Masculinity at the Top

The constant conflict in establishing the masculinity of the two major characters, Ch’il-su and Man-su is expressed in many different ways in the scenes involving the last giant billboard both of them painted at the end of the film.  There are many things brought up in Kim’s reading regarding how each small part of the scene contributes to the understanding the struggle and barriers that keep the two from establishing their masculinity in the ‘developing’ Korea.  One such example, is when he brings up the giant image of a sexy white woman Ch’il-su and Man-su are painting.  The stark contrast in size between the painting and the painters give a juxtaposition between the “colonized male” and the “colonial female” (Kim 148) which further undermines the male masculinity of the two painters.
But I want to focus more on the reason why Ch’il-su and Man-su decided not to go down from the billboard before things went out of hand and if there is any significance to do so.  If there is any significance, I believe it could be tied heavily to the loss and their attempt of re-establishing their own masculinity.  In fact, as Kim mentions in the reading, it could be said that they were on the verge of reconfirming their masculinity once the two characters confessed to each other.  But as the film progresses to the last scene, the opposite was only confirmed stronger, with Man-su dead and Ch’il-su arrested and being ever so far apart from the girl of his dream.  So why didn’t they go down?    Was it their guts and pride in not to submit to authority when they have done nothing wrong?  Furthermore, what is this masculinity that the two characters, and the particular class they represent, are so void of?  Ch’il su at one point does try to comply by going down to the authorities to clear the suspicion, but is stopped by Man-su.  Did he think it was already too late?  Was it simply his distrust with the authorities, or did he think it was his chance for something he was not expecting?  

Lenin Amaya

Communication in Miscommunication

In Kim's article, he states a 'typical' pattern of Park Kwang-su's films. Usually, there is a male protagonist who finds that he cannot properly communicate with others and that the lack of communication will usually lead to violence and death. As he says, this is the case for Chilsu and Mansu. They both cannot properly communicate and end up in what could become violence and what did become death. Chilsu has difficulties communicating his true self. He is embarrassed of what has become, and he tries his best to communicate a different, more established person, especially to Jina. He pretends to be in an arts college while he’s actually working with Mansu. He also tries to elevate his status by speaking with random English words, also communicating that he is a person who is educated. Mansu communicates in different accents in an attempt to impress people in hopes of getting more work. Kim states that they “assume different identities because only disadvantage has been offered by society once their real family identities are revealed to others”. In this sentence, the word assume can be changed to communicate.

Some say that the only reason for communication is miscommunication. The final sequence could only be because there was miscommunication between the actions of Mansu and Chilsu and the people watching from below. Being labourers, their actions were interpreted as a part of the labour movement. This is because they are manual labourers yelling at the crowd below. Also at some point Chilsu pretends to throw a bottle that the police officers thought could have been a Molotov cocktail. There was no resolution to this conflict as both sides failed at communicating their intentions and understandings.

If the only reason for communication is miscommunication, then Mansu’s final act of jumping to his death is the greatest moment of all, it’s his final communication. But what could Mansu be communicating? It could be that he is saying that he is not going to live the life that others think that he should lead. He also could be showing that the thing he wants most out of life is freedom, and that through death he is able to be free from the constraints of his poor life. Mansu must also be aware that his actions communicate a message to Chilsu, and Chilsu obviously looks up to Mansu as an older brother. Up until this point, there was not much communication between Chilsu and Mansu, and finally Chilsu confesses all the lies he has told. Mansu knows the truth now, but he also knows that the truth can’t save Chilsu. Mansu’s actions could either be a way to tell Chilsu to follow Mansu, that Chilsu’s life had more value than Mansu’s, or … It could have been a miscommunication in its entirety. 

Fractured Masculinity

Chilsu and Mansu was a movie with quite a dramatic ending considering the fake-happy vibe conducive to the loud trot music prevalent in the movie. Therefore I was blindsided by the ending, however upon a simple analysis of the events of the movie, suicide seemed to be, not a logical, but consistent with Mansu’s course of actions.  Firstly Mansu’s father was arrested because of his affiliation with the communist party. His actions came to haunt Mansu when during his higher studies he was denied a passport. Therefore denied a chance to pursue his dreams.His father failed him on one of the most important opportunities in his life that consequently led him to his miserable life. Mansu practically begs for jobs from employers and when not working he spends most of his time drunk. Could it be that the idea of suicide was made salient by those trying to coax him down? They involved his father in the discussion and reminded him of all the ways he had failed at life, failed at being a man. Could the slow motion when he is about the jump be symbolic to a man’s only solution when they are afflicted with a fractured masculinity?

