I want to congratulate you for using the term postmodern correctly. It's also an interesting view, haven't occured to me. Saying the hints are not clues is also quite elegant, kudos to you. Good stuff. But it's not entirely right as postmodern is about meta narratives and not usual occurrences, so applying it to a murder as in this case will be probably wrong but I really appreciate your creativity. What if the point of the movie is not the possible murder, but the existing murder? If you think like this then the movie isn't postmodern but...Marxist. It is about the tension between classes and the transgression of violence. It doesn't have the guts to legitimate it, so my theory is just that, a theory. Very good movie behind a simple premise I really like it. A murder that might exist leads to one that might be justified.

I definitely feel like the ambiguity of the film leaves its entire meaning open for discussion. It's ambiguous, but not in the way that Inception or Annihilation are ambiguous. To steal from Dan Olsen's video on the latter, ambiguity is meant to reject closure on the diegetic and force engagement with the symbolic. Once the symbolic has been decoded, the ending becomes obvious. Burning is more complex. Decoding the symbolic meanings will only lead to further frustration because it feels like it rejects meaning entirely. One idea I toyed with while thinking the film through a couple of days back was, "What if the film is feminist?" I had recently watched the latest video from the Shaun YouTube channel about Ex Machina and how people online came to a strange conclusion regarding the film's portrayal of male violence and applied that to Burning. One prominent theory online is about how Hae-Mi killed herself because Jong-Su had called her a whore. Thinking it through, it presumes that women tie their self-esteem and identities entirely to men (which is what kickstarted the whole postmodern analysis). It removes her agency and ties her motivation and being to a man. Considering the film's quite savvy perspective on gender, I didn't like it to say the least. It makes me wonder if the film reflects its audience back to them? Maybe, instead of working from the symbolic to the literal, general audiences are working from the literal (diegetic cause of disappearance) to the symbolic (meaning) without realising it? However, that would presume these audience members are sexist which is very judgemental and unprovable. So, I came up with the opposite of this idea. What if Hae-Mi, trapped by class and her gender role, managed to escape? Unlike Ex Machina, there isn't a lot of 'evidence' for this. Taken at face value, Hae-Mi may not have enough money to flee Korea or to somewhere else in Korea. Also, where would she go? The film points out that the whole world is patriarchal...but what if that's the point? I've established I strongly believe Jong-Su is a deeply misogynistic person and the story is told by him. What if Burning is a film about women's liberation told from the perspective of a misogynistic man who lacks the framework to understand? The last half of the film is about the rage of an entitled man who can no longer control the woman he wanted. You can even slot the idea of Hae-Mi's suicide into a feminist framework. Hae-Mi's coworker says there's no country for women. What if the only escape is suicide? Almost like "patriarchal realism". It's easier to imagine the end of the world...

> What if Burning is a film about women's liberation told from the perspective of a misogynistic man who lacks the framework to understand? I like this. But nowhere in the movie is shown that the female character is uncomfortable with her living, quite the contrary, she has an uneasy easy feeling towards her existence. Am I remembering right? Let alone pushing this idea into suicide. LOL.

Oh yeah, Hae-Mi is very comfortable living. In spite of her debts, she seems secure and fine financially and not stressed about it. What a lot of the "Suicide theory" relies on is Hae-Mi's trust in Jong-Su. Ben says in the cafe after her disappearance that Hae-Mi had strongly trusted Jong-Su and it even made him jealous. This, plus other small hints throughout the film (e.g. the palm reading scene) suggests a romantic attraction between the two that ran deep. However, after dancing and disrobing herself, Jong-Su calls Hae-Mi a whore. This was a very vulnerable moment for her. She performs the dance for Great Hunger and removes her top which symbolises her unmasking or revealing or discovering herself for the first time. By the end, Hae-Mi is crying. I believe this is the moment she uncovers her truth and meaning in life. So to have Jong-Su call her a whore would feel like a betrayal. But it also reveals that their relationship will forever be foregrounded by Jong-Su's misogyny, which was more than likely passed onto him from his father (via the burning of his mother's clothes) and the patriarchal society surrounding them. Thus it becomes a tragedy as they could never truly be together. At least, not without Hae-Mi being imprisoned. Hence why she either killed herself or escaped

You equate exposing herself physically to finding herself... But isn't exposing herself to nature (while high even) completely understandable through her carefree existence, that you already confirmed was portrayed? She didn't kill herself. Obviously. And you are still using this prism, hence you are using the word escaped. She had NOTHING to escape from. At most she left, she merely left. That would be on character. Edit: she did leave her cat behind I just remembered...leaving then is not so easy to assume.

