MovieChat Forums > Binjip (2004) Discussion > the scale and the jail cell? (spoiler)

the scale and the jail cell? (spoiler)



spoilers below



as pointed out by one of the review comments, how do we interpret the zero scale at the end? are they both ghost, and all these are really imaginations?

also, tae-suk was put into a solitary cell, is this supposed to be a normal cell or one for death penalty?
i remember in 'bad guy' it is the similar type of jail cell but i forgot if those in death penalty were put in soliatry cell....
also strange the cell has no bed and nothing inside.
can people who has watched more films on korean jail cell layout confirm?

reply

well, i took the zero as meaning "the complete each other" like a yin and a yang i suppose. i guess it can be interpreted in many different ways. as for the cell, i took it as him being in solitary confinement. if he on death row, he wouldn't have been released.

reply

[deleted]

She knew her weight and his weight and fixed the scale so it would indicate 0 when they were on it together. So only together, they're complete.

reply

That doesn't make sence. Why would she do that? First time she weighted herself she was 47, second time about 57, so I guess she just fixed what is broken. Like he did.
Besides, she couldn't see his height, she was too far from him, I guess.

reply

Basically the balance would always show a "negative" number (still positive but like 110kg when there's no one on it) when they both stand on it, it goes back to 0... The beginning of everything (0+1=1) or the end of everything (1-1=0). Thats my interpretation. :)



"Why are you worrying about your beard... when you're about to lose your head?"

reply

i took the zero scale to mean that they are in perfect balance. in a way that they cancel each other out, if that makes sense.

reply

Why would he be set on death penalty? That makes no sense. He was put on solitary bbecause he was a "trouble maker"... he was with prisoners until he gets into a fight.
Besides there are lots of references in the movie that confirms he's out of jail, the husbands mentions twice that she's waiting for him to get pout, and that he'll wait as well, and then he recieves the phone call confirming his release.
There's no need to see other korean movies with cells to understand the scenes... just use your head.

+ The sharper is the berry, the sweeter is the wine +

reply

there are people who see the last scenes (esp zero weight) as afterdeath.

and the husband could have bribed police to frame him as a murderer. otherwise, her should have been released long ago.

reply

It is my understanding after having watched the movie today that the husband bribed the police to bring him out there so that he could get his revenge via the golf balls. What the main character does afterwards to the police officer is what landed him in jail for the time thereafter.

The cell that he landed in IS a solitary confinement sell, and one of the previous poster's comment about no beds was correct. Korean jails suck.

When you here the man comment that 'he's out now', they use the korean word for released from prison, so he didn't die in prison or they wouldn't have said that.

<shrug> as to the ending, it's my belief that they adjusted the scale so that they would balance out at zero together on it. If either one of them had died, the husband wouldn't have been acting the way that he did.

reply

I disagree, my perspective was that he DID die in jail. He continues to taunt the prison guard by hiding until the final time with the golf balls where the guard snaps and calls for backup. They then lead him away, and my interpretation was that they killed him, and he came back as a ghost for the rest of the movie who could only be seen by the woman. You can argue either way or another way still, it's purposely left ambigious.

reply

The main problem with the "he died in jail" approach is one line given by the woman's husband after he gets off the cell phone and tells her something like "He's out now. I dare that bastard to come." I also thought initially that he died in jail but my friend reminded me of that comment. I still hold, however, that he is dead by the end of the movie.

reply

it's not that hard to understand, think simple

the jail part of the movie was just him practicing his sneaking skill.
then he got out of the jail, attacked the cop WITH GOLF BALLS, and tried his skill on other people.
then he finally got back to that girl and used his sneaking skill on her husband.
there's no ghost in this movie, the scale showed 0 means that together they are complete. (or just the girl's imagination, which makes the movie weird)
in the movie, the guy weights 65, and the girl is 46, togethr they are 111, no way the scale can go all the way back to 0, it's just something to mess with your head.



for those of you that want to believe there's ghost in the movie, then that means he died in the jail, and his spirit attacked the cop with...golf balls from the other world, and then his spirit went to other people's houses and messed with them.
finally his spirit got back to the girl hid behind her husband
it would be more convincing if the scale in the end of the movie only shows the girl's weight.

reply

one (not me) can argue the gal is also dead......or is it the gals' feet stepped on the guy's? that could also explain the zero weight.

reply

I also think there was no ghost... It would complicate the story. The guy just gained in the prison the sneaking skill and then he used it. Simple - maybe close to martial arts movies - but I suppose in Korea they also admire kung-fu and stuff.
And the zero weight I understood as a symbol of perfection, maybe the above mentioned completeness - but again - the girl played with the scales before and being both of them ghost would bring another questions why and when both of them died.
In my opinion the movie was quite simple, surprising maybe, but based on reality.

reply

[deleted]

in fact , the guard gives him all the tecnique:

-The shadow
-180% view
-And the most important:"intelectual"
(Maybe that's why she speaks, "I Love You", "the brakefast it's served", the husband was so happy that he is distracted about the guy)

reply


(Maybe that's why she speaks, "I Love You", "the breakfast it's served", the husband was so happy that he is distracted about the guy)
--

These she spoke were completely for the guy, not the husband, and the husband didn't realise this at all.

