaster13]

So what parts did I like? 1) The opening scene. 2) The whole storyline of the pregnant teen-age girl. 3) The scene where the distraught woman goes through the chapel grabbing at children (so masterfully done). 4) The scene of raw physicality between the young man and the motel daughter proprietess. 5) The scene where the young man's suffering is juxtaposed with the teen girl giving birth.

1) The first 5 minutes of this movie had me cringing. Like many others, I thought we were about to witness a 9-month, full term abortion. The setting; the restraints; the coldness of the doctor and nurse even when the girl is crying. It was hard to watch. It soon became evident that it was not an abortion, but rather an "off-the-books" C-section. Still hard to watch. This scene is powerful.

(The scene that follows is confirms the prior. The adoption representative talks about babies being abandoned and taken in by nuns and orphanages and such; often to be adopted out overseas).

2) I liked the teenage girl. It's fine with me that we don't get her backstory. Was she raped? Had a serious boyfriend? One-night stand? Where are her parents in all this? Did they kick her out? Maybe she ran away without telling them? I don't need to know the answers to these questions. In fact, NOT knowing perhaps draws me closer to her.

One thing I will mention, and this was one of the main prompts for me to watch the movie again, was the supposition that the girl in the first C-section scene is also this teen-aged girl. It did not strike me that way upon first viewing, and I wanted to check. Certainly in this type of movie, that could be used as almost a parable (the eternal single mom dealing with being an outcast of society; or the continuing circle of kids being born, abandoned, and adopted out to lose their ethnic identities).

But it's not the same actress. At least I'm pretty sure it's not. I did freeze frame and slo-mo on and I came up with three distinct differences. The C-section girl has a full plump upper lip, with a thinner lower lip, whereas the teen has a much fuller plump lower lip. Also, their earlobes are different. And their facial blemish patterns (yes, I was mapping out blackheads and freckles LOL).

Even if I am right, it doesn't change anything for me. Just obvserving.

Ok; I'm facing a windstorm here and my power keeps going out. I need to post this now before I lose the chance. More discussion to follow later.

 

[sitenoise]

@plsletitrain check your email later. A 3/5 from @divemaster13 translates to somewhere between a 8.887-9.213/10 and tells me I'm not crazy--this is a great film.

The important point for me is to say "keep an eye on this director". Any film that had just one of the five scenes he mentions would be of note. This film, the director's feature film debut, has FIVE.

5) The scene where the young man's suffering is juxtaposed with the teen girl giving birth.

The whole film is juxtaposing/paralleling the relationship between the guy and the girl. @plsletitrain , remember the "random" scene I posted on Youtube? I posted it to accompany a review about the film, talking about this juxtaposing/paralleling, and showed the guy checking into a motel and the girl checking into a motel. These motels are where #5 takes place. @divemaster13 did you notice how the door opens for the guy just as the girl gives birth? Is that girl his mother? Is the younger motel proprietress? He tries to crawl back into her womb in #4.

I have to go out for a bit but I'll be back later to go crazy!

 

[divemaster13]

This motel is where #5 takes place. @divemaster13 did you notice how the door opens for the guy just as the girl gives birth? Is that girl his mother? Is the younger motel proprietress? He tries to crawl back into her womb in #4.

I'll skip to #4 because I think you hit something there that was my exact interpretation, and I thought it might just only be me.

4) After my referenced scene 3, the daughter (the two women who run the motel are mother/daughter, so I'll just refer to them as such) is emotionally distraught. She has either a) just been tossed out of the chapel for going a bit nutso and grabbing other folks' kids or b) fantasizing such an encounter. Either way, the longing to hold a child, any child has her completely emotionally compromised. She longs to touch and be touched. And who happens to be near? This young man.

At first glance this scene looks like it will play out to be a sex scene. The grabbing, the entertwining of limbs, the raw need. And indeed, after some initial reluctance, the young man positions himself and conducts himslef in such a way as to indicate he is "giving oral pleasure" to the woman. But the scene had me scratching my head. No one "goes down" on a woman without removing at least one layer of clothes. He's nuzzling her in an intimate way, yes, but through (not under) her thick and billowy skirt, not to mention whatever underclothes she is wearing.

The first time I watched it, I just thought it was strange. The second time, it dawned on me. He's connecting the only way he knows how with the maternal part of her. He is, as you say, trying to crawl into her womb. Was it her scent that triggers him? Their conversation later suggests it might have been.