Considering the time of political unrest in motion in South Korean at that time, it was quite telling with they police thought that the soju bottles were actually Molotov cocktails. Furthermore, the man doing the negotiations asks if their employers had mistreated them as if he was a teacher asking a child where he’d been hurt by an adult. As if their fractured masculinity had demoted them down to children. Their actions of simply venting their frustration was turned into something purely political despite how hard they tried to deny their actions as motivated by suicide.  They were shot down and the military was involved.  Chilsu and Mansu were yelling but the their voices were drowned out by the brouhaha of the city. The working class’ voice is purposely buried by the economical progression Could this movie be a social commentary to that effect? 

(mis)communication in "Chilsu and Mansu"

After replaying some of the movie scenes, I realized how little dialogue there were in the movie compared to previous movies we have watched, and most of the dialogues only fills us in on certain information about the characters but none that advance the plot significantly. For example, when we are first introduced to Chilsu and, later, his encounters with Ji-na, there were so little exchanges of words between the characters. Instead, they turn their heads or only exchange glances.  

Yet, even when the characters speak to each other, they don't understand each other. One scene that particularly struck me was the distorted shouts of Chilsu to Mansu while he was painting the walls of a tall building. It doesn't occur to neither of them that they can't hear each other, even if they know that they can't hear the other person. They just continued shouting to each other. As the viewer, we find this ridiculous but if we were at the perspective of one of the characters, we would probably do the same and try to have the other person hear us by shouting louder and louder. The same thing happens later, when both of them were suspected to be labor-law protestors on top of a billboard and were exchanging shouts with the government officials, their boss and the public below.

 

So not only miscommunication exists between individuals, but also at a larger level, between the individual and society, government and the general public. This communication is repressed by staying silent (Mansu), foreign language (Mansu uses dialects and Chilsu uses English) or by lies  (Chilsu lies about his immigration and studies abroad).  

 

Narrative vs spectacle

In ChilSu and Mansu, there are numerous shots of legs. I think the director intentionally shot legs in order to convey the theme of unstable masculinity. For instance, the camera is on Chilsu’s legs when he forces a kiss on China and on Mansu’s when he is peeing in public while taking a break from painting the billboard. In fact, since Chilsu develops a relationship with China based on lies, the shot of his legs when he is stalking China goes to reinforce his undermined masculinity. According to Kyung Hyun Kim, the Korean males suffered from unstable masculinities due to traumas from violent political past. As a result, the two male protagonists have hard time articulating and expressing themselves verbally. In fact, their inability to explain the intentions behind their actions results in Mansu’s death and Chilsu’s arrest.

I think the director employs frequent extreme long shots in order to reduce the tension produced from the characters’ suffering. For instance, when Mansu gets into an intense fist fight at the outdoors pub, it is difficult to watch when the camera is in medium shot. When it cuts to a long shot, however, I felt it was bearable to watch it. Also, after Mansu has a conversation with his sister who wails over the injustice of their father who is put in prison, the scene cuts to an extreme long shot of Mansu in the nature which produced a similar effect from me.

Chilsu and Mansu plays with the audiences’ knowledge of the Hollywood classical narrative style and repeatedly breaks away from the narrative in order to bring attention to its fictional quality. For instance, it departs from 180 degrees rule and uses 360 degrees. In the opening scene, the camera slowly turns in a circle while staying in one place to show the view of the city. Furthermore, the zooming ins and outs are used at moments that do not support the narrative. For example, when Chilsu and Mansu are having a conversation over a drink, the camera slowly zooms out.

In fact, Chilsu and Mansu is filled with the appearance of screens that take over the narrative’s screen. What I mean is that in the game room, the screens of the helicopter shooting missiles and the race car replace our screen. Thus, it disrupts the narrative and also makes the audience aware of the fact that what they are watching is the product of technology and not ‘real’.

What is most interesting about the film is that it plays with our expectation and intentionally does things to surprise us or play a trick on us. The daydreaming and recollection sequences are told in a confusing manner that causes a sense of uncertainty. In particular, after the scene of Chilsu and Mansu drinking together, it cuts to Chilsu painting a skyscraper while hanging on to a rope. Next, we see Chilsu falling off the sky. It shocked me because there was no cue that signaled the scene as being Chilsu’s imagination.

