Fun The Uninvited (4 Inyong shiktak) "A Table for Four" re-visit; re-think; re-spond

[divemaster13]

I just ordered the DVD; should be here within a week. I didn't read any of the above discussion, so not to influence my re-watch of this movie. Perhaps I will appreciate it more this time, or after reading y'all's thoughts.

 

[plsletitrain]

Okay, my take on that scene (and it was during the bellboy's testimony that we see Jun Ji-hyun on the balcony):

What's happening is tied up with the earlier concepts, discussed between Jun Ji-hyun and the psychologist, of the correlation between experiencing something and believing something, and whether the experience is necessary for the belief. The husband wanted to believe that his wife was innocent, but couldn't get his lingering doubt that she was just as crazy as Moon (and therefore maybe just as guilty) out of his mind.

That's why it was so critical to have the bellboy testify - the husband needed to be there, to experience the testimony firsthand, under oath in a court of law, before he could truly believe beyond doubt of his wife's innocence. As the testimony reached its climax, the part where the bellboy walks in to the apartment to see the aftermath, the husband closed his eyes - I think the image of Jun Ji-hyun on the balcony is in the husband's mind, it's his fear of what the bellboy might actually say. But when the bellboy describes Moon on the balcony, the image of his wife there is dispelled, the husband opens his eyes and breathes a deep sigh of relief.

Makes sense...I think that's more plausible rather than have JJH be the culprit and go against what has been established by the film.

Not entirely sure of this, but I don't think there was talk about them getting back together before the bellboy's testimony. It's after that testimony that the husband chases after Jun Ji-hyun and says "Now that this is over, let's get back together" - now that he is free to truly believe that she is innocent (and not understanding or believing the burden of guilt that she actually does carry).

Even before bellboy's testimony, husband has been constantly caring to wife. Remember when she first fainted while in the presence of Park Shin-yang, it was husband's name that was put on her contact-in-case-of-emergency. Even when they were driving home, husband has been caring and it was wife who was cold. It was during that scene when JJH was adamant to leave the car and said "see you at the court trial" when we first learned that the movie had some court case in it.

 

[clayton-12]

Even before bellboy's testimony, husband has been constantly caring to wife.

Agreed - I more meant that prior to the conclusion of the court case, I don't think the option of a reconciliation was explicitly discussed - but as soon as it finished, the husband was waiting and chased after her to suggest they get back together. I think that might be a way of showing that now he has experienced the witness' testimony, he can believe in his wife, whereas before, even though he cared for her, he was unable to believe in her without some form of lingering reservation.

 

[sitenoise]

Good work clayton. I wasn't paying proper attention to the Moon bits of the film, and you brought those into context. I took a look at a bit of it again and there's a weird scene where they show crybaby in bed, camera pans down to the foot of the bed and we see Gianna there, on the floor, crying, then with no cut in the film the camera keeps moving a bit until we see Gianna in a mirror and then Moon sits down, embraces her, and starts singing "Go to sleep, my baby -- Don't suck mom's blood, and go to sleep"

I'm also going to go along with your reading of the relationship between bellboy and the husband and his relationship to the testimony. It looked an awful lot like they were in cahoots to me, but the cahoosion is ambiguous.

 

[plsletitrain]

I just ordered the DVD; should be here within a week. I didn't read any of the above discussion, so not to influence my re-watch of this movie. Perhaps I will appreciate it more this time, or after reading y'all's thoughts.

Hi divemaster. Have you seen the film already?

 

[divemaster13]

Oh gosh. It's been on my "to do" list for the last month. Or, I should say, the "get around to it eventually" list LOL. I still haven't read the thread here in any detail.

Maybe this weekend?

 

[plsletitrain]

Haha! I totally understand that feeling. No rush divemaster, watch it anytime it suits your schedule.

 

[sitenoise]

@divemaster13 I think it turned out pretty well second time through, but don't sweat it.

