Bad Guy

With the work of South Korean filmmaker Kim Ki-Duk, the viewer has to accept some very fundamental "flaws" that inherently seem to be a part of his work in a practical sense. The production values are always cheap, the soundtrack music is always tacky, the acting is never more than at the most basic level, there are continuity errors... in a word, his films always seem low budget and as if everything were shot in one take. Also he has almost an insistence on breaching realism and lapsing into his own vague allegory. His characters never follow any kind of real internal logic, but rather act according to the scenario he conceives. All of these factors amount to the reason I don't think I will ever be able to consider any of his films true masterpieces.

That said, in return for accepting these inherent flaws, the viewer is rewarded with a candid, unadulterated look into the creative mind of a very interesting person. Kim Ki-Duk's vision is relentlessly idiosyncratic, but very consistent and pure. Watching his films, you gain direct access into his thoughts. This is not film-making by committee, this is "auteurism" in the truest sense. That in and of itself is such a rarity that his films are worth seeing for this reason alone. And this film, "Bad Guy", is probably the purest, most definitive example of Kim Ki-Duk's vision. All the preoccupations that manifest in his other work are here: The mute, inexpressive protagonist, the seeming obsession with prostitution and the degradation of women in general, and also the director's tendency to eventually lead his characters into an incomprehensible fantasy world. Whether or not the viewer is willing to accept these illogical flights of fancy is purely a matter of taste, but personally i find his work fascinating solely because it is so stubbornly idiosyncratic and fueled by a remarkably pure sense of creative expression.

"Bad Guy (Nabbeun namja)" is an earlier film of Ki-duk Kim that is probably being released now in the U.S. due to the success of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom)," but fans of that visually entrancing parable should be warned how very different this exploration of the depths of human nature is.

The style has some similarity in that there is no exposition and we have to connect images that tell a tale of two very different people over time. Context is everything as voyeurism keeps repeating along a sexual spectrum of men and women together -- to romantic or erotic or degrading or lustful or violent, full of obsession or love or hate or longing or disgust, whether in prostitution, a relationship, or rape.

A key context is emotions and degrees, whether by the man or woman, or mutual, or drained of feeling such that I'm not sure love has any meaning in this film. There's a recurring use of Egon Schiele's erotic art to make some kind of comparative point about a continuum of sexual images and their effect on the viewer.

The titular character is reminiscent of Quasimodo of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" fixating on Esmeralda if he were a psychopathic pimp in, I presume, Seoul's lurid red light district and played by the charismatic Jae-hyeon Jo, like an apolitical "Romper Stomper." I did get a little lost where he fit into the hierarchy of the yakuza-like gangster organization that controls the district, how much authority he has, and who was on top of whom to interpret their obsessions. Some of the encounters we see are presumably his limited fantasies as he miraculously recovers from various violently noble efforts to protect and reach out to the object of his affection that reminded me of the ambiguous ending of Jane Campion's "The Piano."

The film explores some of the same territory as the work of Catherine Breillat, but the context seems uneasily different when I'm the only woman in the theater and the director is male, perhaps because the central woman is always an object, even as she pitifully adapts to her various degradations, and even resists being freed from them. All the women in the film treat each other like the men treat them.

In Seoul, and in every other major South Korean city, there are red light districts. Few local folks will admit to their existence. But Kim Ki Duk does. And he does even more. He shows us how they work, how innocent young women get trapped by the "business," how a sense of helplessness descends upon the prostitutes, and how painfully unwelcome and irrelevant their boyfriends, their husbands, their families, become.

To make a film with these themes central may not seem like a winning decision. However, this is award-winning director Kim's territory, and he does with the subject matter what he will. No, it's not pretty, so don't expect it to be. No, it doesn't end up with everything working out happily, because life rarely does, so don't expect that either. No, there is no fine, pat conclusion, because Kim knows better.