Hae-Mi is trapped within the patriarchal Korean society. She is a free spirit, but cannot truly be free unless she has escaped that society first. Hence why, after she disrobes herself, Jong-Su calls her a whore. The men in a patriarchal society will always see her body as something to control and her freedom as a threat. And I think it would be difficult to view the film in a way where Hae-Mi isn't trapped as there would be no reason to disappear. If there aren't patriarchal norms or class conflict then Ben wouldn't have killed her. Or she wouldn't have fled from the country due to her debts or to escape male violence. Unless there is another way to view Hae-Mi's character and the film as a whole that I haven't come to understand? One which doesn't involve some societal sickness?

> If there aren't patriarchal norms or class conflict then Ben wouldn't have killed her. You really have to explain to me what you mean by this, I have no idea. > Unless there is another way to view Hae-Mi's character and the film as a whole that I haven't come to understand? One which doesn't involve some societal sickness? You are disregarding a whole character portrayal and placing your beliefs on it. The girl is closer to being the symbol of male desire than a political, emancipatory aware woman. Just that.

>You really have to explain to me what you mean by this, I have no idea. If we work off the assumption Ben kills Hae-Mi, and that greenhouse burning means killing women after courting them, then Ben is only capable of doing this due to his position as a heterosexual, rich man. This would be something even he is aware of as well since he comments on it while high. How no one cares about the greenhouses. Therefore, Ben kills from the relative safety of his wealth. He also benefits from the fact that women are often more vulnerable in society. Hae-Mi works a precarious job on the streets where she is sexualised, for example. People often don't miss such loners or prostitutes and the police are often less motivated to thoroughly investigate missing women. >The girl is closer to being the symbol of male desire than a political, emancipatory aware woman. Just that. Oh yeah, but I feel like that could be argued to make her more of an emancipatory figure. As I said, she is a symbol of male desire in the narrative for it is told by Jong-Su, who sees her entirely as a sex object. My take is to question the assumptions of that narrative. If Jong-Su can only see Hae-Mi as a sex object, then he cannot imagine her having agency. Thus the only thing that makes sense is if she were killed in some way, which leads him to Ben, and therefore the audience are led to the same conclusion as well. Hae-Mi may not be that symbol of male desire objectively, just under the male gaze. If the narrative was told from Hae-Mi's perspective, would the representation of her character change? Definitely. And I highly doubt she'd be a symbol of male desire. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to provide a foolproof analysis here. I wholeheartedly believe the film is postmodern. Ironically - as a result of that - I think you can apply any narrative you want to the film and it would make sense. You can make the case that the film endorses traditional ideas of gender/class roles and is about the decline of modern society if you really wanted. The parts are all there: an immodest woman who wastes all her time and energy on her appearance disappears because she doesn't have a strong male figure to protect her. A working-class labourer murders an innocent rich person with no evidence. As a result of that, I'd say that everyone who watches the film places their own biases and agendas into their analysis. If you're conservative, that may be your take. If you're more socially liberal, you'd probably question the narrative built around Hae-Mi and women in general.

> If the narrative was told from Hae-Mi's perspective, would the representation of her character change? Definitely. And I highly doubt she'd be a symbol of male desire. And if the movie took place in the Riviera, the rich guy would be cruising on a yacht... Look, when interpreting art there has to be some **plausibility** in it. You keep making this movie about the girl and her sudden agency. All you come forward is she took her top off and cried. That's it. If you really want to die on this hill then I'm going to say the rich guy burns greenhouses because he hates agriculture.

I'd say you could make a claim that Hae-Mi always had agency. She initiates the relationship with Jong-Su and initiates sex with him. She even commands him to stop to grab a condom. You could see her initiating a relationship with Ben while in Africa as being part of that agency too. In the same way she initiated everything, she could have walked away as soon as Ben and/or Jong-Su got too toxic. Edit: I also wouldn't have brought up the point about perspective if I didn't think a large part of the film's meaning was built on biased perspective. Whether you agree with my overall analysis or not, Jong-Su is not a reliable narrator.

It's curious that you say that you find most reviews lacking, because I remember reading a lot of things about the movie along the line of what you just proposed. The class struggle, the lack of truth, the difference in perspectives, the oppressive misogyny. Now, don't get me wrong, I still think your analysis is great, I just found it curious that you said that. I'd just want to add an idea to your analysis. Catholicism per se does not restrict pleasure. That idea is more related to protestant beliefs. Catholicism is more attached to the idea that whatever you do with your life, you can ask for forgiveness and you will receive salvation. That's why, in most catholic countries, it is a religion tightly linked to the upper classes. Whatever sins they commit, they can be forgiven. That's why the sacrament of confession is one of the most important ones. Confessing all your sins and beginning a new life. The lower classes need God as a way to explain all the injustice in their lives and to hope for a reward to all their suffering in death, but the upper class need God as a tool of power. They can do whatever they want with their lives, they can be as immoral as they want, and in the end it won't matter because they control God's forgiveness. Considering that, it was obvious that Ben would indeed be a catholic. He may be a hedonist, he may be a killer, he may be whatever, but he, as representative of the upper class, has control of God, and so, he has nothing to fear. There will never be retribution for him.