The guy perfected the art of being a ghost to strangers by visiting their homes while they were on vacation, but there was always a risk that he'd get caught. He seemed to be frustrated by that. Experiencing a stranger's home life seems to be his idea of paradise (he has a college degree and such yet he chose to be a homeless drifter).

I think the woman's presence caused problems for him, he wanted her in his life but it'd mean giving up his search for, maybe, some kind of a spiritual paradise.

In prison he took the art of being a ghost to next level (thanks to the prison guard). Right to the point where he can be there for the woman in her own home.

I still don't understand the presence of golf balls, though. I think it's to do with the fact that golfing has almost everything to do with the laws of physics.

Once you know or understand the laws of physics, you can do everything and anything your heart desires. His ability to be a ghost enables them to have a world of their own, even when her husband was around. Their world is a perfect unity, hence the zero in the end. Zero could mean perfection and infinity. Some kind of nirvana. It's a dodgy guess, but that's the best I can come up with.

I don't agree, though, that the guy is dead. I am not sure where some got this idea from. The prison guard was brutal, but not stupid.

reply

This is hilarious!!!! people debating on was/were the main caharacter(s) dead or not!!! Who gives a *beep* People just interpet it the way they like... There is no "true" answer to the mentioned question. Interpeting a movie or any piece of art is SUBJECTIVE not OBJECTIVE.... Just makes me think about the classic saying "People always want to be right!"

reply

actually when the girl stepped on the scale the second time, right before she "fixed" it, it showed 56

reply

[deleted]

the guard tells him that the human eyes sees 180 degrees
so wherever he is, he always has a full sense of everyting around him

reply

[deleted]

Lot of people laugh at the 'ghost occurance' idea. Call it a mis (over)interpretation. I don't really understand that. I'm not a ghost lover and i'm not seeking for any extra meanings. Just from the begining, watching the movie I lost this sense of reality,

My guess comes from from a tottaly different point of issue. Why would the 'sneaking theory' be any more realistic then the 'ghost theory'. The movie is all magic. From the very begining till the very end. How it's narrated suggests that the viewer abandons his realistic standpoint. What if the boy isn't real/alive from the very begining ?

Some find it ridicoulos to believe he's dead in the final scenes. I find it ridicoulos to discuss whether he died in prison or just mastered his sneaking skills. It doesn't make real differrence, just as there is no need to determine whether he's dead or not. It's the girl's happiness that matters, it's her finding her complition.

As for the scale. You got a great spectrum of possible interpretation here. But you shouldn't feel too comfortable with any of them. This is the director's aim. It's pure transcendency. It not only exceeds the rules of 'inner movie' logic, but also your interpretation. It's not that your theories are equal, or that it's possible to compare them. They are just very much aside. Meaningless. In fact they may all be true.

Whatever you may think of it, it'll always be more.

reply

[deleted]

if he did die, and the end of the movie was him as a ghost, then why do we actually see his hands move the cushion? in all the other places he revisted, we do not see him at all which suggests that he is a ghost, but then you see his hands moving the cushions which means he's not a ghost afterall

reply

We don't see his hands, we only see the cushion being moved.

reply

Well if you want to argue he's still alive (which is a valid point of view) I think you have to at the very least allow that he's attained a higher level of consicessness or something. He isn't simply sneaking around by staying behind peoples backs perfectly, people look directly at him and don't see him (look at the scene in the photographers apartment) so it's not like he just gotten good at sneaking. And I noticed the husbands line too, thats why I can't claim to be sure. Personally I think both he and the girl are dead by the end, but one thing no ones mentioned yet to my surprise is that it's entirely possible the scale has simply been adjusted to read 0 at their combined weights. They could have just used same method as earlier in the movie to tinker with the scale, maybe that's the simple explanation.

reply

Well if she's dead (too) then how does her husband sees and touches her?