Thus, Chilsu and Mansu is a film that does two interesting things: it depicts unstable masculinity due to violent political past and it deliberately breaks away from the narrative and brings the audiences’ attention to the fact that what they are watching is a film.

Uncomfortable structure? and multiple dynamics...

Chilsu and Mansu maps the journey of two unlikely friends as they struggle through unemployment, relationships with the opposite sex, and their identities in a confusing and bustling Seoul. What struck me most were two things in equal intensity: the importance of 'care' in the film and subsequently the relationships and dynamics that these produce between Chilsu/Mansu, and secondly the weirdness of the structure and the dominance of the climax.

I was completely astounded at the structure of the movie (which I will talk about tomorrow at the presentation). When I would think that one thing was going to happen (i.e, between Chilsu & Ji-na), I would be totally surprised--either by what I expected happening differently, or sometimes by nothing happening at all. This was a common element: plot-lines I thought would be trimmed up, continued, or added back in were sometimes dropped altogether or ended very abruptly. Characters the audience had grown to sympathise with and know a bit about were completely forgotten or somehow taken out of the plot in a way that I would not describe as graceful, but which I definitely didn't dislike. Things did not grow in the normal sense of the modern film with intro, problem, climax/denouement/conclusion. The effect was interesting: at times I paid more attention, and at times I got bored or disappointed because what I felt was natural to have happen did not! How can the use of structure affect the audience's interpretation of the film? I can only speak for myself in saying that it was disturbing, but pleasantly so...

Secondly, I couldn't help but notice the relationships in the movie, primarily between the two leads. Without ever outright discussing it, Chilsu takes Mansu as his father figure. Both characters come from dysfunctional families with paternal figures in difficult situations, and both end up using the other as a source of care: together they are sympathisers during difficult situations, loyal figures when days are long, etc...Several dynamics happen at once: father/son, coworkers, and brother/friend. Is it possible to have all of these things coexist gracefully? What dominates in this film?

Chilsu and Mansu

Based on a Tawainese story, Park Kwang-su directed Chilsu and Mansu in 1988. Once again, the director touches upon social issues (this time, the gap between different classes in society).

As the title suggests, Chilsu and Mansu are the two main characters, who paint billboards or skyscrapers/ buildings (they are on and off work). As one can guess form their occupation, both of the protagonists are in the lower class of the society. Moreover, they are each suffering from family problems, where Chilsu's mother is dead, his father alcoholic and unemployed, and Mansu's father has been imprisoned for many years.

     Their situations are contrasted to the lives of others, which is shown by the depiction of city (wide streets, tall buildings, department stores, fast-food restaurants, consuming of western commodities etc.).

     Different techniques that were used throughout the film grabbed my attention.

First of all, as the director did in A Single Spark, there were few scenes where there was lack of sound, and I found that it was a good way to make the audience focus in what the director was trying to get across. (Since there's no sound, the audience will rely on what is being shown).

Plus, at the end, there was a slight pause in the movement when Mansu jumped off the ladder. It felt as if the time had stopped at that moment. One technique that was constantly used throughout the film was that related to camera angle. There are many scenes in which the director captures the angle from a lower height. This is shown when Chilsu is shouting out to Mansu that he will be seeing Jina, as well as when the people and police officers are looking up to Chilsu and Mansu who are on top of the billboard.

     When people mistakenly thought that Chilsu and Mansu were going to commit suicide, there were many who were looking up to the two of them. Without even asking the two why they have gone up there, they automatically assumed that the two were going to take their lives away - why is that so? Did people just assume in such way since Chilsu and Mansu were the lower class of the society? (That, if one was part of the lower class, that person would have too much dissatisfaction with life?) Although the police officers constantly say that they are there to help them out, to solve this problem in a 'peaceful' way, they do not try to listen to what Chilsu and Mansu have to say, but break into Mansu's house to find clues as to why they are up there. Could that be seen as peaceful? This scene portrayed the society in which the sayings of  people in the lower class are being ignored, and where the society decide what their thoughts are.

     Another question raised up in my mind while watching the film; If Chilsu and Mansu both really wanted the others to leave them alone, why couldn't they have just come down before it got into a "big situation"? Perhaps, they were enjoying all the attention that they were receiving?  

