I love OldBoy

I fuckin' love it. Lovelovelovelovelovelove LOVE that movie.



So with everyone talking about TV in that film, I thought I should mention that more but what I find more interesting for myself (and in the future when we watch The Conversation) is that idea of surveillance, private/public, and emasculation not just through gazing on the television but through being gazed at by the mechanical apparatus.

Let's start with the hotel room. So here is a place where light is paradoxically both denied and allowed. Keenan talked about the Panopticon imprisoning through an excess of light, which is what occurs in a certain sense for Oh Daesuh's 15 year home; he's under constant surveillance, constant watch, and we see later the man at the desk having a television monitor peering into every room. Also, although he lacks literal windows his room contains one very important window which everyone is talking about, the TV, the window into the public world. That TV informs OhDaesu of everything he learns, but the TV in the film also shows us the spectator moments of Korean/International history happening over those 15 years (death of Princess Di, the scandal of Korean presidents, etc). So just as much as it's a nurterer, emasculator, and companion, it is also "light" bleeding from the outside to the inside, serving to make his prison public and private. So just as his entire life in the prison is public, his companion in a sense is the public conscious, Korean TV. What does Korean TV do? As everyone said before me more or less, it emasculates/hypermasculates him.

Now his life is a "larger prison". He is still watched, there is an excess of light (and color) in his new prison, his private actions are recorded, gazed at, in a sense public. He is still under panoptic gaze, still subjectified. Just as he is being followed by the diegetic gaze of the photographic camera and the recording device. But at a meta level, the film camera is also following his movements, he may or may not be on display but cannot escape our gaze, the camera gaze. At the same time, he has to enact punishment, sexuality, etc. on the female; throughout his relationship with MiDo he almost rapes her, ties her up and distrusts her, and alternates between punishing and loving her until the sexual act is commited between the two (but even then she is still punished, locked up 'for her own safety'). But those actions turn to punish HIM in turn, that those vouyeristic pleasures/fetishizations and classic hollywood romances serve as his ultimate punishment, where we finally watch the long drawn out process of the male being punished. And as we reassure that the female is castrated in classic cinema, we see OhDaesu "castrated" as he cuts out his tongue on screen. And just as the older brother in The Aimless Bullet turns away, so do we all cringe at the cutting of the tongue, perhaps the most intense moment of the film. But then what I'm not sure about is this: does Oh Daesuh enact a 'reverse' oedipal fear? Or perhaps he is afraid of MiDo realizing she's enacted some transgressive Oedipal process, that she has not followed the 'proper' Fruedian process? Or made love to an emasculated man (is somehow a deviant sexuality, not just in incest but also a homosexual)? Perhaps then his castration means less if he is already monstrous, like the crippled men of The Aimless Bullet.

See, this is just coming off the top of my head. If I sat down for like, half an hour longer I could have 15 more pages of crap to say about this movie.

In conclusion, I love OldBoy. But perhaps not as much as Sympathy for Lady Vengeance.
Good Stuff.

Sexism in Media

After reading Katie's entry, I started thinking of what she wrote.
"To me, it seems very complicated and ironic that the consumption of a classic Hollywood film depends upon that film's ability to appear masculine, to provide the male spectator with a male character, with whom to identify, and a female character to be an object? "

I had certain video in mind shown during TWTP. This video analyzed an ad for woman. It said something along the lines of " Do you often feel your breasts are too small, too big, too flabby, too pointy... Well don't worry atleast your make up will always look great. " The person presenting explained that it seems that society would however not approve of a similar ad for men. "Do you often feel your penis is too small, too big, too flabby, too pointy... " I couldn't find the video, but did randomly encounter a video analyzing how female characters are merely seen as objects in Disney movies. It's an interesting video to watch if you have the time.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CWMCt35oFY

Even More on Oldboy and TV

Looking down on what other people have written, I noticed like everyone wrote on this...but, I'll try to bring something new to the table.

Oh Dae-Su embodies in a literal way one of the principles that Joyrich talked about: his reaction to the emasculating influence of TV (and also of being held captive--not even able to decide when he would sleep, as they gassed him) is the hypermasculinity he exhibits through the rest of the film.  However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the TV not only plays an emasculating role, offering visions of mundane situations and consumerism, but also plays a role in his training, which greatly aids in his later masculinity: there is an image of a boxing match for example, and later he is shown dodging punches and throwing them himself very much in the style of a boxer at times.  So it seems the TV plays an odd dual role, both acting as tranquilizing agent of emasculation, and hypermasculine fighting instructor.