So, it this woman his mother? My inclination is "no." For this one brief interlude, he needs a mother and she needs a child. I'm not sure how old the actress is, but his character is 30-ish, and she doesn't look old enough to me to be his actual mom. She'd have to be about 46 or even older, and she doesn't stike me as too much older than him. On the other hand, he begs her to "say his name" which suggests that HE might have concluded that she was his mother and was chiding her to at least acknowledge his existence and to "not do this to him" again. But I never got any vibe from her that she thought the man was her son. I'm not saying it can't be that way, and the movie sure does at least want to plant that seed, but my conclusion at this point is "not."

Aside from my scenes 3 and 4, I didn't really care for the mother/daughter/motel subplot. The mom was so weird it seems like she belonged in a different movie. Recall their conversation where she casually mentions that "the last guy she poisoned" she thought had a muscle spasm? She goes on to muse that every time she poisons one of the guests she "just isn't herself" that day. Ya think? And the daugher is pertty much "Oh, mom, there you go again." Quiet Family anyone? And one scene the mother decides to tidy up the room while wearing a blindfold. Am I missing something? It seems so...random.

Anyway, the daughter's anguish was affecting. Did her child die? (the mother mentioned a fire, and had some burns on her face). Did her baby starve (the daughter indicated she wasn't able to give milk). Maybe she never had a child and her biological clock just went off the charts? Or did she have a baby and give him up for adoption? Perhaps to Australia?

But the rest of the movie with the mother/daughter left me cold. What they did to him and how that played out? Not really feelin' it.

One thing I *will* say is that I'm so glad the movie didn't turn into a "I'm going off to find my mother!" and "Gee I happened to check into the one motel in all of Korea with...MOM!" "SON!"
"Oh, booohoooI'msosorryImissedyouYouabandonedmeIwayoungandhadnochoiceIforgiveyouOhbooohooohooo" etc.

That god for that, at least.

 

[sitenoise]

I have to look this up to see exactly where it takes place, but at least once, and I think twice, the daughter squats down behind the motel desk and sort of goo goo ga ga's at a child who is under there. That suggests, uhm, I'm not sure.

The other thing, which sort of sends this all off the rails, and I'm not sure when I became aware of this (before first viewing, or after), but ACT II (or whatever) is a sort of riff on Albert Camus's The Misunderstanding, a work I was familiar with. (A big Camus fan, this may color my view of the film--"Mother died today, or was it yesterday". A master of the absurd).

I agree the Mother Daughter arc was bizarre, especially the Mother bits, but I got along with it better than the guy and his girlfriend arc because those bits--essentially the 15 minutes or so after the opening scene and a little bit, not much at all really, here and there throughout--because they were all about story/plot/meaning/exposition/message. I'm not big on those things, especially when they interrupt the poetic language/emotional logic/impressionistic beauty of the rest of the film. A great film can be ruined, for me, by the director trying to make a point/send a message/explain things. Koreeda's Still Walking was almost fatally bruised for me when the mother "explains" everything. Similarly, Koreeda's Air Doll, when the doll maker "explains" the movie--"Aren't we all just empty vessels?"

I'm enjoying your "Either way"/"Doesn't matter"/"just observing" observations. The very fact that you can do that is what makes the movie even greater for me--not that others are supposed to enjoy it as much as I do.

It never occurred to me the opening scene girl wasn't the same girl. I think it is the same actress because I rewatched this right after A Quiet Dream because I liked the actress in that so much and was pretty sure I recognized her on the table--albeit at a much younger age. I will have another look, but it's one of those "Either way"/"Doesn't matter" situations.

I'll quote something from my, I believe, still published review:

The film opens abruptly with a scene, likely to cause you to recoil in your seat, of young girl in somewhat primitive circumstances having an abortion. It's not explicit, more fly-on-the-wall view, but it's potent. And I think it's an abortion. Could be she is going to deliver the baby and sell it. Given the stage of her pregnancy the latter is more likely, and the film seems to want to ask if there is a difference. [UPDATE: upon a second viewing, it's clearly option #2, but I'm leaving my error because I'm in favor of letting this represent my initial reaction] Either way, she is in full traumatized mode. The confusing part is that this girl continues to appear in the film, pregnant, with ambiguous results, in a sort of parallel storyline. I'm not sure if she is to represent the boy's mother or simply another scenario. I'm not sure at what level this film plays with time, reality, representation, and/or dreams. It's more like a visual poem than a movie and really only my left brain wants to know. There's nothing frustrating or loose-endy about it if you just let it be.