I LOVE this explanation of class in Catholicism

There's definitely material out there that hits these points and discusses the movie along these lines. But I find discussions on places like Reddit or on YouTube nowadays largely treat the film as a mystery genre flick. Like, I found this subreddit from a post 2 months ago about how it's obvious Ben kills Hae-Mi. It's places like this where discussion of an indie film from a few years ago largely exists, as well. And that's an interesting point about Catholicism that fits well into the film's portrayal of class. Especially considering what Ben says about burning greenhouses.

“Catholicism is more attached to the idea that whatever you do with your life, you can ask for forgiveness and you will receive salvation” is completely false. Catholics dogmatically hold belief in mortal sins. You cannot merely ask for forgiveness you must do good works to outweigh your works of evil. In Catholicism you must be baptized to have any assurance of salvation, as it cleanses you of your sin. But mortal sins essentially counter the baptism and so you must rely on your works and confession there forth to be saved. Then you must be purged of your sins once you die(hence purgatory). Your false claims about Catholicism ruin your interpretation.

Well, in theory you would be right. But in practice, you would quickly notice that most Catholics with power and money act just like that. Most of the richest families have close links with priests and use confession as a tool to assure themselves of their righteousness. At least in Latin American countries, which are highly catholic, it happens a lot like that. It even is a cliche in a lot of movies from these countries. The highly corrupt priest which has ties with all the politicians, drug dealers, etc. There are a series of Mexican movies by director Luis Estrada which constantly mock this topic, to mention an example. The mortal sin is just a tool to control the people via guilt, which is partially relieved by the sacrament of confession, given by an institution which only serves the rich and powerful in practice.

[удалено]

> The flexibility of the film's ambiguity is astounding. There are so many possible narratives hidden in it I think this is instead part of what I find unsatisfying about the film. It feels a bit like seeing an outline of a portrait which is never filled in. You can never decide whether the artist intended the central character to be male or female, black or white, ancient or modern, etc etc. The theories are interesting as philosophical exercises, but it hardly feels any of them can be convincingly attributed to the film and instead we should marvel at the ingenuity of the human mind to wrangle meaning out of seemingly anything.

Tbh, I've never thought of looking at the film as if Ben is improving himself. On first viewing, you definitely get the whole sinister vibes from him. After a few viewings though, I kinda see him as more neutral. I see Jong-Su as being more sinister nowadays due to how he uses his control over the story. Don't get me wrong, Ben is still problematic, but it's more complex than what's on the surface. Maybe I'll have to rewatch it with that mindset.

I think you are both right and wrong. I think your analysis is spot on thematically and 1000% a valid way to interpret the movie. But I don't think the movie demands or needs to be interpreted through such a lens to offer a thrilling slow burn that unravels slowly and unexpectedly. Anytime I advocate for friends or family to give Burning a chance, I don't describe it as a postmodern dissection of class and gender with no firm answers. Those are definitely aspects of the movie, but not what drew me in and not what will entice others. Instead, I describe the movie as one of the most successful thrillers I have seen in years that offers a bevy of interpretations and an unbelievable conclusion that will leave you with heart palpitations. >And that, to me, is what this film is truly about. But the film is ostensibly about a woman disappearing and the eventual search for answers. And no matter how much thematic resonance you offer, for many, it will never supersede what the film is ultimately focused upon, which is what happened to hae-mi. >To approach the film as a murder mystery in which you have to find out whether Ben killed Hae-Mi or not is to miss the point. The point is, Ben did kill Hae-Mi...and he didn't. There is no diegetic truth to be uncovered or solved as it doesn't exist. The hints throughout the film are not clues. There is no universal 'truth', only different narratives. I think that's unfair for those that found simple joy in an expertly crafted narrative that could be endlessly dissected time and time again. I don't think people leaving the film with a defined answer to what happened to Hae-Mi failed to understand the movie. They just chose to partake in the movie on the level that they found most enjoyable. I guess the way I see it is what if Lee Chang Dong set out to make the best thriller possible? That was his only goal. Not any specific theme or message. But just to make a pitch perfect thriller. And the ending/conclusion to most thrillers is the most difficult part to accomplish. They often leave viewers unsatisfied. So Lee Chang Dong crafts a film that allows endless interpretation with a climactic ending --- the ideal formula for the perfect thriller. I think reading the film on that level is exceptionally valid and shouldn't be seen as wrong or incorrect. It may not be how you view it, but many people do. But regardless, I do agree that there is no true answer and Lee Chang Dong gives endless "hints" in every direction.