 

[divemaster13]

Ok, I accomplished my re-watch last night. Originally I had rated this film 1 star and the rewatch didn't do much of anything to make me re-consider my rating. Oh, I'll bump it up to 1.5 because a bit of the DISLIKE I have for the film has tempered to dumbfounded FRUSTRATION with it. I don't hate it with passion (like, say, Audition), but I just shake my head at a missed opportunity here. The groundwork for a good tale is present, but neither the director nor the actors do anything with it. I know the movie is about a girl who (among other things) has a sleep disorder, but that does not mean the actress should cause a sleep disorder in the viewer.

The editing in this movie is confusing and the pacing is terrible. People have conversations like this:

"WHAT DID YOU SEE IN MY APARTMENT?"

"What did I see?"

"Uh, yeah--you said something as you were leaving."

"Who are you?"

"Uh, I really need to know what you saw."

"You're crazy; leave me alone."

"No, really, just tell me--I'll believe you."

"Who are you?"

"Please just tell me what you saw!"

"What I saw?"

"Yes! In my apartment!"

"Who are you? What do you want?"

AAAAHGGG! Just have a conversation that gets to the point! The above wouldn't be so bad if it only happened once, but he chased her down like three times and each time went pretty much like the above. He just needs to say "Holy shit, you saw the two dead girls like ghosts in my apartment also! What do you know about them?"

The director added some stylistic touches--I noticed many scenes used a mirror or a window or a glass pane, or even light fixtures as reflective surfaces. I appreciate stylistic touches if they add to my enjoyment, but in a crap movie they just annoy me. Like the director ran out of story, character, pacing and plot, and said "hell, just add another window pane shot."

I actually liked the fellow as a character--until the last third of the movie when he started acting like a total 'tard. He finally, FINALLY gets some answers from the girl; things are starting to become clear to him, based on HER. And the second she calls him (obviously in distress) and pleads with him to help her--his response is "Nah, can't be bothered." He's too busy smashing up his kitchen, like ghosts won't reappear if the light fixtures get vandalized.

This could have been so much more. More with the "mothers killing their children" aspect. More with the "burn up your family" backstory. More with the narcoleptic girl and her heading for the loony-bin friend. I believe there was supposed to be some societal commentary on the role of religion in Korea (Shamanism v. Christianity), but it was handled so poorly I didn't get anything out of it. And something with spirals.

Now that I've got that out of my system, I'll go back and read the thread and comment on any insights others may have had. (I do very much apologize for getting to this after everyone else has had their say and the subject is stale.)

 

[sitenoise]

lol, my peeve is, for example: ... wife goes to the bathroom, husband receives a call that their child has just been killed, wife comes out of the bathroom and says "what's wrong", husband says "I'll tell you on the way. let's go!" Wife says "What's going on!" husband says "We have to go now!" I hate that.

 

[divemaster13]

Who was the woman Gianna saw falling upside down past her window? And when?

I had similar questions and I'm glad to see most were answered/resolved here in the thread. At first I assumed the lady falling past the balcony was her deranged friend (Moon). I thought maybe the court scenes were flashbacks and Moon subsequently killed herself later in the timeline, but that would mean they just let her go, and the film didn't play out that way. (Of course, Moon essentially did the same thing--got free for a moment and took a dive). I like the answer that it was the cat-lady. I'm not sure the movie sets it up, and really there's no point for the scene if it doesn't pay off later, but at least that theory makes sense and is not completely random.

Why didn't the director show Jung-won and Gianna make similar eye contact when it was her turn?

EXACTLY! This is an example of what I meant when I referred to the film missing opportunities. The lead-up to the scene, when Yun is calling him and hinting at what she's about to do is powerful and setting up a call-back to the earlier scene...and...poof, there she goes. I'm not sure what response the director was hoping for in the viewer, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't aiming for what he got from me.

How many kids actually got tossed off the balcony? And who actually tossed them?

That confused me too. The scene that accompanied the building maintenance guy's testimony definitely showed Yun on the balcony holding the baby. I, too, thought maybe Moon was covering for Yun's crime, but that didn't make much sense, given the way the story played out. But then...