One thing I *will* say is that I'm so glad the movie didn't turn into a "I'm going off to find my mother!" and "Gee I happened to check into the one motel in all of Korea with...MOM!" "SON!"
"Oh, booohoooI'msosorryImissedyouYouabandonedmeIwayoungandhadnochoiceIforgiveyouOhbooohooohooo" etc.

Yes, indeed.

What was the ending?

 

[sitenoise]

One reason I initially thought the opening scene was an abortion is because when the doctor is talking about the price of the procedure he says it's the "same as a delivery", which lead me to assume it wasn't a delivery.

 

[sitenoise]

A couple other random notes about things.

This film director comes from the world of theater. Not sure if she is a playwright or just a director, but to come from that world which is almost entirely about dialog, and make a film that is almost entirely presented visually, makes me admire the crap out of her, and makes me happy.

The Kim Ki-duk connection. Kim is/was a painter. A visual dude. That's what I like about his films, especially the ones where nobody says anything. A film by him that others appreciated more than me is one that is dialog/story/plot driven: Pieta, coincidentally, a film about "A loan shark is forced to reconsider his violent lifestyle after the arrival of a mysterious woman claiming to be his long-lost mother". My reaction to the film: "Film moves from "Get away, crazy lady" to "I love you mom" to "I'll die without you" too quickly to believe. I wonder how this would have played if Kim would have employed his trademark no-dialog approach. The story arc is interesting but incredulous."-- because he tried to use words, something he isn't good at.

But/and/anyway, like I mentioned, I'm not sure if the Camus connection was something that originally drew me to this obscure little (big) film or not. It could have been that since I almost always judge accurately if a film is worth looking into or not by the movie poster, NEVER a misleading stupid ridiculous trailer!, I noticed Ji-a Park on the poster and that was all it took. She's been in a number of the Kim Ki-duk films I've liked.

The David Lynch connection. I wrote here, or somewhere, about the Lynchian vibe of the film but that I admired it more because it's directed by a woman. So it deals with motherhood issues instead of the mommy issues David Lynch has. And it doesn't have any of the misogynistic I'm-an-idiot-man-from-last-century ickiness. But don't get me wrong, I like David Lynch and his vibe--certainly a guy who explores poetic/dream logic over the more manly Socratic approach of the many macho jigsaw puzzles Korea is spitting out, like diarrhea.

 

[sitenoise]

But I never got any vibe from her that she thought the man was her son.

Given the The Misunderstanding collusion, it wouldn't be that she thought he was her son, but that he thought she might be his mom. Not literally, maybe, but .... he did go looking for his mom. I dunno

I fumbled around with this notion, of him knowing/thinking/projecting that she is his mom, and played it out against her activities/anguish, like you touch on with #3. I think somehow the woman "lost" her child and doesn't know how or why, or has sublimated it too deep to come to terms with.

I also think the teenage girl has a place in this equation--not to be figured out, but to be metaphorically attached. She definitely gives birth to him in #5, in only a Lynchian way, maybe. Also, the girl at the beginning of the film, if she is not the teenager throughout, then she's the daughter who aborted or gave up her child?

But this is why it might be important to understand the ending, which I don't at all, and I'm not at all bothered by not understanding it ... but the way the guy and the girl are shown in the car or cars ... something is being said there

 

[sitenoise]

There were individual scenes of pure brilliance and "can't look away," but to me the whole experience was less than the sum of these individual parts.

Okay, one more and I'll shut up for a while

I can't argue at all with your assessment, but that kind of thing isn't important to me (unless I hate a film and am looking for an excuse to dump on it). I actually like films that are often just a series of scenes, or vignettes. Cafe Noir, anyone? M? Tokyo.Sora? These are the kinds of films that slay me. Where every scene is almost like a film of its own, not just a part of the whole. I know it may seem like a strange way to look at films but ... it's not that I have a theory about why it's better. I simply have looked at the films that have kicked my ass big time and that's often the way they are constructed. I feel like the director took every single scene seriously to the bottom of their heart. A Blind River is such a film for me. Aside from the aforementioned 15 minutes or so after the opening scene, and a few mom or girlfriend scenes, every other scene in this film is plain beautiful to me. Visually and emotionally.