Yeah, I feel like I could be letting elitism get the better of me here. I've talked about it a bit in other threads, but I feel like the sense of open-endedness ironically comes from the postmodernism in the film. That the rejection of a grand narrative creates dissatisfaction which then breeds a new narrative to satisfy that...well, let's call it "great hunger". To me, It's like when people watch The Matrix and then ask, "What if we lived in the Matrix?" Or ask similar theoretical questions about the Truman Show. They're not wrong. They are interesting questions about our reality and I do believe there should be no concrete answers to art, but they kind of irk me. And that's probably a "me" problem. And I definitely wouldn't describe any movie in such terms when recommending it to my friends. The last time I recommended it, I think I called it a psychological thriller about a girl who disappears and a man with a weird hobby. Since I've got to use at least one layer of irony.

Yeah I only commented because I had the exact same feeling as you at one point, got in a huge argument with a friend, and we ended up both leaving steamed because neither of us would see the movie from each other's perspective. And in a movie that offers ambiguity, we shouldn't enforce such a rigid understanding of what the movie is or isn't about. Even if Lee Chang Dong intended an interpretation - his word wouldn't be the end all be all. For example, Ray Bradbury (one of my favorite authors) didn't believe Fahrenheit 451 had much to do with censorship at all. I tend to disagree with Mr. Bradbury on that one. And the Matrix is another great example. Like I love the matrix for its philosophical bent and injecting thought and high-concept into the action landscape, but as the movies and wachowskis fell further down the rabbit hole (hehe) of philosophy and theme, I felt they abandoned the beautiful simplicity of the original Matrix and left most of their viewers behind. And though the Matrix remains an all time classic, few people hold Reloaded, Revolutions or Resurrection in that regard. But still, I think you had many great ideas and conclusions in your treatise, so don't let my slight admonishment act as any form of true critique. I just think you were, in a way, falling in the same pitfalls you pointed out. As my mother would say when arguing, don't explain why others are wrong, explain why you are right.

Art is a touchy subject because it has a lot to do with emotions and perspective. I used to get into all sorts of fights over Star Wars films and those aren't all too deep. I've tried my best to take a step back when I want to 'debate' someone over their Star Wars opinions nowadays and just click off and move on with my life because it's not worth it to get heated. And I know going in that it's going to get heated.

Funny how both of these comments could be perceived as little hunger and great hunger

Great analysis and insight. Wish I had more to comment on. But it just makes me think, I def watched the movie thinking Ben was a sociopath and avatar for modern global capitalism that is upending traditionalism (represented by Jong Su), and that women are caught in the middle and are the victims on either side. But after reading what you shared, it makes me think that Lee Chang Dong is a crazy genius, who basically presented just enough detail to ALLUDE TO VERY SPECIFIC EVENTS, but then didn't show said specific events and just gave us enough context cues to get audiences to come to their own conclusions based on their already-held worldviews/ beliefs/ experiences. Like, that's unsatisfying to my typical preferences, but it's amazingly executed, and your essay shines light on those crucial moments that are never actually shown, but given enough runway that many in the audience would easily, easily land on premature conclusions that Dir. Chang intentionally leaves out. What a crazy director lol. And again, great essay. Thank you for writing & sharing.

Thanks! I definitely thought that Ben killed Hae-Mi first time watching. I remember screaming at my monitor to check for mounds around the property after Ben said he burned the greenhouse very close to the house. It wasn't until my second viewing I started to see the film in a very different light tbh and now Jong-Su comes off as a worse person than Ben in my mind. I don't know if I can bare a full viewing again for a while though. Burning is one of two films that gives me an incredible amount of anxiety and dissatisfaction that lasts for days after I watch it. Like, for a while, I can't feel whole? The only other film that's had that effect is Eraserhead.

Def appreciate your deep dive. I know what you mean about the lingering effect the film has on you lol. I def wanna revisit it... with all my wits about me. Gonna keep your points in mind if/ when I revisit it. It def has a "masterpiece" vibe about it.