Oldboy and Hypermasculinity

One thing that really struck me about Oldboy as being hypermasculine was the way in which it granted male characters with multiple sources of sexual power. Though we commonly associate male sexuality with the penis, in Oldboy the tongue takes on a distinctly male sexual connotation. Woo-jin tells Oh Dae-su something to the effect that it was "Oh Dae-su's tongue and not Woo-jin's dick" that impregnated his sister. In this sense, when Dae-su cuts off his own tongue as an act of submission and repentance, he effectively castrates himself. This link between the penis and the tongue seems to grant males with greater sources of power - both sexual and non-sexual - with which to act upon the female. It is then easier for the male to render the female a victim.

In Joyrich's article, I had difficulty grasping this relation between consumerism and femininity. She distinguishes between the role of a producer and the role of a consumer, identifying the former as typically male and the latter as typically female. While I understand that television is more consumer-based than cinema - given commercials and the lack of commitment to a linear narrative - I had a hard time grasping cinema as something other than a product to be consumed. While Third Cinema is a clear exception, isn't classic Hollywood cinema produced primarily for the sake of consumption? Isn't commercial success a huge factor with film production and distribution? To me, it seems very complicated and ironic that the consumption of a classic Hollywood film depends upon that film's ability to appear masculine, to provide the male spectator with a male character, with whom to identify, and a female character to be an object? This seems somewhat contradictory.

Oldboy

In regard to Oh Dae-Su and the effect of the television, his relationship to it can be looked at in a number of ways. In Lynne Joyrich's article, she describes the television itself as female, with its "gaping wound" that "tapes are thrust into." Under this interpretation, the television can be seen as Dae-Su's female companion during his imprisonment, allowing him to hold on to his sense of masculinity. However, Joyrich also writes about how the television spectator is thought of as female, because of the lack of distance between the spectator and the television. The look is feminine because it "is too close to the object to maintain the gap essential to desire and full subjectivity. This way of thinking would suggest that the constant watching of televesion feminized Dae-Su, which he combated by training himself physically and becoming hyper-masculine. His desire for hyper-masculinity is also driven by the emasculation that he feels because he is so hopeless and at the mercy of his captors. This leads to his need for revenge, and the violent avenger is an archetypal masculine character. Dae-Su attempts to prove his masculinity throughout the rest of the film through extreme violence and sexual conquest. However, it is revealed at the end that ll of Dae-Su' hyper-masculinity was in fact part of Woo-Jin's plan to manipulate him. Dae-Su is again hopeless and at the mercy of Woo-Jin, begging at his feet and cutting out his own tongue. This is a particularly emasculating encounter, and the ambiguous ending leaves it unclear whether Dae-Su has regained his masculinity in the end. If the monster is truly gone, perhaps the hyper-masculine side of him is gone also.

The Stray Bullet: Spectatorial Desire for the "Other"

I find the portrayal of masculinity and of the post-colonial nation in The Stray Bullet very intriguing - a hybrid of South Korean aesthetics and Euro- American influence. Apart from the incorporation of cinematic techniques (detournement, film - noir, hollywood melodramatic tropes), the film is heavily inundated with signifiers and imageries that allude to the increasing presence of "the other" in the post-colonial era. "The other," in this case, refers to Hollywood cinema and the US - on a much broader scale than specific artistic techniques. This influence seems to play a significant role in numerous themes/ imagery choices of the film. (For example, the idea of masculinity in threat in relation to the nation in damage during post-war period.)  The notion of "spectatorial desire for the 'other' within a postcolonial setting" adds to the complexity of the national and cultural formation in the period of growing globalization. Consider the following passage by Hye Seung Chung. 

" ...not only the cross-cultural translation and adaptation of particular scenes and star-imges but also Korean audiences' unique cinephilic fixation on often overlooked Hollywood films. Korean audiences' infatuation and identification with Hollywood cinema should be historicized in the postwar cultural context rather than being simply frowned upon as a symptom of US cultural imperialism. The post- korean war generation's intense nostalgia for sentimental Hollywood melodrama is a significant indicator of the cultural displacement that occurs when spectatorial desire for the "other" operates within a postcolonial setting." 

The film, with a number of Euro- American signifiers and imageries, portrays the incoming western influence in the postcolonial setting. However, the frequency of the appearance of these imageries in the scenes particularly near the end of the film seems to suggest something more. For example, the name of the dental clinic that the protagonist helplessly sought out for - "International Dental Clinic," a place named "Bar - New York," and many other signs of stores/ restaurants in the street that indicated western identification (in korean letters). What does the director suggest through these imageries? While following the western manner of film production (techniques, scenes, etc.), the director, aware and acknowledging the korean audience's "nostalgia for sentimental hollywood melodrama," seems to lament upon this cultural displacement, the spectatorial desire for the other. In a way, the image of the protagonist rejecting the script/ actor position in opposition to the actress and the director (pipe- smoking in a rather pompous manner) seems familiar - perhaps how the director himself would appear to be at the time: as a director producing a work through an artistic medium that is primarily western- origined, facing the cultural scene of the moment - the desire of the mass for the other over the national identity/ cultural values. As a producer of this time period, it is necessary for him to accept the reality of having to follow certain conditions in order to remain being engaged in the field of cinema. Apart from the projected ideas of gender divisions, national crisis, societal issues - how do we perceive this position of the director - as an artist in struggle against the societal/ artistic expectations? (consider the history of the film - having undergone censorship by the government.) 