 

[divemaster13]

I agree the Mother Daughter arc was bizarre, especially the Mother bits, but I got along with it better than the guy and his girlfriend arc because those bits--essentially the 15 minutes or so after the opening scene and a little bit, not much at all really, here and there throughout--because they were all about story/plot/meaning/exposition/message.

I agree that the girlfriend arc was the weakest part of the first 2/3rds of the movie. She didn't grab me as a character; I'm guessing the director needed a "go-between" to assist in the English/Korean discussions/documents, etc. Or else the movie would have had every person speak English and all the documents be translated. But even this character has "motherhood issues." She wants to settle down and have babies, and she was certainly all ga-ga over the infants at the orphanage. So it makes sense to add her to the movie from that standpoint, but I agree the movie would not have suffered from an artistic standpoint without her. (And if I'm going to quibble about structural elements, the guy's English would have been perfect Aussie-accented English, having been raised exclusively as white in Australia for 27 or so years. Not the type of English he speaks in the movie).

this juxtaposing/paralleling, and showed the guy checking into a motel and the girl checking into a motel. These motels are where #5 takes place. @divemaster13 did you notice how the door opens for the guy just as the girl gives birth?

I also think the teenage girl has a place in this equation--not to be figured out, but to be metaphorically attached. She definitely gives birth to him in #5, in only a Lynchian way, maybe. Also, the girl at the beginning of the film, if she is not the teenager throughout, then she's the daughter who aborted or gave up her child?

I did notice about the motel/boarding house parallel; there were also some parallels with the information center. I did not notice the door thing you mention, so thanks for pointing that out. I for sure do not have "the" answer for who the girl at the beginning was. What I have come to comfortable terms with is that she is just "a girl." Any one of thousands of Korean girls who perpetuate this cycle of abandoned children. The cycle is destructive--every character in the movie is affected by mother lost/abandoned child issues. I don't interpret the first girl to be the teen girl, or the motel girl. She's just "every" girl. I am fine to be completely wrong about this, becasue it doesn't really matter. The factual answer to the question (if there is one) doesn't make the good parts of the movie better, or the not so good parts of the movie worse. But that first girl is definitley a C-section. The second time through, I paid close attention to the dialog, and it's clear. The doctor even mentions that there will be a scar which he tells her to chalk up to "removal of ovaian cyst" if she has to explain it at some point; and abortions don't leave scars. Not physical, at least.

Back to the teen girl--I can get on board with the metaphorical "Lynchian birth." That scene #5 is really well done. That overhead shot with the newly birthed baby? Gave me chills. That was the climax of the movie for me. Everything after that I could have skipped. Anyway, this teen girl is really something. She commits suicide via sleeping pills (I assume that she thought she and baby would die together--I don't think she was planning on it popping out). But even after killing herself, she gets up the next day able to wander the city looking for a place to drop off baby. That's some gumption on her part. :)

I have to look this up to see exactly where it takes place, but at least once, and I think twice, the daughter squats down behind the motel desk and sort of goo goo ga ga's at a child who is under there. That suggests, uhm, I'm not sure.

Yes, we see it twice, as you described. I think she is hallucinating this little boy. Another instance we see her reading a child's book to...herself? A boy only she can see? There's no kid there. This brings me to my scene #3. I will again stick to my description of it as "masterful." She goes into the chapel, as the choir is singing about the anguished mom with a pierced heart who lost her child. Since this is pretty obviously a Catholic chapel, they are singing about Mary, the anguished mother of Christ. But is is a perfect parallel to the motel daughter who is so anguished it practically seeps out of her pores. She goes from pew to pew searching for (her child? ANY child?) and tries to connect with any child she comes across. All the while with that haunting singing in the background. A perfect scene.

I'm not sure if this is actually happening, or is another one of the daughter's hallucinations. The people in the chapel pretty much ignore her as she frantically goes from pew to pew. They mainly stare straight ahead and keep on singing, until a protective mother has to keep her kid from being grabbed. Is this becasue this is a regular ocurrence and everyone is used to it, and they've learned from experience that its better to ignore her and she'll soon go away? Or is the daughter having one of those dream/fugue states where you are crying out and no one hears you, or running and running but never actually getting anywhere. Another instance of "it doesn't matter,"--I enjoy the thinking it could be this way or that way. And by the way, a few of the juxtaposition scenes involving the daughter suggest to me that she may at some point have been a nun.