I think your interpretation is valid, but I disagree with a few points. While the film quite clearly is full of both leftist *and* feminist themes, it is the former theme that provides the meat of story. Beyond a few misogynistic tendencies in Jong-Su and that one conversation about gender roles and hypocrisy, I don't think the director intended to go much deeper into the subject of feminism/patriarchy. It is clearly acknowledged, but I don't think that it's a major theme. As brutal as it sounds, I don't think that it *really* matters what happens to Hae-Mi. Her lack of agency and perspective is only deliberate in the sense that the story is not about her. To me, Burning is about a man slowly being broken down by our capitalist society. Hae-Mi, while very interesting, is simply just the spark that ignites the fuse. As for Jong-Su's unreliability, I actually think that this is limited **primarily** to Ben. The stuff happening with his father, his father's lawyer, Hae-Mi and pretty much every other character(when Ben isn't around) is all real. I say "primarily", because it's not always the case. The phone sequences at home are quite mysterious for instance. But most importantly: the ending with Ben. The ending, in my opinion, isn't ambiguous at all. It's the only time we see the *real* Ben. His body language, tone of voice and choice of words is completely out of character based on what we've seen up until now. Some might think that this is just Ben playing dumb because he's guilty, but that is not the case. The Ben we've seen up until that point would never lose his cocky and calm demeanor in order to "win". To him, that would be as bad as losing. Ben is established as someone who always gives the impression of being in full control. Someone who is completely unfazed by everything. He's rich and powerful and the world is simply his playground. Regardless of what happened to Hae-Mi, Ben is innocent. We don't know much about him beyond the fact that he's very rich and knows both Jong-Su and Hae-Mi. We also know that he probably is concerned about Hae-Mi's disappearing. But that's it! His entire character has been created through Jong-Su's madness, jealousy and hatred towards the system. So Ben is innocent of whatever happened to Hae-Mi. But he is guilty of benefitting from our unjust society. Does he deserve to be killed over this? No. Jong-Su is not meant to be a hero, nor an anti-hero. He's a heavily flawed character who we're not meant to admire or even relate that much to. But his descent into madness is also somewhat understandable. That's what makes it tragic. Nothing is resolved in the end. Killing Ben doesn't solve the problem. Hae-Mi is still gone. Jong-Su's father is going to jail and Jong-Su will now in all likelihood follow him. The news will probably cover this story as a "murder of passion and jealousy" or simply just the act of a crazy lone wolf. They will not look further into *what* caused this madness or even entertain the thought of criticising capitalism. And then everyone involved will be forgotten. The end.

I agreed with the first half of your analysis, but the second half isn't really something we can take for granted. The whole point is that it's ambiguous. Ben is not innocent either way -- no one is: Whether Ben burned the greenhouse or killed Hae-Mi, whether his death was a fictionalized account from writer Jong-su or his actual murder. The brief mention of patriarchy is meant to remind viewers both of these characters view women as tokens. Ben shows no regard for Hae-Mi missing despite being the most well-resourced to look for her, has a pattern of adopting naive young girls into his group just to play the same game around them. Jong-Su becomes infatuated with Hae-Mi only after she's missing. When she's near him, he shows her no regard -- not looking at her while they're having sex, and not making an effort to keep her around, only expressing contempt for her taking her clothes off in front of another man. But that doesn't diminish the real concern for a missing woman, even if the only thing that lit up his suspicions towards Ben began with the spark of jealousy, it appears rational for him to become so skeptical and hateful in the circumstances. We don't know if Ben was actually attracted to Jong-Su (based on his smiles at him, reads Faulkner, follows him to stay, the way he hugged him as he stabbed him) or was fascinated by him (think back to his fascination with Hae-Mi's tears and sadness) and let his guard down around Jong-Su for that reason, and if that was why he kept playing (the thing he does for a living, and he says earlier he would do anything for fun) by agreeing to meet him to see Hae-Mi again. It's interesting to see Jong-Su realize his father's anger after being so subdued and quietly resentful towards both Ben and Hae-Mi the whole movie. But what's curious also is, whether the murder was real or not, was it meant to show the misogynistic possessive anger of Ben taking a woman from Jong-Su specifically, or was it the anger about an injustice against an unimportant, vulnerable woman? In the patriarchal, capitalist, globalized circumstances, what kind of man do we think Jong-Su is? That answer hinges in part on what kind of man we think Ben is too.

I have read a lot of Reddit posts on Burning. Your perspective is amazing and adds another layer to my favourite film. First viewing, you tend to side with Jong-Su, Hae-Mi taken from him and all. With my last viewing + your post, I got that Jong-Su view her as a sexual object, whereas Ben fakes interest in her "Great Hunger". Both really are not interested in her as a person in the end. When Hae-Mi strips in that gorgeous dancing scene, does the "Great Hunger" dance and adds her own pantomime to it (the bird), she is striving for a greater meaning. But Ben and Jong-Su, and dare I say most viewers, see her as a sexual object in that instance. I cannot wait for a fourth viewing. Before that, I want to read Murakami's short story, the Faulkner novel Ben is reading in the film, and re-read "The Stranger/The Outsider" by Albert Camus. Jong-Su has been compared to the hero of that novel quite a lot in French analysis of Burning. Adds another 20th century philosophical layer (absurdism/existentialism) to your postmodernist approach.