Finally, Moon Jeong-sook was left along with two babies, and they're crawling toward her, and she's losing it, and then ... one ... starts ... to ... climb .. up ... on ... her ... and the horror, the horror of these hungry babies with their beady eyes that just keep on coming at her ... and she's got her back against the wall, but they keep on coming, and it just gets too much, so she goes out on the balcony and puts them over the railing, where they can't get her anymore.

I LOVE this. It makes perfect sense. Deranged Moon tossed both kids, and Yun witnessed the latter of the two (presumably, her child).

The scene that showed Gianna on the balcony was a playing out of what the husband believed happened.

The husband wanted to believe that his wife was innocent, but couldn't get his lingering doubt that she was just as crazy as Moon (and therefore maybe just as guilty) out of his mind.

I never would have come up with that myself, but I like it. Fits nicely.

...and there's something about some significance of the five concentric circles Jung-won draws as a child ... it seemed to me that the biological father may have been upset by these when he was beating Jung-won, in the house that seemed to be heavily adorned with Eastern religious iconography.

I wish the backstory was more clear. The unveiling of the fellow's forgotten past would seem to be the crux of the movie. I did catch some dialogue that he (as a child) had some "powerful shaministic ability" or something, and something about spirals, but I don't see how that tied into the toddler truck crunch or why he decided to burn his family up. I know he thought he would protect his sister, and when she was injured as well, it shook him. The movie did foreshadow this a bit in one scene that showed the two dead girls on the train all burnt and charred. (In all the other scenes, the girls are not outwardly injured.).

But I never could make much logical sense out of the backstory. Which, in turn, makes it very hard for me as a viewer to CARE about these grand revelations he's coming to grips with. MISSED OPPORTUNITY. The toddler truck crunch was effective in isolation, but took me out of the story. The guy backs over the kid on accident, in view of two witnesses (right?), not to mention anyone else who might have been looking out a window or something, and then gets out of his truck and stuffs the kid in the sewer grate? In broad daylight??? With the kid's fingers sticking out to be easily found? This makes no sense to me. Since it was an accident, the guy would not have been culpable anyway. (Whoever left the child to play alone in the middle of the street would have more blame I would think).

The scene where he confronts his pastor-father plays out almost like a parody of no one ever answering the damn question. And later, when the fellow is talking to Yun on the phone, he says pretty much "Yeah? well I asked my pastor-father if he was my real father and he said yes! So you're just a crazy troublemaker, woman!" (How he got that from the conversation *I* saw as a viewer [granted, something might have been lost in the subtitles], I'll never know.)

I'm glad Jun Ji Hyun isn't overacting here.

I think it's method acting. Give Gianna 20 Xanax and roll the film!

 

[plsletitrain]

I know the movie is about a girl who (among other things) has a sleep disorder, but that does not mean the actress should cause a sleep disorder in the viewer.

I don't know about you guys but I've seen Jun Ji-Hyun's previous works and I'm pretty sure she gave me eyebrow-raising disorder. In fact, I liked her performance here more. Maybe she should just keep playing roles where the lead girl barely speaks or just sleeps the entire time.

Haha! Spot-on on the conversations thing. Kinda like when you ask someone "Where did you eat?" and asks back "Where did I eat?" I'd like to answer "NO! WHERE THE DOG ATE!!!!!! I'M LOOKING AT YOU, DON'T I????!!!!!!!! Although in the film's defense, I think it was more meant to emphasize her lack of ability to communicate and articulate her thoughts. Or to emphasize that she was avoiding some straight talk because she should be mysterious.

 

[plsletitrain]

I like the answer that it was the cat-lady. I'm not sure the movie sets it up, and really there's no point for the scene if it doesn't pay off later, but at least that theory makes sense and is not completely random.

I think the movie set it up. Remember Jun Ji-Hyun (I forgot her name here) said "I first saw her in the elevator"--referring to the cat-lady. Then she let out a face of worry. Nothing special happened after that so she must be the one to fall otherwise what's cat-lady's significance.

 

[sitenoise]

The toddler truck crunch