I think people are trying too hard to come up with scenarios where both characters (dead or not dead) end up together after so much misfortune, but since this is a film by Kim, I found the ending satisfying.

reply

bump

reply

They could have just used same method as earlier in the movie to tinker with the scale


well....he fixed the scale at another apt earlier. he didnt tinker with the scale at all.
but we did see the lady 'fixed' the scale at her own home though.

as to KKD's ending 'being together', in their own way. yes, it is consistent with his style --- see 'bad guy'

reply

Actually he tinkered with the scale in her house. There's even a shot of her watching him while he takes the scale apart and then after he has put it back together, she tries it and steps on it.

Then near the end of the movie, she is taking the scale apart again and "fixing" it, so i'll go with the explanation that she changed the scale so that when they were both on it it would read zero.

reply

People have already mentioned this three times. I really don't understand where you people got these wacko ideas about dead people.

reply

I agree. Too much weird thinking, guys. It's really great, metaphorical and touching movie, that's all.

reply

[deleted]

Because this is a spoiler topic, i think i can post my question here:

What is the significant meaning of the scene where the main character shoots a golfball fixed to a tree and it comes loose, the ball then flies through the window of a car and a woman dies/ is injured.

Is there a deeper meaning to this or just a silly accident?

- if you could help me out, that would be great.

reply

[deleted]

A couple a friends and I had discussed that for a few days after seeing the film and the best that I could come up with is that when the ball comes loose it's the only time that she doesn't reposition herself in it's path, further reinforcing their need to be with each other/the balance they bring to each other. Though it seems to be a bit of an extreme way of showing that.

reply

I thought it could about failure of communication. Before the golf ball went loose I thought, she wanted to tell him, that he should spend time with her instead of that stupid game, or maybe that she wanted to test him if he would strike anyway if she's standing in front of the ball (maybe even wanting to get hit, as she might be masochistic, staying with that husband).

But after this accident I thought, that maybe this was exactly what she wanted to tell him: don't do that, it's dangerous.
-> Misunderstandings happen if you communicate with words, but also without words.

reply

I personally canot come to a certain ending on this movie because it gets a litle too controversial because it can go anyway. Personally i think that the whole movie is a dream of the woman. She was abused by her husband multiple times and thus she breaks down into a imaginary world, or a false reality basically. Or in another way it could have been that the wife died as a result of the husbands abuse and inbetween life and death she imagines herself with a saviour. Someone who takes her away from her abusive husband and takes him with her. The human mind cannot fully imagine everything outside of the ordinary so her explanation in her mind of how everything pans out is that he becomes like a ghost and is able to sneak around and they are able to live with each other. 0 meaning complete, equal, then the movie ends. She has found her ending...Her life is Complete with him. Hence 0.

reply

i originally watched this movie during an analytical viewing of film class, and the golf ball coming loose was an example of his unintetnional violence on an undeserving recipient. he was not generally violent towards those who didn't deserve it, except for the guy in the jail cell that stole his imaginary golf ball.

and on the subject of him being alive or dead...he was alive, yet just refined himself enough to be invisible to those he didn't want to see him. he reached a form of enlightenment, in a way.

reply

I just saw this film with a friend and we discussed at length the "was he a ghost" question, which led us to another possible conclusion (based on the quote at the end about being able to distinguish reality) - possibly the entire story is her's. Could it be that she imagined him and their story together as a way of dealing with her life?

reply

sound very plausible :) esp given the end comment line

reply

Yeah one thing I discussed at length with my friend who saw it with me is the possibility that part of the story is a dream. Especially given end the end quote it's entirely possible at one point in the movie we stop seeing reality and start seeing the dream of one of the characters, possibibly because the real outcome was too hard to accept. In the end it's impossible to know though, which I'm sure is at least partially the point, and honestly it doesn't really matter, because the meaning stays the same no matter what.

reply

I don't quite really notice what they weighs.
Let's say if the guy weighs 65, and the girl weighs 46, together they are 111.
How about adding a baby making up to 130 /140, ie. zero in the scale.

It's a paradoxically play by the director. 140 / 0 is reality. "0" also means "complete" / "nothing" as in Buddhist conception., as per all his movies, esp Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter.

reply

I don't understand why people are debating this.

It seemed pretty straight forward to me, I've watched it a few times aswell and I believe it should just be taken at face value.

He trains in prison and improves his hiding skills.

We aren't sure how long he was in prison for, could have had a few years to train

We also know that the husband is away a lot on business so presumably everything just seems normal to him.

