Parasite (and Marxism)!

[*Spoilers inside!*] Today I watched Parasite, finally listening to the thousands of people who have told me that it's amazing. And yes, it was! I was really excited because I liked Snowpiercer (2013), which was also directed by Bong Joon-ho. My expectations were high, especially after the film won Best Picture at the Oscars.

I am particularly attuned to Marxist themes, which are prevalent in Bong Joon-ho's collective works. Both Snowpiercer and Parasite harp on the class struggle between the rich and poor, ending (inevitably) in violent confrontation. In the film, the distinctions between classes is emphasized by smell, which -- and I won't spoil it too much -- causes a big conflict later on. While Parasite is slightly more subtle in its allusions to Marxist revolution, the elements are undeniably present. I appreciate Bong's distancing of the film from simplicity (i.e. "this film is just about the need for socialism/class consciousness"). As the "Jacobin" article "You Have To See Parasite" notes, when the son repeatedly says "It's so metaphorical," he's commenting on the tendency of humans to reduce everything to so-called "deep" analyses. So I'll try not to do that.

In the film, the lower-class Kim family lies its way into the lives of the wealthy Park family. However, the story does not depict a successful revolution among classes. While you want to support the Kims for getting jobs in a competitive market, they are equally contributing to the capitalist system by pushing others out of work. I felt bad for the ex-driver, the former housekeeper, etc. who didn't do anything wrong, and yet suffered for the Kims' success. Likewise, at the end, the son still dreams of buying the Park's house, after their own basement unit is destroyed by sewage floods. How does he get the money to buy this house? And, if/when they get the house, are they really doing anything better than the Parks were?

Truthfully, the working class does not unite in the end. Maybe that's why the Kims end up in no better of a situation after all of their effort; or, if they do succeed in buying the house, they are not contributing to any meaningful change for the poor families who are in the same situation they were. Their success is born out of the same rampant individualism that pervades in a capitalist economy; one family's individual success story doesn't make any real impact on institutional/societal struggles.

I loved the movie and thought that it did a fantastic job at showing the vastly different lives experienced by the rich and the working poor. Its range of criticisms of capitalism, from the most obvious to the most subtle, was beautifully executed. And, hopefully, people will see it as more than just "metaphorical." The father in the film talks about how if you never have a plan, you can't fail. While the family proves this to be relatively true on an individual level, any significant change overall requires collaborative planning; hopefully, this movie will aid in the realization that the long, grueling process of change-making won't happen without unity. I hope everybody watches it:)