Crazy Love

Films that question and challenge societal norms regarding relationships, marriage, and gender roles have become increasingly popular in Korean cinema over the past few years. While some have been powerful indictments against and criticisms of the "old ways" (A Good Lawyer's Wife, Happy End), others approach the subject with a perceived profundity, but are really little more than decent romances. One such film is Yu Ha's Marriage is a Crazy Thing from 2002. A RomCom without the Com, Marriage plays out at times like a slightly more serious When Harry Met Sally, though without the irritation factor (read: Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan) and with some fairly explicit (by Korean standards) sex scenes. Opening on a lavish wedding, we meet Joon-yeong (Kam Woo-seong), English lit professor and confirmed bachelor -- he's poor, but happy, and believes that marriage always leads to complacency and infidelity. He's set up on a blind date with Yeon-hee (Um Jung-hwa), a successful interior designer who, unlike Joon-yeong, does want to get married, but only if it's financially rewarding. The two are instantly attracted to each other, and wind up spending their first night together in a hotel where they have great sex. Over time, they realize how perfect they are together, and though they fall madly and passionately in love, their respective attitudes towards marriage makes a future together an impossibility - or does it? Not wanting to give up the great sex, Yeon-hee decides to marry a very successful, yet ugly doctor. Her plan is to have a "weekend marriage" to Joon-yeong, even going so far as to buy and furnish an apartment for him. A kept man with a beautiful woman that comes over to sleep with him -- sounds like a wonderful scenario, but the couple soon learns that even a weekend marriage is rife with disagreements, spats, and jealousies. Though the film never turns melodramatic, and the characters possess a depth rarely found in such films, there's really nothing groundbreaking here. Perhaps the cultural significance of a woman doing what Yeon-hee does has greater resonance in Korea than it does here, but there's an overwhelming simplicity and obviousness to the whole thing. (As least when compared to Hong Sang-soo's The Day a Pig Fell Into the Well and Turning Gate -- two films with unfaithful wives that come off as far more plausible, and with an air of danger about them.) Yu also seems to make the mistake of confusing and/or equating feminism with sex. At the same time, the whole gender reversal at play in the film is a bit trite -- the woman as breadwinner, juggling a spouse and a lover, etc. We've seen this all before, and in many cases tied to some greater sociological/political concern (again, Happy End is a perfect example). Though Yeon-hee may be viewed as a non-conformist or rebel for being so headstrong in her decision to seek both the financial security of a husband and the physical satisfaction of a lover, the film still has at its core the rather old-fashioned idea that a woman's self-identification is only realized through the man she chooses to marry. Still, Marriage is a Crazy Thing has a lot going for it. Kam Woo-seong and Um Jung-hwa are far from the typical "meet cute" couple, and the sex scenes are far more natural (and erotic) than the choreographed nonsense found in films like Ardor. There's wonderful chemistry between the two leads, and their story is interesting enough to justify the near two-hour running time. A great Korean film it isn't, but interesting and entertaining nonetheless.

Comments

[Adam]

Two basic questions (each w/ questions within):

1) How does HAPPY END show political/sociological "concern"? I agree that it addresses such issues and presents a critique, but do you see the critique as a feminist one or a patriarchally-supportive one? I see the latter, so if you see the former, can you help me understand what conveys to you a feminist critique?

2) I actually enjoyed the sex scenes in ARDOR, so I'm curious what leads you to feel MARRIAGE IS A CRAZY THING's sex scenes as more "natural" and "erotic". Didn't you find the simulated felatio scene incredibly UNrealistic/UNnatural in its depiction? Maybe it's been a while for me, but it looked silly rather than real.

Adam

[Filmbrain]

Happy End isn't a particularly easy film to dissect, and I still find myself conflicted by the ending. Obviously, it's not a feminist film, and I didn't mean to imply that it was. However, the role reversal in that film is directly tied to the economic crisis that Korea was experiencing at that time. Choi Min-sik's character experiences emasculation on all sides -- he can't support his family financially, and is cuckolded by his wife. I don't see the film as being supportive (as you say) of the patriarchy, but rather one that was willing to confront a reality that probably hit many families at that time. Do you believe the director was saying the ending was justified? I certainly didn't see it that way, and found that it was much more complex than a simple black and white issue.

In Marriage is a Crazy Thing the reversal is more situational -- contrived, in a way. Why did Yeon-hee have to choose at all? Isn't the film then a bit reductive? Or is Yu saying that the societal pressure to marry (for a woman at least) is still more powerful than individual desire? She was a strong, educated, intelligent, successful woman -- why were all her choices tied together to her involvement with a particular man? In America, a character like Yeon-hee would most likely be portrayed as a gold digger. (I'm reminded of some pre-code Hollywood films.) While we don't think of her as such (and Yu thankfully doesn't judge her at all), there was something odd about her choices. However, not living in Korea, it's very possible that there's a level to the film that passed me by.