Well isn't this place a geographic oddity. Two weeks from everywhere.

reply

I can't beleive you can say he's simply sneaking well given some of the post jail scenes. In the scene where he visits the garden house we see a pillow being moved but we can't see him despite the camera looking directly at the whole couch. That isn't good hiding, that's invisibility. Reminds me of when Spring Summer Winter Fall and Spring came out and people claimed the fact that the old monk was able to move the boat without touching it or cross the lake without getting wet was simply a plot hole or trick or something. I think the ending is definately open to interpretation, but the idea he simply had good sneaking skills makes no sense to me.

reply

You don't see the pillow move with no one touching it.

I'm well aware that KKD fills his films with symbolism but to think that he's a ghost is far more ridiculous than assuming he was just good at sneaking and hiding.

There are scenes where you actully see him doing this, ie. the meal at the end when he pinches the husbands food.

Seriously, he's not dead, he's not a ghost, so just get over it, it's an amazing film but people are seeing too much into things that aren't there


Well isn't this place a geographic oddity. Two weeks from everywhere.

reply

You don't see a pillow move without anyone touching it? Are you going to explain that statement or just deny the scene im speaking of existed? It did move, there was no one there, and I've yet to see an alternate explanation for how if he isn't a ghost or capable of invisibility.

reply

The pillow that was moved was the leftmost pillow. Half of it was off-screen. He was simply off-screen to the left when he moved it (towards him). Your earlier claim that during this time "the camera [was] looking directly at the whole couch" is false.

As for the scale reading zero, I can't believe how many people have ignored the scene where she tinkers with it.

reply

well basically guys, the guy is not a ghost. I have seen the movie and saw the sypnosis in korean (i'm korean) and it said that he learns to become like a ghost by training. So he just becomes ridiculously good at sneaking why the hell would he die no one killed him. but the ending is just a mysterious one to screw with your head. anyways I really like the movie. very unusual, unique one.

reply

So summarizing...

He does not die in prison because he attacks the corrupted policeman with the golf-balls...

He does not die later either because we can see him eating from the husband's plate in the end...

The girl is not dead either...Unless the husband has gone crazy (-:

He just perfected his movements. In jail, we are left to believe that he just dissappeared, but after a few moments we could see him. The policeman said something about the 180 degrees and the human vision...that's why he couldn't see him...Ghosts do not eat from people's plates or move pillows to sleep better... (at least that's my understanding until today!)...

The scale thing...someone here said that in Budhism it represents completion...we can also see her "fixing" the scale towards the end...it could mean a lot of things but this does not mean that he dies or he is a ghost or the girl dies as well...

Great film...

reply

it's not that hard to understand, think simple

the jail part of the movie was just him practicing his sneaking skill.
then he got out of the jail, attacked the cop WITH GOLF BALLS, and tried his skill on other people.
then he finally got back to that girl and used his sneaking skill on her husband.
there's no ghost in this movie, the scale showed 0 means that together they are complete. (or just the girl's imagination, which makes the movie weird)
in the movie, the guy weights 65, and the girl is 46, togethr they are 111, no way the scale can go all the way back to 0, it's just something to mess with your head.


for those of you that want to believe there's ghost in the movie, then that means he died in the jail, and his spirit attacked the cop with...golf balls from the other world, and then his spirit went to other people's houses and messed with them.
finally his spirit got back to the girl hid behind her husband
if he's dead, why he still needs to hide?
if the guy is dead, wouldn't it be more convincing if the scale in the end of the movie only shows the girl's weight?


people that think way too deep into the film are just stupid, while the film basically explains itself.
it's a great film with many symbols in the movie, however...people that think the guy and the girl both died in the end of the movie should never watch this kind of film again, cuz it's too complicated for them.
by the way, after the guy got out of jail, the only person that saw him face to face was the girl. whoever said the girl's husband couldn't see him face to face should just go to bed and cry himself to sleep.

reply

people that think way too deep into the film are just stupid, while the film basically explains itself.
it's a great film with many symbols in the movie, however...people that think the guy and the girl both died in the end of the movie should never watch this kind of film again, cuz it's too complicated for them.
Basically, I agree with you, I too think that the film is pretty self-explanatory and straightforward enough. I never thought that any of the two main characters died, or that the story was entirely or in part a dream/fantasy. But the fact that some people seem to think just that demonstrates how Kim manipulated a fairly simple story to a level of ambiguity that lends itself to different interpretations. In other words, it's a relatively straightforward affair without necessarily going down the obvious path. And it is in this regard that I value this subtle approach to providing the viewer with what he/she really wants to see in the film.