Shemen and Mangirls...interesting

Playing off of elizabeth's idea in Oldboy, the TV is in fact Oh Dae-Su's only companion. Though it also becomes his source of visual and sexual pleasure which intimates the TV as a purely feminine outlet of his masculine needs. The TV also in a sense becomes his mother, it nurtures him, educates him and yet he takes on a hypermasculine persona due to his building rage and aggression(could show content play a role in his development?). 

Another concept that popped into my mind was the gradual rise of big screen TV's. In our society we tend to refer to machines, such as nice cars, as being "she," due to what I assume to be their delicate nature and artistic beauty, a purely objectifying notion. This combined with our, or male obsession with big things because they are deemed as masculine and the petite as feminine creates an interesting idea: the rising popularity of big screen TVs to perhaps compensate for this concept of femininity? 

I digress...

There was a quote from Joyrich, "As dialectics collapse, the oppositions which maintain sexual difference and the stability of the sexed gaze seem to shift, if not fully disappear"(159).

This reminded me very much of Professor Chun's analysis of the shot of the "good brother" who is now a broken man, he is feminized by his emasculating situation. The shot of his legs up to his torso, a traditionally feminine shot is applied to this man along with a very depressing overture that leads to his tooth extraction and the extraction of his last shred of masculinity as well.

I'll leave you with this last image...

I was home this weekend and went to the mall with my mother and two sisters. They had a gift certificate to the GAP and I had one for Abercrombie & Fitch, both were stores we rarely shop at due to their incredibly high pricage. We parted ways and I proceeded to walk into Abercrombie. Initially, I walked in and proceeded into the female section because I honestly could not differentiate the two sides. The music was very loud and disorienting at first with various remixes and club beats that I noticed were fairly feminine. I was later redirected to the appropriate side by a female employee wearing a loose rugby shirt...I proceeded to the male side where the male employees had very tight and accentuating shirts, which felt a little awkward...especially when they started dancing to the music...after a brief period of looking I realized the most practical thing I could buy was cologne and I proceeded to smell a bottle with a half naked woman on it...I was notified that this was perfume and was directed to the cologne which depicted a half naked man on it and I felt that this was not quite right...and very confusing advertising.....I purchased the cologne and proceeded back to the gap where I waited for the females to finish picking goods....I couldn't help but notice that the female mannequin's were dressed very boyishly, and I initially took them to be men's clothing....

This all to say, do you think that TV and general consumerism utilizes feminization for economic gain...does hypermasculinity perhaps attribute to this feminization by being something accepted but unattainable for real men? Cuz I definately do....

As much as I'd love to write about the incest in Oldboy...I think my blog is long enough already

Old Boy

Throughout the film 'Old Boy', it is difficult to discern who has control over the characters. During his fifteen year incarceration, our protagonist finds himself close to the television. He finds that the television is his only real friend. The television, however, puts one in a very vulnerable position. One is distracted and separated from the outside world. It is a powerless, feminine way of looking. This seems to be a metaphor for the violent response to becoming the object of gaze, instead of the spectator who holds power. Then, our protagonist becomes a hyper-masculine character-- training and becoming almost a monster. Even though he tries to hold power... he is constantly followed and spied on upon release from his prison. Does he ever truly regain his power--masculinity-- ability to objectify rather than to be objectified?

In The Aimless Bullet, women seem less helpless than men.

I found Eunsun Cho’s argument about the crisis of Korean masculinity in The Stray Bullet to be extremely persuasive. The objectification of the wounded veteran’s bodies and the loss of the voyeuristic gaze to the American G.I.’s were both made very clear in the film.

But I thought it was interesting that in light of this crisis of masculinity, the article did not spend more time looking at the women in the film. Because while almost all of the men are depicted as overburdened and powerless (Chor-Ho), despairing (Kyong-Sik), frustrated (Yong Ho), or crazy (the poet), the young women, with the exception of Chor Ho’s wife who dies in childbirth, seem to be somewhat self-sufficient. Sor-Hui, one of Yong-Ho’s two love interests, is able to keep herself in school and pay the rent on a room because she has a job, while Yong-Ho, who was released from the army two years ago, is unable to find work. She also seems capable of wielding a gun, which is traditionally thought of as a man’s job. Myong-Suk’s prostitution, though motivated by nothing short of financial crisis, is nevertheless an independent source of income, and even without the respect of the Korean men and a marriage to her fiancé, she is, in the end, the only adult member of the family who is not dead, arrested, crazy, or passed out, bleeding, in the back of a taxi cab, which does suggest a certain strength of character and self-reliance. And Miri, Yong-Ho’s other love interest, not only has a successful career for herself, but even goes so far as to try and get Yong-Ho a job.