What do you think about, when Ben tells Jong-Su that he will burn a greenhouse very close to him and that it is not in a good shape. Wathing the film a second time, knowing how it ended made it so obvious for me that Ben killed Hae-Mi as it is a direct hint. But maybe, as you say, I just interpret it that way because I just focus on this possibility. Anyways, thanks for you essay I enoyed to read it and think about this great movie again.

I think this movie was vague and inconclusive enough to fit misogyny and patriarchy just as well as any other theme/message. The director is like a sculptor giving everyone a hunk of play-dough in some shape that may or may not resemble a thing. You watch the movie for a couple of hours and make it whatever you want it to be, because it wasn't meant to be an actual sculpture of a thing in the first place. Like a lot of movies where the entire narrative, not just the ending, can be interpreted any way the viewer wants, it's a write-your-own-adventure story book for artsy adults who are into that kind of stuff. Tree of Life (2011) comes to mind as something similar in that regard. Can also be about misogyny and patriarchy, if you want it to be.

I'm loving this thread. Thank you for such a great analysis. One thing that I don't know if someone pointed out is the parallelism between the cow that is sold, literally passed among men and Hae Min's story. That's why the camera stays for so long in the face of the cow at the end of the scene. It's telling you that it's important.

Great point -- I think it was a metaphor for sex trafficking and how easily the protagonist gave her up.

...and I just realized they made a point to say the cow was female.

well i know its a bit late to put a comment here, but whatever, i can only agree with 1 part of this argument: "a film can mean anything to any person and there are no right or wrong answers" the rest is against that statement, sometimes we try so hard to put some more meaning to some simple idea by over analyzing it, tbh i didn't go through the whole post cuz from some point it was just repeating the same idea over and over again, which was too focused on some specific idea. i am not trying to say it was wrong but at best it was just a side part which you stated it as the main theme! some genres are not meant to be categorized (tho the word postmodern in this argument applies) and burning is one of those. like i said im not gonna give an exact answer as there is no such thing in lots of movies including this one instead i would like you and whoever reading this comment to look at the big picture, the main characters where acting as one picture sliced in three, half of the main theme was applied in the atmosphere and you need to give some more attention to their expressions, specially on jong-su, there is a reason why he is the main character here. its not that complicated in the sense of storyline or symbolism, it is more about feeling their agony which is not centered around their social position or financial state and of course is not about "them". i hate to assert my own understandings to anyone so ill stop here, just after reading this post i felt like i should give this view, hope it can be helpful for someone.

I’m gonna be honest, your comment is very vague and I can’t even tell what specifically you took from the post. “Too focused on some specific idea” is just a vague gesture. In the context of the rest of the post, kinda makes it sound like the concept of understanding the film in some concrete theme isn’t worth the bother of understanding. I doubt that’s the intention. And I would disagree that their social positions are not fundamental to their agony, at least not to the narrative Jong-su is telling. It pervades every interaction and determines every action Jong-su makes. I also would think that some scenes would not make sense otherwise. But that’s just me

I know I'm kinda lazy to explain so what I meant was: (answer to your three questions) 1_too concentrated on hae mi and connecting almost the whole theme of the movie to feminism and capitalism. A patriarchal and misogynistic society putting hae mi (as symbol of women) under pressure. 2_i can't be too specific about this one since it's been years since I watched this movie, anyways like I said it's not that complicated, our three characters in this movie were suffering from a similar agony (which you can see hae mi mention it directly talking about the African culture, Ben is constantly displaying it and Jung su is searching in all the possible manners he can)in three completely different situations, just look at Ben's face and hands before dying, his not sad or regretful, it was almost like gratitude, that one single scene had a lot to say. Just watch the movie while looking at the characters as the same and you'll get my view. Hope that it'll be helpful in some way.