"People who think way too deep into the film" aren't stupid, they are probably doing what the director intentioned them to do in a certain way. What I mean is that you can take what Kim portrays here at face value, something which is completely satisfying in and of itself--or you can choose to construe your own reasoning based on the facts on display. You are cleverly invited to do what suits you best, not forced to subscribe to any single view--it works either way, and this is the film's true genius IMO.

"Now you shall dance to our tune 'til you bleed. You shall dance ompa 'til you die."

reply

What Divina said. Frankly I think YOU are way off base, but since the movie is purposely ambiguous I'm not going to argue with you. But honestly if you think a movie that ends with a scale showing 0 and then a quote saying it's hard to determine what's real and what is not isn't open to interpretation I don't know what to say to you.

reply

I know somebody mentioned it, but if you have the Korean version of the film, the extras explain he trained to become like a ghost, or something along those lines (I don't know any Korean, and the person translating the extras for me doesn't speak the best english). She was fairly clear that the guy was alive.

I also feel that he may have achieved a higher level of existence. It wouldn't be the first time a character has done that in one of Kim Ki-duk's films. The yogi in Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring, for example, could walk across water and was telekinetic.

reply

[deleted]

It seems that you are quite analytical in your comments.

I thought the movie was not deep at all. When I came out of the movie theater I felt insulted because I thought someone was making fun of my intellect.

The developement of the meaning is really hollow and in teh end its no more than a very dumb love story. It is not dumb because of what the movie tries to tell us, but because of HOW it tries to tell us. There are some interesting ideas, and the story would probably have received a good grade in 10th grade in a foreign language. But I'm sorry I am not 16 anymore.

1. all secondary actors were not so great and some were awfull. And please Do not argue that this was purpose, as it is about a deeper meaning. The Husband was bad, the first couple in the appartment was horrible, the boxer couple were cheesy.

2. There are points in the story which to me which look more like someone did not have an original idea how to tell it, so he uses unrealistic scenes and tries to hide the obvious fact that it is unoriginal behind the curtain of: it's supposed to be unrealistic. Now I do agree that movies do not need to be realistic. But then at least it should use a lot of imagination. The folowing scenes to me were a complete lack lack of imagination and some of them were a straight forard mistake in the Storyline:
- The first couple coming home throwing their bags theatrically on the floor to point out they have a bad marriage,
- the tea ceremony before their first kiss (it's being done a thousand times and with much more feeling to it),
- the boxing champion returning home and let them go (why? Because they havn't stolen anything? That's so cheesy and besides he comes in, realizes that someone is in the bed and the first thing he says to his wife is 'please check if anything is missing', 'no honey nothings gone', 'why are you in our bed if you are not stealing anything' that's horrible! It's stupid and not even a relevant question. It is a bit like teling the people viewing the movie: pplease ask yourself why he is in the apartment without stealing anything. It reminds me of these movies in biology: the butterfly is landing on a flower... Grow up!)
- the whole prison scene looks like karate kid learning how to hide and the guard is very stupid and lets him learn... It is not well acted. I can believe Choy Yung Fat when he does this, but for some reason I do not believe this kid and again the prison guard is even worse then Arnold Schwarzennegger: "I will be back and the next time I will kill you".
- the scene in which they take care of the guy who died: again it does not need to be realistic, but the director is not really making himself a lot of work to explain why they should take care of the old man without help from outside... I'm not saying that they should leave or that they should use outside help... But just staying there and letting you decide why shows that this was not thought through. There isn't even a subtel suggestion why. In my opinion it looks more as if the director had no clear picture and just leaves everything else to the people watching. It is very simple to write such a storyline! Anybody can do that.
- now it might be bad translation, but how about this: the son of the dad man comes back and tells them to "stay where they are" then calls the police and says: "please come to my dads apartment" (who´s apartment, and yeah, you just see someone who you think just killed your dad and you just tell him to stay where they are, you pick up the phone ... Come on). Or how about this: Second police officer telling the inspector: "after all I think he is a good guy" or the jealos husband telling his wife out of the blue: "from now on I will be good to you" - this is so cheesy. And clumsy! I cannot take a movie serious if the few things people say is worse then a dialoge in Rambo IV
- apparently it is OK for a Korean to make movies where the status of women are being put back 50 years. Yes in the end she gives her husband a slap on the face. But she still obeys him: no sepparation, nothing. Again, no part of the "deep" meaning, but this would have been under massive critique if it had been a western movie.... Esp. as it is obviously during the modern times.
- the scene where "the Kid" kills someone with the golf ball. He cries for 2 seconds and then the scene is forgotten about. Completely. I am not saying that they should run away from the police jumping from one roof to the other and finally jumping on his motorcycle to drive away. No, this situation is just being disregarded during his judgement. Of coure he did not do it on purpose, but if he is being judged almost godlike ("he is not such a bad guy"), then he should be juged for carelessly killing someone - this is a logic mistake in the movie. Now of course the police might not know who killed the woman in the car - I am saying though that in this kind of movie, everything should come down at the end (like in 2046 or In the mood for love for example) ... But it is as if this does not matter to the the director - but it does! Thus, it is a completely useless scene. Same with the box champion cathing them in bed. It's useless - there is no point. It just raises questions and reduces the quality of the movie to a movie which a 6 year old would have made: only come back to the points you want your hero to be judged by, forget all other things.

