Burning

Narrative and partial thematic breakdown of my experience with the film *Spoilers* I want to start by saying the beauty of this film is its uncertainty. Your meant to draw your own conclusions so I highly recommend watching it and attempting to understand it first. This review is just my viewpoint, and what is hopefully a cohesive idea of what it might be insinuating narratively. At first glance burning is straightforward and simple: Ben is the murderer. His confessions about burning greenhouses, consistent calmness, and yawning in socially charged moments lead to the conclusion that he has a sociopathic detachment from human life. The “greenhouses” on a surface level seem like a natural human release, but symbolically it’s much more sinister as it (maybe) refers towards women like Hae-mi who live in the outer circle of society and can disappear without consequence. From this perspective Ben is a predator hidden behind charm and wealth, who destroys quietly and “leaves no trace”. Immediately though the film complicates this simple perspective by grounding the story in Jong-su’s POV which transforms this into a much more complex narrative. Jong-su is an unreliable narrator, and this unreliability is deeply tied to the themes of class within the story. He comes from the countryside which is defined by struggle, and resentment established by the relationship with his father, whose decisions left Jong-su trapped. In contrast Ben treats the countryside as a luxury, where he can visit and observe as well as destroy without consequence (the initial interpretation of his story). This divide fuels Jong-su’s jealousy along with his lack of masculinity, wealth, and confidence that make him feel almost unworthy of Hae-mi. Jong-su is shown to be extremely passive, insecure, and looking for identity through writing which leaves him lost. Overall they are opposite representations of one another and it motivates the overarching tension within the film. Hae-mi sits in between the two, yet is constantly labeled with titles like “whore” that keep her confined to certain parts of society and gives her a sense of disconnect from both. We hear Ben say that Hae-mi likes Jong-su the most, yet Ben seems to know significantly more about her, possibly insinuating how perception undermines truth. All of these “clues” in the cat, greenhouses, and Ben’s behavior are not inherent truths, but perceptions shaped by insecurity and possession within Jong-su’s mind. Every part of the narrative feels meaningful yet nothing is confirmed leading to a constant sense of uncertainty. The uncertainty is imo best represented by the “well”, which is a symbolic void where something may exist, but can never be confirmed nor denied. Just as the “well” represents hidden depth that is gone, the film presents a possible truth beneath the surface that will forever be inaccessible. Hae-mi’s disappearance, murder, or however you see it lies beneath this symbolic surface. With this everything basically becomes a story instead of fact. It’s something fabricated within the mind of Jong-su (very good writer) that leads to an inherently misleading storyline which is a construction meant to cope with his insecurities and emotional needs. This ambiguity is made increasingly powerful through the films craft. The cinematography is stunning, and attempts to emphasize the isolation, and imbalance of the world. The acting as well is exceptional, particularly in its realism, and portrayal of power dynamics which lead to a perfect understanding of where the characters belong within the narrative. Together it all creates a world that is elusive yet tangible, where everything feels relevant, yet lacks explanation to gather a definitive understanding of it all. As for the themes, there is a strong emphasis on social labeling and reduction of identity. Characters are constantly pushed into roles such as “the elite”, “care free/promiscuous woman”, and “the writer” which all limit them to certain roles, and a create a lack of understanding of who they are on a deeper level. Hae-mi specifically is unknown, and almost turns into an idea instead of a person. This possibly hints at how modern society constructs identity externally, rather than authentically as a person which leads to detachment. That leads into the key themes of emotional emptiness and detachment which is embodied well by Ben. His calm demeanor and yawning suggest a deep boredom within life itself. He is a representation of an existential emptiness which lacks any meaningful existence within life. This is contrasted with Jong-su’s deeply emotionally fueled state. It highlights the divide between people who feel to little, and to much in society. The film plays into the idea of this world where meaning and interaction is unstable as some are desperately in search of something, yet others are completely detached which creates tension, and in turn eventual conflict. The conflict is in this case, caused by misunderstandings driven by desperation and an inability to relate to those who are detached or different. Overall this is a fantastic film that is not just engaging as a story, but adds an extreme depth that is up for interpretation and allows room to think. It truly is beautiful in every aspect which I think reaffirms mine, and many others beliefs that it is a true masterpiece of not only Korean cinema, but global cinema that absolutely deserves way more attention (woulda been poppin if it came out post-Parasite).