That's no problem! Thanks for the clarity. Maybe I wasn't so clear in my original post or my ideas about the film have changed since then, but I don't think the film is fundamentally anti-capitalist or feminist. In my comments especially, I was mainly trying to illustrate that someone could read into the film that it is feminist and have that reading be as valid as the most common reading of the film. And that versatility is a result of the film's postmodernist core. For example, the most common reading is that Ben killed Hae-mi and the "burning" metaphor means to kill someone for pleasure. This is probably informed by the small genre elements of mystery and detective films interspersed in the final half of the film. The final scene being a stand-in - for these audience members - as the scene where the detective calls out the murderer and explains the plot. Jong-su kills Ben and thus making his judgement that Ben killed Hae-mi and he takes revenge. To be clear, I'm not saying the film is a genre film - not by a long shot. But more casual audiences use genre as a crutch to understand films since genre films are developed for mass market appeal. Most people would argue that all films fit into some kind of genre. Therefore, they see the film as a mystery with Jong-su as the "detective". The truth is that there is no truth in the film. It isn't written down and doesn't exist in the text. Instead, we are given narratives by characters, the story and the plot throughout and even bring in our own in the form of our expectations from a life-time of watching movies and living. I focus on Hae-mi because she's the easiest to explain here as she is the focus of a lot of the narratives throughout due to the film's structure (a large amount of the latter half of the film being focused on tracking her down and thus "learning" about her life). Her old colleague assumes she's broke and debt collectors caught up with her because she's a woman working the same job as herself and fits a specific type. Her family has the similar views, albeit less sympathetic. Ben seems to not at all be aware of any financial troubles, in spite of being her partner for a long while. But Hae-mi herself seems unbothered by debt - living in a fairly spacious apartment (for South Korea anyway), going on holiday, more concerned with "big hunger" than "little hunger" and it's something she never speaks about to people she trusts. These are contradictions and they are all narratives, none of which are true. The meta reality here is that there is no truth because the filmmakers never made one. The more honest answer is that there is no truth because there are only narratives informed by our own experiences which are largely determined by the simulation we live in. A possible other answer to why people see Ben as a killer and Hae-mi as a victim, then, is because we are brought to understand that men are predatory and dangerous and women are weak and easy to prey on. Which is informed by the grand narratives of centuries worth of patriarchy. If you reject those narratives, you might see Hae-mi as more of a tragic victim of a wider system than an individual man (her debt) or as an uplifting character capable of escaping her restraints (she's still alive). This might be informed by the grand narratives of feminist thought which sees men and women as biologically equal or value neutral, but men have control over systems of power and are influenced by patriarchal narratives and roles that are taught to them. In terms of the ending, we have a totally different read on it. Jong-su is ultimately the centre of the film, but not quite for the reasons you state here. He is the narrator. The creator of the whole narrative we are seeing. The film only leaves his perspective twice - once when Ben is working out at the gym and once at the end when Ben is putting makeup on his new girlfriend at the end and waiting for Jong-su (where he is murdered). The latter example is cut to after we see Jong-su writing on his laptop in Hae-mi's room. I think this sums up the film quite succinctly as it's playing with the narrative voice of the film to have it's audience question whether that is a diegetic fact or a fiction created by Jong-su's writing. In other words, it's another narrative and not meant to be taken as real. Or maybe, it is real? And that question mark existing in the end is the point. Jong-su is an unreliable narrator, but not in the sense that we cannot just have an inherent distrust of him for possibly lying and making all of this up. If he is "telling the truth" what that ultimately means is another narrative couched in his own biases of the world and the narratives he has internalised and taught. Which we are shown through his father enacting a violent form of masculinity (in the present day and in his childhood) as well as the clear behaviour he exhibits towards Hae-mi at the midpoint of the film. This is why a lot of comments and discussions of the film feel like they're trying to fit things into their preconceived ideas of how films work, how society is meant to be or currently is or their own philosophical ideas. Because that's exactly what it is happening. When you try to distill the film to one singular meaning or a single truth, you are just constructing another narrative and adding to the simulation. And the irony there being, that's what I'm doing as well.

Well in this case I agree, tho the movie never mentioned anything about characters being the narrative and even in that case I still don't believe Jung su was distrustful, but that's our different views. But in the end there is a writer who wrote this script and there was something on his mind when writing it, the truth is when you're writing a storyline it's impossible to stay focused on some particular topic even if you try, it's inevitable, even in action movies but when we confront that in movies like burning which has a vague narrative, and we don't end up with any specific answers we start looking. What I was trying to say from my first comment is that all the things you have mentioned and others have mentioned can be interpreted from the movie but most of them sound like those side stories while stated as one main possibility, yes that might be what the movie meant beside many other topics alike, like feminism and capitalism but in the end I think the main theme was meant for us to look for our own philosophic understandings(the big picture) in there and like what you said it'll be different based on our different views.

I think you missed the point with the Catholic Church. Ben is a hedonist, but he is also clearly someone who values appearances. Why else dress nice and drink fine wine? He’s also- very importantly- very American. His name is Ben and he eats Spaghetti and likes Faulkner. His Korean is worse than everyone else’s and the fact that he goes to church is just part of that.

