By: Dishon Kamwesa
Interview of Park Chan-Wook by Matt McAllister:
Revenge is Sweet
Charlotte St. Hotel, London
http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/filmmaking.asp?ID=155
In the interview by Matt McAllister at the Charlotte St. hotel in London, Park Chan-Wook is asked about the recurring theme of revenge in many of his films. It’s no secret that Park’s movies have a reputation for being rife with overtones of violence and vengeance, which brings up the question “are his films always deliberately controversial?”
If we can take a look at some of the movies viewed within this blog already we see that there is a clear message in all of them of a somewhat sympathetic vengeance. In the Sam gang yi segment “cut” by Park the character is a pitiful extra who is tired of being trampled on and being taken for granted. In Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance the characters are two men who have lost someone very dear to them and seek their revenge. In both of the films however, these characters are killed in their zeal for vengeance. Is there a message here as well?
Park addresses both the violence and vengeance theme as well as the reasoning for these characters and others dying while pursuing revenge. He states “revenge is a desire that everyone has but nobody can realize,” and the reason for why he focuses on it, is to show the destructive nature of that mindset put to action. Park emphasizes the implications of his characters acting out in their anger and vengeance he describes the decision of taking revenge as “total stupidity.” He continues by stating that most people idealize revenge and think of the resolution and happiness that they will come away with one their vengeance is satiated. This is not the picture that his films reveal. Park’s characters almost always find themselves deeply unsatisfied and in fact worse off than when they began, namely…dead.
McAllister then asks Mr. Park why he feels the need to add humor amid such controversial, and arguably dark content. Park explains that he wants the audience to view the movie and really relate to the character. He wants his characters to be isolated, to be focused upon as the individuals that they are. The explanation behind this is that if the audience were to relate, then the situation would not be pleasurable to watch. This makes sense because frankly, his main characters delve into some of the darkest places that the human mind can go and having comic relief makes the crude, real, dark nature of the film bearable to watch.
Park concludes the interview by responding to Mr. McAllister’s question on the seemingly deliberately controversial nature of his films. Park states “filmmakers ask questions of the audience […] modern audiences fail to respond to the questions being asked.” As a result filmmakers must resort to “shocking and stimulating things” to get their attention. He uses the example of modern action movies. Audiences generally find a movie boring unless some sort of explosion happens, or a five-minute fight scene ensues with martial arts and dangerous blades. This, Park says is not the directors’ or actors’ fault, rather the audiences intolerance and desensitization.
At this point I would have to agree. Although Park has been forced to used shock and overstimulation to portray his message, he has done it in a way that still stimulates thought. It is our responsibility as viewers to crawl out of our preconceived molds of film as entertainment and into the sometimes uncomfortable realm of cinema as an intellectual exercise.