The last point is actually the main part of my critique, or lets say it is the biggest mistake. The director uses symbolics and then suddendly he uses realistic approches if one part of the movie does not fit into the rest. As long as "the Kid" stays in a good picture, this is being analyzed during "judgement day" (the police officer is being bribed, this does not make him a good cop, but they do point out an emotional-judgement by saying that "he is good". But then they make this judgement and allthough they can identify the apartments straight away because of some digicam pictures, the accident is not being analyzed! It looks like a clean sheet, but its not! Allthough it is not murder he still commited man slaughter. And its not one of those where one runs around the corner to pick up the phone rinning streight into his best friend with a citchen knife - no he plays with a golfball on the street. But then of course this is not part of the "deep meaning" of the movie I suppose).


Now I must give the movie one credit: Aparently many people liked it and this made me think a lot about this movie. But the above mentioned points make it all in all a very mediocre movie.

It might be deep on the surface, it names the philosophies, but it does not explain them. Therefore the core is very hollow. Yes there is ying and yang, yes their love is being developed without words and yes one can argue whether he is alive or dead (allthough quite obviously alive - but it does not matter, as they would love each other even if dead, love is therefore eternal, probably the only thing which is eternal: not even the golf balls are :D). It has some Tao element in it; but it scratches all these on the surface and that is an insult to these very interesting philosophies and to many great Asian Movies...

reply

..ok? This thread actually had nothing to do with "post if you liked the movie or not" but thanks for the info I guess.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't really read your comment, but my eye caught this:
"Allthough it is not murder he still commited man slaughter."

Which convinces me even more not to read your comment because:
They did not contribute in any way to the death of the man in the apartment. It is stated quite clearly that the man died of lung disease, and even if you missed that part, the man is shown lying on the floor with a puddle of blood around his head when the couple first goes into the apartment, making it quite obvious that he was dead way before they entered his home.

reply

He was refering to the woman in the car injured by his golf ball, though I doubt she died as it hit the front of her head and the impact wouldn't have been deadly (Correct me if im wrong).

As for the whole ghost debate, I think its quite clear he has simply perfected sneaking skills. Not only are we shown a large section of the movie with him 'training' his stealth but everytime a person 'sees' him after he is released from prison the camera purposefuly blocks a section of the screen where he could be hiding (Such as the moving pillow... part of the pillow is off-screen so it would be easy for him to just be moving it with his hand.)

Also, a lot of the shots in these scenes show the camera behind a persons head following there head movements as if you're looking through his eyes sneaking behind them like he did in prison.

It would make no sense for him to go back to those houses as a Ghost. Why would he? The only reason I can see for him returning to those houses is to test his sneaking skills. Why would he mess the sofa up if he was a Ghost? Did he randomly turn into a Poltergeist? No, he was seeing if he could get away with rearranging the sofa without being spotted. If her husband spotted him, it could lead to violence, prison or maybe death, so it makes sense that he wants to be extra careful while sneaking begind him.

Just before the end we see the girl fiddling with the scales again. He had already fixed them, and this scene is in the movie for a reason so I find it fairly obvious that she was adjusting the scales to read 0 when they both stood on them.

When you think back, there is VERY little evidence for him being dead. How did he die? He was in prison for being a trouble maker, hardly a violently punishable offence. The prison guards 'I'll kill you next time' talk was just normal speech... im sure you've said similar things in stressfull or angry situations. Not only this, but the husband received a phone call telling him he has been released. What more do you want? You can look at all of the little things and come to the conclusion that it is slightly possible he is dead, but when it is so blatantly shown that he isn't it is a pointless conclusion to a movie that offers a tiny bit of musing, but ultimately answers itself. Either that or he trained to be sneaky, died anyway, went to peoples houses and haunted them, went to his lovers house, continued to unnecessarily sneak around using his unnecessarily trained sneaking from prison behind the husbands back despite being an invisible ghost, and eat her husbands food (Like ghosts do). Sounds a little unlikely.