As to your second point, I think this is more subjective. The relationship between Yeon-hee and Joon-yeong is very much a physical one – she initiates that first night just as much as he does – and I found the sex scenes to show how it was very much about both of them – not simply a male or female fantasy. I think they sufficiently expressed how the passion/desire/satisfaction was equal between the two of them. (My god - writing about sex scenes is like dancing about art.) The sex scenes in Ardor reminded me a bit too much of Saturday night Cinemax fare – i.e., about as erotic as an insurance commercial.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes Adam!

[Adam]

HAPPY END - I wrestle w/ this film and was curious about your take. From my recollections - I haven't seen it in a while - the director sets up our sympathy to fully align w/ Choi Min-shik's character. We are only intended to understand him. I can't even think of any droppings when we were supposed to sympathize with Jeon Do-yeong's character at all, outside of reacting to Choi's character's complete despondency. Yet his despondency is tied up greatly to Jeon's actions, so we are still intended to sympathize with Choi's character. Even though Jung Ji-woo may not have intended Choi's actions to be justified, the internal logic makes the argument vulnerable to validation. Of course, the ending SPOILER

is somewhat ambiguous in that annoying 'it could be a dream' cliche of an ending used well too often.

MARRIAGE IS A CRAZY THING - My question was more related to the simulated fellatio scene, which seemed 'mechanically incorrect' in its set-up. That's all. The same thing happens in the first cunnilingus scene in PLASTIC TREE, the mechanics orchestrated don't seem to be in sink w/ the actual act. Otherwise, I think you have some intriguing critiques of the setups of the relationships in both films.

And always, thanks for seeing this as a desire for open discussion about the films, not as a reactionary slam on anything you said. I'm for respectful, intellectual debate, not the harmful FOX-y harangues disquised as debate.

Adam

[Filmbrain]

the director sets up our sympathy to fully align w/ Choi Min-shik's character. We are only intended to understand him.

Yes...exactly. Which is why the ending is even more disturbing. Because Jung knew that people would identify with him, the ending is (hopefully) going to make those same people look deeper into themselves. This is the kind of film I love the most. Characters that begin and end as pillars of virtuosity are simply boring.

Tying this back to Marriage, I think the film would have been better if the male character was as well developed as the female. By the end of the film, Joon-yeong's attitude towards marriage seems superficial, and even somewhat immature.

I haven't seen Plastic Tree, so I can't comment. At least in Marriage there were reciprocal scenes. However, I can't remember if the mechanics of them were 'correct' or not.

[nkw88]

About the director Yu Ha...

Director Yu Ha was a poet before he became a film
director. His first film is 'We have to go to
Apgujeongdong on windy day' which comes from
his second poem anthology of the same title.
'Windy day' means 'desire' - something that
I want to get, want to be filled with, or
want to be satisfied with.
Apgujeongdong is the area that is famous for
its entertainment and fancy, luxurious materialism.
That is, Apgujeongdong is the signifier of Korean
consumerist culture whether vulgar or not.
That is, Yu Ha's direction is criticism of
Korean consumerist and materialist culture.
If you saw my introduction of his films during
NYKFF, you rememer how I introduce him -
criticize Korean consumerism.

His first poem book is 'A Journal of Martial Art
field' which is filled with his experience and
influence of Hong Kong martial art films in 70s.
When his first and second books were
published, literature critics called him 'Kitsch
generation'.

So let's keep in mind these things when we
discuss about Yu's films.

One condition that lets Joon-Yeong and Yeon-hee
not able to live together is 'the materialism'.
Joon-Yeong always blames and characterizes
Yeon-Hee as 'a material girl'. Though Yeon-hee
did not deny it, she kept her innocent hope
to be with Joon-yeong.

One reason that Joon-yeong tries to keep distance
from Yeon-hee is related to his social position
and Korean male's obsession.
His social position is 'adjunct professor', which
means he cannot be stable breadwinner.
A Korean male's obsession is to be a breadwinner
or patriarch. That is, he blames her because
he could not afford her. Though Yeon-hee did not
say her desire or hope explicitly, he always
insignuate that she can live with him without
his full support. Joon-yeong did not try to
understand Yeonhee's true thought or to accept
the embarrassing situation that he could not
afford his wife.

'Marriage is a crazy thing' is between Hong
Sang-Soo's film and Happy End.
the cowardice of Korean intelligent male - Hong's film

the destroyed pride of Korean male - Happy End

* Yu Ha wrote and published his essay book,
'Dedicated to Bruce Lee generation'.

Though I did not read this book, I assume the
tone and mood of his third film 'Once Upon a
High School' is related to the book.
The days before Korean consumerism arises.
An this nostalgia and sentimentalism can be found
in Kwak Jae-Yong's films - My Sassy Girl and Classic.

[Quang]

I saw this movie and it was OK, but I think the main reason was because of Um Jung-hwa. What did everyone think about the ending? So did the two decided to live their lives like that?

[lamont harden]

I felt the walking together and holding hands was great, but to be honest i did not find the couple very realistic at all. Just how was she spending the weekend over his house and spending the night without her husband ever becoming suspicious or even caring. We learned absolutely nothing about him or her feelings of him at all. I did not remember her and him having much conversation on him at all. The dialog when they were together at some points did not match the scenes, they never seemed to learn much about each other other than sex. When i read the commentary I wonder how is every one saying this a great love story when so many things are not explored.