What was the ending?

You got me! It seems like a flashback period to where the guy was just starting out on his journey. There were a couple of ladies at that cafe and I was just starting to wonder if one of these was his mother and he found her--but then he's in the car and roll credits. I might have some of the details wrong. I was actually pretty frustrated with the last third of the movie and since I was past the point of wating it to be over, and the ending didn't have any "tie it together" or aha moment, it didn't really stick with me other than "well, that happened."

 

[sitenoise]

Your overall response to the film feels spot on to me, and thanks for adding some context and cultural points as well. I was good with the film all the way until the fire. I noted in my original review that "endings are the most difficult part, aren't they? To tell the truth, things wrap up with a slightly melodramatic resolve but I didn't really care one way or the other about it. The film had to stop at some point. I can't imagine that even if you hate the ending that it would spoil the preceding journey."

The post #5 bits down by the river and the guy's fate, so to speak, again a little odd--especially the mom bit--but if you look at this thing as a constantly revolving metaphorical view, abortion/adoption, as the door opens for him at his birth he dies. Like the motel was a metaphorical abortion clinic--juxtaposed to the other clinic. Then the mother dies (but not the birthing mother) disappears. I dunno, the film was still working for me until it came back to "real life". So ... five or ten minutes at the end, and ten or fifteen near the beginning were not so good. The rest of the film left me in awe.

btw - did you suggest that there are/might be three young girls? I have always assumed there was just one girl--beginning, middle, and end. But I fully embrace your "every girl" perspective. Again, it's not that it matters at all, and I love your "doesn't make the good parts of the movie better, or the not so good parts of the movie worse" conclusion.

I really want to see more movies by this director given what she did for at least the middle of this one. Especially Pascha.

 

[divemaster13]

btw - did you suggest that there are/might be three young girls? I have always assumed there was just one girl--beginning, middle, and end

No, just the two. After the prologue, I believe the teen girl is the same alone and desperate girl throughout--pregnant, giving birth in the boarding house, and wandering the city streets at the end. Same girl.

If this was unclear,

I don't interpret the first girl to be the teen girl, or the motel girl.

I was just opining that the first (C-section) girl was not the main pregnant teen girl or the backstory or flashback of the motel daughter.

 

[clayton-12]

I watched this last night, a few thoughts ...

And if I'm going to quibble about structural elements, the guy's English would have been perfect Aussie-accented English, having been raised exclusively as white in Australia for 27 or so years. Not the type of English he speaks in the movie

Two points about the Australian connection: Firstly, the accent, and way that the language barriers were played, came close to being a complete deal-breaker for me. The guy was not believable whenever he spoke English, and it made no sense that he could understand spoken Korean pretty much perfectly but struggled to that extent with vocabulary when he tried to speak it. For me, those elements took the film into amateur-hour territory, and it took a lot making allowances to personally get past them.

The other point is the question of why Australia? We don't, or back in the 80's didn't, have any connection to Korea. I don't think adopting a baby from an orphanage in Korea (as opposed to, say, Vietnam, Cambodia, China etc.) actually was a thing. However ... particularly the first time that I watched the film, I thought that there probably was a specific reason why the character grew up in Australia. For a large part of its history, Australia had an official policy of systematic forced adoptions of indigenous children - one of the idea being that if you take them from their birth parents and put them into white society, they will have a better future. At the time A Blind River was made, the Government here was going through the (symbolic?) process of issuing a formal apology to what is referred to as the "Stolen Generation", officially acknowledging for the first time the damage that this policy has caused to countless individuals. The exposition conversation at the beginning of the film, with the guy representing the adoption agency, paralleled what was a very hot political topic in Australia at the time.


A few thoughts/impressions/reactions about the events and relationships between the characters:

It never occurred to me that the opening scene might be an abortion. It seems to me that if it were intended to be, it would have been off-topic, and rather out of kilter with the rest of the film.

At the first scene of the motel owner under the counter cooing to the child, I thought the child was her daughter. On rewatching it, I can see that the scene contained no reason for me to think that, I just did. However, in the church scene, she tries to grab young girls. Admittedly, there were only females in the church, but it did add to my impression that she was grieving for an adopted daughter - hence the idea that the motel owner might be the young man's mother never once occurred to me.