Colors in Chilsu and Mansu

In “Male Crisis in the Early Films of Park Kwang-su,” Kyung Hyun Kim describes Chilsu and Mansu’s “visualization of the urban space of Seoul” with bright color-blocked themes visible in city long shots, on billboards, in art galleries and night clubs as “anxious spaces where the masked identities of Ch’il-su as a college student and Man-su—cajoled by Ch’il-su to dress as a French artist—must be tightly concealed” (147). Kim’s take on the depiction of the city’s post-modern influences with regard to color in the urban space is interesting since for me, the film’s recurring color patters of bright green, white and pink, yellow, red and blue, and white, yellow and blue, as well as a combination of all these colors, creates a light atmosphere which, rather than creating an anxious space, acts in stark contrast to Chilsu and Mansu’s serious theme. The often frequented bar, for example, is brightly colored to give a sense of relief for both the characters and the viewer from the depression that surrounds this urban space in the form of Man-su’s internal suffering and the dark, empty lot in which the bar is located.

In addition, when Chil-su and Man-su are at the night club with Ji-na and her college friend, the colors white, yellow and blue are most prominently used. This color scheme, in combination with the camera’s use of different angles and quick, erratic movements, highlights the elevated mood of the club’s atmosphere and of Chil-su and his female dancing partners. Only after the dancing scene is over does the viewer witness the harsh reality of Man-su’s alcoholism and depression which juxtaposes the overall impression of the club’s mood on the characters and the audience.

Soju

What is soju? Soju is a distilled beverage that contains about 20% alcohol. It is the single most widely consumed alcoholic drink in Korea which can be bought just about anywhere in Korea for only 1~3 dollars. According to a report WHO released in 2011, an average Korean male drinks 18.4 liters of pure alcohol every year, which is equal to about 256 bottles of soju, and the rate of alcohol dependency among them is 13%. Soju is definitely more than just a beverage to Korean males.

In the film Chilsu and Mansu, soju bottles appear on the screen almost as much as the two male protagonists. Soju is omnipresent, and it’s almost like a third main character. To begin with, Chilsu and Mansu become ‘brothers’ over a bottle of soju. Mansu is a chronic alcoholic who drinks soju like water. He constantly drinks when he’s alone to relieve himself from stress. Chilsu doesn’t drink as much, but when he goes to see his alcoholic father, he orders himself a bottle of soju in order to face him. And ironically, the climax of the scene begins as Chilsu and Mansu drink soju on top of the whisky advertisement. There, Chilsu finally confess to Mansu that his life is a disaster and Mansu joins him by telling him about his father in prison. Under the influence of soju, they both start shouting at the world releasing their anger and frustration, only to be stopped by the police who mistake the soju bottle as a firebomb.

 The relationship between soju and the dysfunctional and isolated Korean males depicted in Chilsu and Mansu is not far from reality. It’s not over exaggerated or underrepresented. For the underprivileged males in Korean society, soju is present in times of sadness and in happiness, when in work or during rest. Sometimes soju is used to desensitize and to escape from reality, and on the other hand, soju also helps one stand up and face the truth. But the fact is, without the help of soju, these people don’t know how to feel or what to feel or what not to feel. They are so repressed by the society, their work, their family and the burden of life, they have forgotten how to be themselves. They have lost their identities. Now they can only depend on soju to feel and express and live their life for them.

Big American Influence

In my opinion Kwang-su Park’s Chilsu and Mansu, which was released in 1988 a time in when the Roh Tae Woo becomes president and it is also the year in which Seoul hosted the summer Olympics. Meaning that the city had to be cleaned up and modernized to accommodate all the people that would come to see the Olympics. Seoul in this time period was heavily influenced by American Culture. Throughout the film there are different instances where I noticed the influence of American Culture. 

The soundtrack is full of classic 80s songs. The scene where Chilsu goes to Burger King looking for Ji-Na, her co-worker has told him that she has quit and he looks quite disappointed. The song that plays in the background, the lyrics say “shattered dreams” as she tells him, which mimic how Chilsu is feeling.

Another time when Chilsu is laying down in his camouflage shirt, Bob Marley plays in the background. A scene where it is more appropriate for foreign music to play is at nightclub. The scene is when Chilsu, Mansu, Ji-Na and her friend are at a night club, Rick Ashley’s Never gonna give you up plays in the background.

Another scene where it is influenced by American culture is when Chilsu calls Ji-Na at work. He speaks to her in English to impress her, she is taking English classes as she wants to move to America. Not only does the film possess United States 80s music, speaking English and talk of going to America, the sense of the modernity seen in the different spaces and settings of the film is another aspect where the viewer can see how the American Dream has influenced Seoul. Ji-Na wants to go off and chase her dream. Why does the director have so much American influence I wonder?