reply

I agree. And for all you people who think this is a ghost story, let's remember first and foremost that it is a movie which has been carefully edited. Textually, it would not make sense for the prison sequence to build upon the theme of "sneaking" if the character is about to be executed.

reply

to: hellospencer

k, not gonna make fun of your intellect, but i would like to insult your 'heart', cause to me it seems you prefer intellect above heart. i read in your comment you find a lot of scenes 'useless', to me, your whole comment is pretty USELESS as what i get out of it is that you just searched hopelessly for examples to just bash on this movie. your point 1. who's to say who is a good actor or not in asian movies, they act very differently than more western actors, since you don't speak the language you cannot define solely on that and neither on their mimicing performance cause like i said: asian actors use very different (and somewhat strange to us westerners) way of acting. i wondered for instance a lot about japanese people, are they really like that in real life as they are portraid in japanese movies? who knows, anyway it's not up to us to judge foreign actor's skills or lack of them.
every point you made in 2. i can reject with ease, not gonna waste my time on that just a few:
- The first couple coming home throwing their bags theatrically on the floor to point out they have a bad marriage,

who says it's to show they have a bad marriage? it just states they had a bad trip (that was SUCH a USELESS comment, THE perfect example why i just know you were only looking too hard for stuff to bash on Bin Jip)

your 'tea ceremony' comment is the second proof of that. who cares if it's done before, it's their bloody culture come on! and every one films it as THEY perefer to ok!

the boxing champion couple returning: he finds them, he finds out nothing was stolen, he's just puzzled by that and well, when confused, people don't find the time to look for the perfect sentence to speak eloquently, that's real life, he just stumbles out these first words that come to mind. think about all the stupid non-sensical blurrings that come out when you try to make contact with a person you like a lot just because you're confused and are not familiar with that? this is what happened to the champ

the prison/learning to hide comment: USELESS USELESS USELESS you've seen to many chow yung fat movies i guess so yeah, you're disappointed by this. i'm not into martial arts flicks so I wouldn't know about that, just leave me with the amusement i get with this rather funny scene, cuz that's just what it is, not pretentious 'zen'-lesson BS like you obviously thought it was (cuz seeing it like that yeah, it would've failed). i even think it's more of a parody to those kung-fu schmung-fu *beep* films anyway

taking care of the dead guy comment: geez you think too much, really! again i state the cultural point of view. also: every time he breaks into an appartement he fixes things, cleans up n stuff, this time there's a dead man in the appartement, it's only logical that he cleans up this mess as well, don't you think? no broken clocks, but a dead man bleeding all over the place. LOGIC LOGIC LOGIC

"you just see someone who you think just killed your dad and you just tell him to stay where they are, you pick up the phone ... Come on" wtf? he comes in, he sees the couple, doesn't know where his dad is, do you really think the first thing popping up in this guy's head is that the couple KILLED his dad? my turn to say 'come on'! it's a couple ffs who don't even speak! that would be pretty pre-judgemental wouldn't it. you go visit your dad whome you haven't reached for a while, come in at his place and find a mute couple without a trace of your dad, if you tell me that YOU would immediately assume they killed your dad and would bash in their heads though you're not even sure that's what happened, then my friend you're not only heartless but also plain DUMB. so yeah, I would tell them to stay put and then call the police. LOGIC

woman status of the 50's comment: CUL-TURE

and last: it is NOT certain if the woman in the car is dead or not! further more, why should that have returned in the story? nothing points out to them as the culprits, apparently there were no eye-witnessess so they get away with it, that's what happens. and if you are familiar with kim ki-duk's work you know not everything gets more attention than just that one scene. with some things you get away, like that golf-ball accident, for another case for which you are innocent you get arrested for! that is the point for that scene/subject and not re-occuring anymore during the rest of the film. imo

and my last but biggest annoyance of your utter pointless and useless post is this: "In my opinion it looks more as if the director had no clear picture and just leaves everything else to the people watching. It is very simple to write such a storyline! Anybody can do that" well i dare you on that one, write me one of those. you make a movie with such powerfull imagery, filled with feelings and heart, leaving out just the right elements so the viewer can think of all sorts of meanings that would be equally plausible yet giving enough to well/weild (how do you write this? dammit) it all together into a poetic lovestory. a great movie leaves the watcher stuff to think about, leaves things open for personal interpretation. Bin Jip does that perfectly.

your problem is that you want to think too much here and block your feelings. for some movies you just have to turn of that thinking machine and have a good laugh (dumb comedies like dodgeball n american pie *yuck*) or enjoy the visuals (even dumber action flicks like fantastic four or whatever). well, for some movies you have to shut down your thinking machine and let your heart absorb it. this is one of the latter. it's pure from the heart and for the heart. is there a deeper meaning to Bin Jip? yes there is, but it's not something you'll find by analysing it from top to bottom but from feeling it, sensing it. you've been looking at this film from the wrong angle pal. grow a heart.

