Will Critics Not Bow to The Bow?

As Filmbrain predicted, Kim Ki-Duk's 3-Iron opened last week to high praise from US critics. Like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring, it has art-house appeal, is lovely to look at, and comes off as more intelligent (and poignant ) than it actually is. Kim's next film, The Bow, seems targeted to the same international audience. Shot in just a few weeks (his modus operandi of late), it's been described by sales company Cineclick as being stylistically like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring, while once again employing the no-dialog-between-lead-characters gimmick of 3-Iron. It is also the first Kim Ki-duk film to feature CGI effects. Few details have been released about the film, though it's meant to be a challenging drama about the love affair between a sixteen-year-old girl (Samaria's Seo Min-jeong) and an old man of sixty who plans on marrying her when she turns seventeen. The titular bow is what the old man uses to protect the girl from the young men on the island. Hmmmm..... In an interesting, perhaps worrisome move, Cinema Janus (the film's promotional company) has decided not to hold any press screenings prior to the May 12 opening in Korea. This is a tactic used (in America at least) for Pauly Shore movies, or anything else that is unmistakably crap (Gigli). Cinema Janus insists this is not the case with The Bow, and the press barring is purely to ensure that audiences can "watch the film without prejudice". Filmbrain finds that a bit hard to swallow, but clearly it didn't worry buyers -- the film has already made back its production cost (~$1million) in international sales, based solely off a few stills and a treatment. Not bad, eh? The Bow is also being screened at Cannes, out of competition.

Comments

[phyrephox]

Personally I enjoyed 3-Iron more as an almost naively simple parable than as what I think most critics are taking it as, namely very accessible art cinema.

[Aaron Hillis]

I second that assertion, Mr. Phox. 3-Iron never felt gimmicky to me, and seriously, when did naivete in romanticism become such a horrendous crime (as some critics have blasted Kim Ki-duk for)? We're not talking about one of those video-bootlegging bastards that deserves the death penalty or anything.

[Filmbrain]

Sure, 3-Iron is entertaining, but you have to admit that the no dialog thing is really little more than a conceit by Kim. (I’d be willing to engage in a discussion of why they never spoke.) Both of you know my passion for Korean films, and what I feel Kim is guilty of is tailoring films for a world audience. Is that a crime -- hardly. However, it does distance him from his subject quite a bit, and what I saw when I watched this film was a product rather than a work of art. (Same can be said for SSFW&S.) Compared to the uncompromising approach of directors like Hong Sang-soo, Im Sang-soo, Park Ki-yong, etc., Kim is far more calculating. (It's doubtful any of those directors will ever get a "STUNNING" from Lisa Schwarzbaum, as Kim does for did for his latest crowd pleaser.)

Kim's naiveté (or perhaps better referred to as a case of arrested development) isn't the problem. It's just that he seems to strive for the depth of other directors, all while keeping things simple for the pop-art-house crowd. Yes, part of this is sour grapes. People who would never go see a Korean film go and see his films, while the truly great directors can't even find a distributor in this country.

Though his misogyny was hard to take at times, films like Bad Guy and Address Unknown were far more interesting.

[cjoy]

KKD is a planet orbiting totally out of the system. He doesn't have a formal education background, which has a very important meaning in Korean society and its film industry is no exception. His very well calculated market positioning(?) may have something to do with the fact.

[dvd]

I love Kim Ki Duk, but 3 Iron is probably the most inconsequential of his works. It starts out wonderfully, and the magical realism that takes over the second act has its charms; but it's a bit on the touchy-feely side, and the text with which he ends the film is sort of akin to David Lynch posting an explanation (apology? insult?) at the end of Mulholland Drive.

As far as breaking the boundaries of language with silence, Tsai Ming Liang does it much better, although certainly not so accessibly.

[Filmbrain]

As far as breaking the boundaries of language with silence, Tsai Ming Liang does it much better, although certainly not so accessibly.

Excellent point DVD -- Tsai's characters usually don't speak due to the absence of another person, or because they have nothing to say. While it was charming to watch the abused wife follow the homeless BMW-driving rebel without a word, it was a gimmick.

[Adam]

Hey Filmbrian,

This is sort of off topic, but in case you haven't heard yet, you'll be happy to hear HONG Sangsoo's new film is a late addition to the Competition section at Cannes. That's two year's in a row for him. Let's hope amateurs don't call his film amateurish this year.

[twotonkatrucks]

what is wrong with making films accessible, keeping the audience in mind and at the same time doing so in an interesting way. i think he is making films exactly the way he wants to -- and like you said it is quite beautiful to look at. ssfw&s, despite what you say, made me think for days -- as it reminded me of the three metamorphosis, not sure if that would qualify as being shallow or "not as deep as it purports to be". being obscurantist i'd argue is far more susceptible to those charges than being clear and perhaps explicit about the things you want to communicate to your audience.