The Inconsistent Consistency

For me, it’s a new kind of watching experience. The movie is inconsistent in a sense that the second half deviates a lot from the melodramatic representation of characters and comic plots in an upbeat mood of the first half. The massive information that flows through the second half is not something I prepare or expect for. It takes me a while to realize that the scene of Chilsu sitting in the police car and staring at Gina through the widow is actually the ending of this movie. Normally, after watching a movie I am able to generate some thoughts immediately. But the inconsistency in this movie is so predominant that I couldn’t come up with any. I’m confused not by the plots, but the way how story is being told and the underlying meaning of the images, scripts and context that I simply miss while I am giggling during the first half of the movie.

The story is also a double-protagonist structure, in which the two protagonists undergo similar life experience: dysfunctional family, unstable billboard painting jobs and disability to change their social statuses. For me, acknowledging the situations of Mansu’s and Chilsu’s father is like opening a Pandora Box. From the reading, I realized that Mansu’s father is put in jail due to his sympathy of communists, which explains why Mansu get called out by the government officer and denied to work aboard. And the place where Chilsu’s family lives used to be controlled by the American soldiers during the intervention period. These two fathers seem to be the stem of all the obstacles which Mansu and Chilsu encounter. Although the Korean society is under a democratization progress, in reality the lower class people are still limited by their ascribed characteristics (minjung connection) no matter how talented they are. Standing on top of the billboard is by no mean to get attention. Mansu and Chilsu are just seeking for a place that is big enough for them to set feet in, free enough to speak out their frustration and open enough to accept them as normal. The aftermath of their brief freedom is an ironic tragedy, in which Mansu jumped off the rooftop and Chilsu get caught by the police due to their non-political-motivated political demonstration. It is the only time the society cares about what they do and what they say despite the fact that their message is mistaken the whole time.

Although the contents are different from time to time, Chilsu and Mansu echoes the same calling for social changes with A Single Spark. Director Park Kwangsu is consistent in filming his movies with deep concern of political situations……

Opening 360-degree shot of Gwangwhamun

Chilsu and Mansu (1988), directed by Park Kwang-su, appear to me as a very interesting film on many different levels. Everything spurs interest and imagination: from the way the film is shot, the themes that are presented in the movie to the interaction between the characters and especially then the relationship between Chilsu and Mansu. In this blog post I will focus on a shot from the opening scene and its significance, but the film has way more to it and it might be the film I would like do my final paper on for this class. 

                  When it comes to film technique, one of the first opening shots is a rare 360-degree extreme long shot from Gwangwhamun Square in downtown Seoul. As a bold move for director Park in his debut film, it pans the camera 360 degrees before halting and ending the shot by filming towards downtown Seoul - before cutting to a close up of Chilsu sitting on a bus. The film does not try to mediate the shot (the shot cuts to a medium-close up of the protagonist sitting on a bus, confirming that the 360 shot was not a point-of-view shot) and it becomes a stand-alone piece in the film.

  Not only is this interesting because a 360-shot is a signifier of a documentary but the location itself also holds a lot of symbolism. This way of creating a shot is significant because it breaks the Hollywood doctrine of keeping the audience as voyeurs of the incidences by not breaking the 180-degree line. By doing that, the normative relationship between the viewer and the screen is broken. 360-degree shots are therefore signifiers of a documentary, a true story, or a true depiction of reality.  Placing this shot in the beginning of the film would lead us to believe that the director wants us to realize that what we are seeing is close to reality.

In accordance with the significance of the shot is what it portrays. Gwangwhamun Square is a summary of almost all the themes within the film. Here lies the American embassy (anti-americanism), many of Korea’s historical museums (connection between past and present), the financial district (new economic development), department stores (class struggle), and in the backdrop is the former royal palace and the Blue House – the presidential palace (the role of the state). Also, along with City Hall, Gwangwhamun has been on of the most important locations for mass demonstrations and signifies a place of unrest.

Having been there is I know it is an awe-inspiring place, but it is a place of many contrasts and serves as nice introduction to the film. Just one block away from it you can find small dirty shacks (one of them is the best Kimchi Jijgae restaurants in all of Seoul) but standing in the middle of Gwangwhamun leaves you little idea of it. The place serves as a storefront of a city and country that is far from the same. Gwangwhamun can in that sense also serve as a symbol of keeping up appearances and a cover for the self-image of Korea. In that sense you can draw a parallel between Korea and Gwangwhamun, and Chilsu and his habitual lying.