I noticed that this film contains bits of celluloid that was picked up off the cutting room floor after Kim's renowned "3-Iron" was made. Expect some unexpected scenes in this regard. Unfortunately, the film is ugly from the beginning, with an innocent young woman (the magnificent actress and Kim favorite Seo Won), taken into prostitution against her will through unlikely circumstance. She is not a willing prostitute and she rebels throughout the plot, much to her dismay. But Kim is so adept at this. Ugliness becomes beautiful, noise turns to stillness, the guilty transform to innocence and the truly innocent remain so. I gasp at such awesome presentation. From Kim, we expect this. Still, he can overdo it. Why, I ask, does Kim always place a woman in mortal peril? Is this a must for his stories, his fables? If so, what is he trying to teach us? Certainly, I hope, more than the fact that "sexploitation" exists in his home country.

"Bad Guy" is a beautiful movie, but I only grant it 7 of 10 because Kim has apparently become obsessed with sexual violence (reference "The Isle," "Coast Guard" and "Address Unknown"). Also, there is just too much emphasis placed on predictable fight scenes. Sure, such scenes can serve a purpose, but by 2002, Kim should know he doesn't need to resort to the horrific presentations he makes them. I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish: a counterpoint to his truly beautiful scenes. But do we really need to be hit over the head with sexual brutality again and again? Perhaps his own culture does and, like what Mean Streets and Taxi Driver offered America in the 70's, Kim is trying to do something similar for South Korean society in the 2000 oughts. We can but hope.

Kim takes risks in showing the world the dark underbelly of contemporary Korean culture. He is to be commended for that. But he is capable of presenting so much more, and that is precisely what this film lacks. Kim needs to stop using shock as his stock in trade, and return to his more sublime talents, such as presenting unlikely heroes and heroines. Most of his viewers are, I am sure, quite over blatant scenes of sex and violence. "We get it, Mr. Kim, thank you, offer us something more. We know you can. Make those scenes MEAN something. That is what made you attractive in the first place; do not forget it."

Quickly, as an aside, if anyone supposes, simply because of the similarity of titles, that "Bad Guy" is similar to "Old Boy" by Park Chan Wook, forget it. These two films are nothing alike, except that they are both good.

This film is just good (not great) and should be received by Kim Ki Duk fans with mixed reactions.

This is not the best of movies, but I rank it high because it did it for me. Though the characters are not really presented to the viewer, they are developed through the movie by showing their actions. The plot is not really important here, and people that cling to whatever feminist or political agendas when discussing a movie are wasting everybody's time. It reminds me of an old Italian movie, I can't remember the name or actors because I've seen it when I was a kid, with a mafia boss that falls in love with a woman, kidnaps her but wants to charms her, rather that rape her. This is also about a generally violent man who's attention is captured by a beautiful girl and he also wants access to her soul, rather than her body.

The movie is full of contrasts and paradoxes, but what sets it apart is the atmosphere (I had my heart pumping a good part of the movie, without it being an action movie or anything) and the subtle way it reveals the deep needs of every character.

Its bad part, though, is that close to the end you keep expecting the movie to end and it doesn't. The slow pace of the movie doesn't help either, so a feeling of "is it over yet?" can easily set in.

I liked it, I recommend it to people who have the mood to see a psychological Asian movie about gangsters, prostitutes and the power of love.

Beauty and the Beast was an original tale written by a French author in 1756 and is considered the gold standard for "unusual" love stories.

(The best movie version of the original story was also done by a French film-maker and reviewed here by this writer -- La Belle et La Bete) I am guessing that if you go back far enough you will find many versions of equally twisted love stories through history, because love at its core is not always the stuff of Valentine cards.

This extraordinary film is about love, it is also about justice, it is also about impulse control.

It also gives a whole meaning to the term "unrequited love." I recommend it but suggest you leave your expectations at the door. Even the publicists for the film seem to have got it wrong -- the artwork for the DVD suggest a seamy sex movie and in fact that approach is completely wrong.

Amazing.