It's actually quite profound, politically speaking. I understand why Kim Jong Il thought it was a Masterpiece. To get hung up on visuals and call it a knockoff is itself tacky and shows a lack of appreciation for context; which is what art is about. It's an honest take on modern human society and the tradeoffs that are made.
It gives insights into the minds of some modern leaders... The idea that you have to kill the monster which saved you.
The part at the very end where the woman kills the monster and sacrifices herself with it (out of principle) is brilliant. At the end, the soul of the monster joins with the body of the woman and the camera zooms in on her face... You assume that it will bring her back to life but actually, she is not moving and you can't quite tell if her eyes are open or closed (dead or alive)? There's something deep behind the ambiguity.
I suspect Kim Jong Il saw the monster as a metaphor for capitalism or globalization, the woman as a metaphor for a revolutionary leader (maybe Kim himself) and the monster's relentless hunger for metals as a metaphor for greed-driven industrialization but I wonder to what extent did he see it as a metaphor for his own communist movement? The message seems to be that even though she did a bad thing killing their saviour, she did it with sound morals because she was willing to sacrifice herself. She knew it was the right thing to do to contain the monster's relentless greed. But I feel like the part at the very end where the soul of the monster joins her body is a way to show that she is forgiven because it's the intent that counts... Maybe a subtle hint that a good leader is rewarded for having good intentions and conviction but is it purely an ideological reward of being spiritually 'made whole' or also material (she gets to live)?
It makes me wonder if Kim Jong Il may have been tempted to turn North Korea into a capitalist society under the thumb of globalists; keep feeding the beast which had originally (in his view) freed his people from past oppression but instead, he decided to politically 'sacrifice himself' for his people by betraying that globalist monster which had helped him.
There is a statement at the end which essentially amounts to blasphemy in the west: "To keep feeding him, we will have to keep sending him to other countries to wage war. We cannot do this to the world." Ouch.
As unfree and poor as North Korea may be, this is an incredibly blunt, honest take.
More like people have limitations and there are complex problems they can't solve because of those limitations. Therefore any attempt creates new problems.
So they make up Stories to justify their actions and shift focus away from the costs.
Some people buy the stories. Some people don't. Because with complex problems its like the Universe is in Superposition. The wave function can't collapse. Stability is maintained through incoherence.
Tale as old time.
Older you get there are better things to do than spend time watching people attempt things way above their pay grade.
Makes sense. It's hard to imagine this for people who don't have access to such opportunities. Myself included to some extent.
Most people will never have to make any truly difficult or impactful ideological decision in their entire lives. Probably couldn't even wrap their minds around it so they're sure to neglect it. The decisions most people encounter in their lives are relatively simple and the consequences of making a mistake are relatively minimal. I feel like the biggest variables in most peoples' lives are external (costs imposed on them), not consequences of their own decisions. It's seems like the flip side of the fact that a small number of people do get to make those impactful decisions on a large scale.
> shows a lack of appreciation for context; which is what art is about
Art is not about context. I'd argue the contrary - Art that needs context is usually crap. You see it a lot in the form of "This painting is special because the painter was ...".
From a psychological perspective I agree, there is a lot of interesting stuff to unpack. But that doesn't make it good art.
I understand why Kim Jong Il thought it was a Masterpiece.
I suspect Kim Jong Il saw the monster as a metaphor for capitalism or globalization, the woman as a metaphor for a revolutionary leader (maybe Kim himself)
It's seems like the flip side of the fact that a small number of people do get to make those impactful decisions on a large scale.
he decided to politically 'sacrifice himself' for his people by betraying that globalist monster which had helped him.
---
Works of art do not exist in a vacuum, and nor do commentaries on them - this one was clearly sympathetic to this monstrous family.
To attempt to empathise with someone is not to excuse their behaviour. Why would you imply that it is? Surely you don't think that every person whose behavior we condemn must be dehumanized?
IMO, people tend to overestimate how monstrous some people are. I think they're probably not that much more evil than the rest of us. It might seem shocking but my experience tells me that the most objective perspective is often in-between extremes and that the enemies of your government are rarely as bad as you are led to believe. A lot of it is really just propaganda; though it rarely feels like propaganda when it comes from your own government because all the words and motifs used to propagandize you feel very familiar to you; they are embedded into your culture since you were born.
Also, I think the other side always looks more evil than they are because we turn a blind eye to the punches thrown by our side. We only notice violence and injustice when it comes from the other side. Everything the other side does looks like offense, never defense, not to any extent. This is almost never reality.
My guy, you’re talking about a country with work and torture camps as if it’s “not as bad as it seems”.
A country that has had countless other countries and independent organizations confirm throughout history what we know about it. This isn’t a propaganda discussion.
I appreciated your critique of the film but you probably could’ve just stopped talking there.
It gives insights into the minds of some modern leaders... The idea that you have to kill the monster which saved you.
The part at the very end where the woman kills the monster and sacrifices herself with it (out of principle) is brilliant. At the end, the soul of the monster joins with the body of the woman and the camera zooms in on her face... You assume that it will bring her back to life but actually, she is not moving and you can't quite tell if her eyes are open or closed (dead or alive)? There's something deep behind the ambiguity.
I suspect Kim Jong Il saw the monster as a metaphor for capitalism or globalization, the woman as a metaphor for a revolutionary leader (maybe Kim himself) and the monster's relentless hunger for metals as a metaphor for greed-driven industrialization but I wonder to what extent did he see it as a metaphor for his own communist movement? The message seems to be that even though she did a bad thing killing their saviour, she did it with sound morals because she was willing to sacrifice herself. She knew it was the right thing to do to contain the monster's relentless greed. But I feel like the part at the very end where the soul of the monster joins her body is a way to show that she is forgiven because it's the intent that counts... Maybe a subtle hint that a good leader is rewarded for having good intentions and conviction but is it purely an ideological reward of being spiritually 'made whole' or also material (she gets to live)?
It makes me wonder if Kim Jong Il may have been tempted to turn North Korea into a capitalist society under the thumb of globalists; keep feeding the beast which had originally (in his view) freed his people from past oppression but instead, he decided to politically 'sacrifice himself' for his people by betraying that globalist monster which had helped him.
There is a statement at the end which essentially amounts to blasphemy in the west: "To keep feeding him, we will have to keep sending him to other countries to wage war. We cannot do this to the world." Ouch.
As unfree and poor as North Korea may be, this is an incredibly blunt, honest take.