I wonder how this feminine self-reliance plays into the larger theme of Korean crisis of identity and occupation, and if it further affects the symbolic emasculation of the men in the film.

The Gaze in Oldboy

In viewing Oldboy I found myself drawn to the idea of self-viewing. This image reappears throughout the film: Oh Dae-Su’s hypnotism at the end of the film, his ‘watching’ his own memory self run around the campus of his school, even the motif of incest plays to this concept to some extent (who is more like the self than a relative?).
The biggest question, to me, is how does one gender self-viewing? Can one self be male, and the other female, as seems to be implied at the end of Oldboy? Is self-viewing scopophilic? Voyeuristic? Fetishistic? Narcissistic? One can read self-viewing in so many ways, that it can’t help but brings the very concept of how we analyze the gaze into question.

Television as Feminine

I'm interested in the gendering of Television as feminine discussed in Joyrich's article.  The argument she explores seems to go like this:

Women are too close to the television image (which is inextricably linked with consumerism) to assume a subjective position.  On page 158 in her discussion of McLuhan's piece, Joyrich writes, "the 'irrational' media of the electric age, particularly television, return us to the mythical form of the icon in which distance--the distance between subjects as well as distance between sign and referent--is abolished."  This sort of primitvism aligns the televisual form with the feminine.

I don't necessarily find this gendering compelling.  Certainly there have to be ways in which Television is masculine.  Gaze aside, perhaps TV can be seen as an imposition into the household, implanting images from the outside into the domestic sphere.  There's something phallic there, right?  Maybe?

This gendering is also complicated by the existence of Spike TV and Lifetime Television for Women.  BET, for example, emerged with the assumption that television was inherently white, so if television is inherently anything with regard to gender, why does a market exist for both special men's and women's programming.

All that said, if I had to choose a gender for Television, it would likely be feminine.  But, as Joyrich says, "while such tropes of analysis are seductive, they are also potentially dangerous."  I think we need to continue to question whether television is feminine before we start operating under that assumption.

Macho Man

It seems that through out both films, the characters are trying to prove their masculinity.


Take for example Yong-ho's acting audition where he is enraged at the director using his wounds to sell the movie. Since actors are clearly used to sell a movie, we know the reason Yong-ho is mad is not the one he claims. Instead he is mad at being the object looked upon. In allowing people to see him wounded, or in Cho's words, in allowing "a mark of his impaired masculinity, to be spectacularized on the screen." Then Yong-ho tries to regain his masculinity by robbing a bank thus trying to become an outlaw hero, a very manly image.

There are other areas where there is gender role reversal, and the man are in a position usually occupied by the female. Ch'or-ho constantly suffering from family crisis or his rotten tooth, Yong-ho being the object of gaze, and even Myong-suk's fiancee losing his leg.

It seems that the character's delay into regaining their masculinity brings about trouble. Mi-ri, for example, cannot see Yong-ho until he has obtained a job. Ch'or-ho's trouble also seem to end once his impairment, his tooth, is fixed.

What I'm trying to say is that masculinity seems necessary for things to go right and the characters fantasize in obtaining this by imitating Western/Hollywood stereotypes.
I think Cho summarizes it best in the following:

" The Yong-ho plot is therefore , the representation of the fantasy of a South Korean man who dreams of regaining his lost masculinity by identifying himself with a male figure modeled on Hollywood iconography. [...] The colonized male who is feminized and disempowered by the colonizer fantasizes his empowerement through mimicry of the image of the colonizer, believing that he can recuperate his masculinity through irritation."

It seems this is necessary in cinema and perhaps society too. Alot of people seem to look at Hollywood for an adequate standard. In one of Luis Urrea's books, Across the Wire, Urrea speaks of orphan children living in "dompes" or landfills in Tijuana, Mexico. To help these kids Urrea and friends got a company to donate shoes. Unfortunately none of these shoes matched so Von, one of Urrea's friends, devised a plan to get the boys to wear the shoes. Since mismatched shoes seemed to hurt the boys' masculinity, they told the boys that mismatched shoes was a trend in Hollywood and that all the actors were wearing them. Urrea and friends also started wearing mismatched shoes.

In this situation, the male ego is impaired (the kids have no shoes), and the problem seems to be fixed when they start imitating what they believe is the Hollywood standard.