Review of Burning

While the film moved a bit slow at first,  I thought that Burning was a really interesting interpretation of Murakami's short story. The film does not seem as open-ended as Murakami's Barn Burning, but I still have so many questions. Did Ben really kill Hae-mi? Was Hae-mi's cat real or not real? Did Hae-mi actually ever fall into a well? Why did Ben hug Jongsu as Jongsu stabbed him to death? Anyway, I'm sure that will discuss these things in class, so here are my general thoughts on the movie:

I think that the dynamic between Jongsu and Ben (who are both unnamed in Murakami's story) makes much more sense in the movie because of the distinction between their socioeconomic classes. In the short story, Murakami describes Ben as being very wealthy but does not clearly define Jongsu's social status. In Burning, it is made clear that Jongsu is part of the working-class as he drives a beat-up old truck and lives on his family's farm, while Ben, on the other hand, drives a Porsche and lives in a lavish apartment. While Murakami does suggest class commentary when he compares the character of Ben to Gatsby in his short story, the film definitely emphasizes the separation between Jongsu and Ben's status much more than Murakami does. 

One aspect of Murakami's writing which Burning remains very true to is how female characters are depicted. The relationship between Jongsu and Hae-mi is quite one-sided; Jongsu thinks that he understands and connects with Hae-mi on a deeper level than Ben, but he is just as guilty of objectifying her. After they have sex, Jongsu feels as if Hae-mi owes him her affection and then feels betrayed because she chooses to be with Ben. He also calls her whore for dancing topless in front of him and Ben (which feels super uncalled for). Jongsu does go to great lengths to figure out what happened to Hae-mi, but the ending of the film makes it seem like his investigation was more about getting revenge on Ben than finding Hae-mi. Perhaps this is because Jongsu assumes that Ben has killed her, but it still seems odd that he would kill Ben before even getting a confession from him. 

I thought that the most interesting performance in the film was by the actor who played Ben. When I read Murakami's story, I couldn't visualize what this mysterious character would look or act like, but the actor in the film really captured both Ben's outward charm and his unsettling emotional detachment. One scene that comes to mind is when Jongsu, Hae-mi, and Ben are out at dinner and Ben says that he never cries. It doesn't seem like he is trying to look tough or prove something to Jongsu; he is just stating a fact. Hae-mi's passion and intense emotions seem like a novelty to him because he has never felt these things himself. I think that the film does a great job of exhibiting Murakami's idea of a "donut" person through Ben- despite his wealth and status, Ben seems hollow. It is almost as if he is is too likeable and perfect; That is until he brings up the fact that he burns greenhouses. 

Sidenote: I'm not sure why the film changed the subject of arson from barns to greenhouses. Perhaps it is simply because the way the metal skeleton of the greenhouse remains, the image of a greenhouse on fire is more striking?

-Penny