ABOUT THE OTHER POSTS: damn i've rarely seen such ridiculous crap written about a movie as here: the main characters being dead? omg! there is not ONE indication in the whole movie where one could even think one of them is dead, where do you come up with this? (about this, inaudible whispers86 nails it right in his/her comment) again, people who try to think too much about the movie. feel - don't think, and you'll enjoy this one much more.

sense ya later. M9

"Power to the people who punish bad cinema!!" - Cecil B. Demented for president!!

reply

Well done! Good reply. I was also furious with the comment: "In my opinion it looks more as if the director had no clear picture and just leaves everything else to the people watching. It is very simple to write such a storyline! Anybody can do that" and you explained so well why it is not so at all. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

An actor's a guy who, if you ain't talking about him, ain't listening (Marlon Brando)

reply

Hey! Well you posted your comment like two years ago but I read it and I thought that maybe I would like to discuss it with you. I agree with you on some aspects. I mean if you watch a lot of J-horror (I know, I have no life) then you begin to notice that they never make any sense. I mean, not in a this-has-some-deeper-meaning way but instead in the I'm-purposely-going-to-make-no-sense-to-make-the-audience-believe-this-actually-makes-sense way. Although I don't too much agree with you on your rationalizations about some of the scenes I must say that I completely agree with you when you said that this had a nice plot but could have been improved better. I mean, the whole "not talking" thing was a good idea. Even the plot of having someone breaking into people's homes is kind of original. I just felt like at some parts they were unnecessarily stupid. Did you get that feeling too? I mean, at the part when the dead guy's son called I thought "man they better get out of there. He'll probably come by if he knows that his dad just answered and hung up," and I thought they would leave but they just stayed there!! And if you notice in more than half of the houses they break into something goes wrong. After awhile you think he would realize it wasn't working for him. I kind of understood where you were coming from about the whole setting back women thing but after watching all of the Asian dramas I have I always thought that, that was in fact just their culture. That's all I really have to say. I just think that sometimes people get kind of crazy on these boards and I thought that I actually wanted to have a "intellectual debate" with someone...even if you'll never get this.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Even though hellospencer posted this 3 years ago, I'm still annoyed enough to reply to the comments.

The whole situation with the abusive relationship between the woman and her husband does not indicate anything about a woman's status or culture. While there are differences in cultures, where they may believe a woman should be more submissive, but you're completely ignoring how people react to abusive relationships. If you knew anything about these situations, you would know that a lot of women tend to stay with their partners even through years of abuse, so this kind of scene could occur (and does) here in the US. After time, they may think there's no point in fighting back, just as the woman did early on. Her silence in the beginning also shows how subdued she was because of this. After returning home, her slap shows that she is more "empowered" and won't sit back feeling hopeless.

Also, I'd like to say that since you obviously don't know Korean (or anything about Korea), the skill of the translator is more important than the lines in the movie. A bad translator can turn the most elegant words and phrases into a pile of crap. If things are translated word for word, then it will sound like horrible writing, but a good translator will "rewrite" the lines to sound natural in the language it's being presented. Since you said you've seen "many great Asian Movies," I'm surprised you still don't understand that. To me, the lines sounded natural, but reading the examples you gave, it did sound horrible. I was fortunate enough to watch a different version than you, where all the lines were done well.

I don't feel like going through all the points mentioned, but it seemed like most of them were already covered with the previous replies. I'd like to add that all the points you bring up makes it seem like you didn't really pay attention to the movie anyway.

reply

I think Kim Ki-Duk deliberately left his movie open to interpretation. The ghost-interpretation does make sense, since it's not that easy just hiding behind someone's back ALL the time, but on the other hand I figured there is an explanation for the fact that only the girl can see him: she's the only one who knows how to 'catch' him. She doesn't just try to turn around and see him (like the prison guard and the husband), he's too skilled for that; she walks up to a mirror and then sees him, reaches behind her back to feel him, or just walks back until he's trapped between her back and the wall. Simple as hell, but she appears to be the only one smart enough to think of that. Therefore I see this as a metaphore for she being 'the one' for him. It's got something to do with true love and stuff I think :) Or am I being to sentimental? ;)

reply