I kind of think that the teenage girls throughout the film were different girls. In the beginning, the girl was taken by someone to give birth to a some clinic that wasn't a proper maternity hospital. Another girl committed suicide, but her baby was delivered alive. Another girl wandered the streets alone with her baby trying to keep it for as long as possible. I didn't see them as individual characters in their own right, but rather a riff on a theme.

But this is why it might be important to understand the ending, which I don't at all, and I'm not at all bothered by not understanding it ... but the way the guy and the girl are shown in the car or cars ... something is being said there

They weren't engaged with one another, they were looking in their own directions, but they were all travelling down the same road.

Actually, I did think that bringing the young man and his girlfriend back into the film together at the end suggested that the whole thing in the motel might be a dream, or an alternate reality, or just a metaphor for the emotional journey of searching for something that will never be found. Maybe the idea that the film played with alternate realities fits with the idea that there was one teenage girl.

 

[divemaster13]

Another girl wandered the streets alone with her baby trying to keep it for as long as possible. I didn't see them as individual characters in their own right, but rather a riff on a theme.

I contemplated this possibility as well. My second time through, I looked very carefully to see if I could determine this was a different girl and baby than the boarding room birth. That would make sense in the "riff on a theme" as you say, or the "eternal cycle" as I think I put it. I ultimately discarded that theory for my own take on it, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

You make a good point on the "understanding Korean but not able to speak it" situation. I almost mentioned it earlier, but my posts are long enough as it is and it seemed tangential. My wife's son, born in the U.S. and raised "American" can understand Korean almost 100%. At least, conversational Korean. And he can watch Korean TV/movies without subtitles. But he can't speak it. But that is because he heard it spoken frequently as a child (from his mother) and then sporadically over the years. It stuck with him. But he can't speak it at all. Nowhere near as good as the movie fellow, and his Korean sucked.

But this doesn't really inform the discussion re the movie. Our fellow did not have any Korean understanding background growing up, so your point is well taken that his abilities seem suspect. Maybe he took Rosetta Stone classes before tying to find his birth mother. If you think about it, that would make sense, if he was going to try to forge a connection with her. Knowing and understanding some level of Korean would help.

 

[sitenoise]

It's always a problem with bilingual movies. Song Kang-ho in Snowpiercer? I guess I looked past that issue here because it's so common, not worth my picking nits with it.

I'm going to have to have another look, not that it matters, to see how many girls are in this flick. Seems only one listed in the credits, but ....

And I really missed this suicide. I thought she wanted pain relievers to get through giving birth in a motel room. But I also just assumed it was one girl throughout, so being dead wasn't an option. But I really like this: "But even after killing herself, she gets up the next day able to wander the city looking for a place to drop off baby. That's some gumption on her part. :)

 

[sitenoise]

For me, those elements took the film into amateur-hour territory, and it took a lot making allowances to personally get past them.

That 15 or so minutes after the opening, up until he arrives at the Motel was pretty hard for me to get through as I've said many times, but once he made it to the motel I was okay with the language issues. Of course, I'm not Australian or Korean so I'm not as keen on these things. My language problems with the flick were with the way it was used to explain things or makes points, not proficiency related.

 

[clayton-12]

And another thing ...

What did you guys make of the name Lucas Fedora? At first, I was taken by just how un-Australian (whatever that might mean) the adopted name seemed to be, and wondered if there intended to be layers of alienation i.e. Korean baby adopted by immigrant family, so a stranger within a family of strangers in a strange land. But a quick google search tells me that a "lucas fedora" is the name of the type of hat that Indiana Jones wore!

 

[sitenoise]

"lucas fedora" is the name of the type of hat that Indiana Jones wore!

Is Indiana Jones Australian? I never watched any of those movies. I thought it was a weird name that he may have chosen himself.

I did think that bringing the young man and his girlfriend back into the film together at the end suggested that the whole thing in the motel might be a dream, or an alternate reality, or just a metaphor for the emotional journey of searching for something that will never be found

btw - I've looked the film comfortably through that lens. At the end when he's in the car it's like he's asleep, and as @divemaster13 pointed out the end is back at the beginning.

 

[clayton-12]

Is Indiana Jones Australian?

Nah ... you must be getting him confused with his mate Chewbacca

 

[sitenoise]

Nah ... you must be getting him confused with his mate Chewbacca

I had to google that. I never watched any Star Wars movies either