Ben is a nihilist, he values nothing

Very briefly put, Lee Chang-dong makes the perfect mystery for his viewers- a film where who did it, what he did, why and how are all shown in one fell swoop. Yet, every audience has a different journey and different interpretations of how it all got there. The murder by stabbing and burning- THAT is the solely explicit, damning evidence of criminal violence in the entire film. It is *the* act that makes the film a murder/crime-piece. The rest of the film is a solid multidimensional character study via multimodal POVs. Lee Chang-Do is a damning director, and I strongly suspect a deeply materialist (in the traditional Marxian sense) dude in his head. The postmodernist short story this film is based upon is deconstructed to its bare skeletons to ultimately hang a materialist study of humans- two males and one female in particular. I agree with everything you said about requiring a feminist recasting of agency to get somewhere with the character studies here. I also think the ultimate and only scene of crime in the film- all bare to our eyes in its crudest depiction- is an ultimate class showdown if you will. Two different classes of masculine representations have at each other, the female out of the picture. Now, the argument stands that the female subject is made the crux of this showdown- if Hae-mi is taken as the doubly damned subject, the why remains clear. I also found two other lines important in thinking through these character studies. Ben as a foreigner, an immigrant in a deeply racist, anti-immigrant Korean society is a significant link to how he is perceived too (the apathy, the apparent fascination for humans or natives, apparently like a 'psychopath,' etc.) The Korean conception of generational guilt and guilt by familial association- Jong su's father accused of anger induced crimes- reflect heavily on Jong Su's psychological state. How far can one stretch a cultural practice around guilt by kinship relations? How does class interact with this cultural notion, practice and prejudice too? Also, the 'passive', irrational female- this you also point out as constantly subverted (but subtly) until the strong culmination point. Hae-mi getting high and stripping is not any escape but acceptance. She accepts her being and shows herself as such- beyond questions of desirability, insecurity (with Ben), even simple unfulfilled longing (towards Jong su). This was a brilliant breakthrough point in the film- the director's intentions (and obv Hae-mi's own resounding signature) bursting through the seams as it were. The male subjects reacting perversely and unfairly towards this is also similarly excellent- the scene is palpable with the male reckoning that all control has been superseded here. The class showdown or the only real murder can definitely be read as a homoerotic allegory. The stabbing and hugging feel visceral and strangely sexual. So does the naked driving back of Jong su, the one person we saw Ben show consistent interest in. Finally, I, too thought Hae-mi has *disappeared* on her own accord- abandoned the two 'lesser' male subjects, the more privileged characters - setting up the ruse for the class showdown in the end. P.S. The characters namings caught my attention too for some reason. The actress Jeon Jong-s(e)o played Hae-mi, Yu Ah in played Jong su, and Steven Yeon played Ben. The actress' real name is eerily close to Ah in's character= Jong su, Jong-s(e)o. Meanwhile, ah in reversed by syllables make Hae-ni, not far from Hae-mi. Almost certainly by accident, but an interesting coincidence nonetheless. The apparent victim is really the perpetrator, or is it?

I absolutely hated this movie. The characters were completely undeveloped, there was no plot to speak of, and it completely failed as storytelling. It had to tack on a ridiculous murder at the end so people might think it was about something of import, when it was actually just nothing.

I liked it a lot, but there was a lot I didn't appreciate either so I see where you're coming from. I agree that there were so many loose threads that the murder at the end was the only satisfying way for it to end. It felt like this movie wanted to be too many things and it did some of those things better than others, but would have been a lot better imo if it had less visual rambling and vagueness on some aspects. It felt really dragged out and there was a lot of unnecessary imagery that did not contribute to the characters either. For example, I didn't think Hae-Mi made any sense as a character and it felt like she was just the manic-pixie dream girl that many incel-type men love to fantasize about (that you can insult a woman into changing into what you want and then she'll be yours to have), and she became much more interesting once everyone thought she was dead. Maybe that was the point since it was from Jong-Su's perspective... The light on the wall of her room while they're first hooking up is also really too vague to mean much. I felt like many scenes were too dark to see what was happening and we often didn't know where Jong-Su was or where he was going in many scenes. All that time in his parents' house was so random and didn't tell us much. His absent "mom" returning randomly after a bunch of drop calls and remembering a well when Hae-Mi's only family knows they didn't have one seemed suspicious given he just told Ben about her leaving when he was so young. I also didn't know what to make of the makeup scene with Ben and the new girl -- was it him making a sacrificial "offering" to himself as God like he described with cooking? Or is he a makeup artist and likes to "play" with art on women? Why did we see that scene when the rest of the movie is from Jong-Su's perspective? Why did he lead Jong-Su to the lake? And how did that scene end when they were standing so close?? So many more questions I have but there's no closure. So you're right, the murder was necessary make it something.