By Mark Peterson
Both Korea and the United States have a history of slavery. They are both very different, and yet, they are both the same.
One reason that Parasite "works" in both Korea and in the United States, so much so that it won the highest recognition a film can earn, is that it exposes a nerve that is buried deep in each culture. This awareness of a history of slavery, and the inhumane treatment that, by definition, goes with it, is buried deeply and denied in some, and not buried much at all and near the surface in others.
In the United States, cries for reparations are still debated in the political arena each election cycle, and some respond to the cries, and some reject the cries. In Korea, the hierarchy of society and it's exaltation of some, in speech and in social regard, reminds us of a by-gone day when the hierarchy was not just marked with speech levels, but with attire, with housing, with education, with power and position, which indeed were blatant reminders that some people were slaves and some people were owners of slaves.
Guilt. All of society feels some guilt for the past practice of slavery and the social and economic conditions of slavery. Perhaps that is why the extreme poverty and the extreme wealth depicted in the masterpiece movie, "Parasite," resonated with the viewer. We cry out, inwardly, this isn't right. This isn't fair. This isn't the way it should be. We learned this a hundred years ago, but we're doing it again today.
Slavery isn't overt any more. In America, it was marked mostly by color, by race. Although there were free black men and women, still, black meant slave. Look at another recent movie, "Twelve Years a Slave" about a free and educated black man that is kidnapped and sold off as a slave and his struggle to regain his freedom.
Slavery isn't overt in Korea any more. It wasn't the racial divide that marked slavery in Korea. It was worse. It was not overt except for the markers that society established ― your status was determined by your birth, but it was marked by your education, clothing, housing, and social relationships. People knew you were a slave, and you could only escape that fact by living in a new place where people didn't know you were a slave, and you could pass yourself off as a commoner, or freeman. That's why there were so many runaway slaves at the end of the Joseon period.
One's initial encounter with slavery is "long-distance," that is, we look at it somewhat unemotionally, disinterested, distant; like the movie. At first the differences between the "slave" and the "owner" is antiseptic and observed, as from a distance. Yes, here is a poor family trying to get by, and here is a rich family that has everything materially that they could ever want.
But the long-distance, disinterested aspect of the viewer changes with the violence that suddenly besets the movie. And the dissonance that was an interesting part of the movie, but in my opinion not critical, suddenly jumps out at you. It's like really learning about slavery. Slavery was not an archaic system of happy owners and happy slaves, singing about picking cotton. It was institutional violence. It was a system of physical subjugation, which at times, if the slave stood up for themself, or was humiliated and told that they smelled, could trigger an uprising and end in bloodshed. Just like in "Parasite."
In the movie, who were the parasites? The poor living off of the rich, tricking the rich, conning the rich? I remember interviewing a man years ago in Korea who remembered the days of slavery. He said, "Slavery was not an easy thing. The slaves were constantly tricking and conning you. It was hard to maintain control."
In slave societies, it's clear who the parasites are! Not the slaves; the owners!
One clever thing about the movie is that as you think about the title, you realize that you start off thinking the poor family were the parasites, but then you think, "no, wait a minute, it's the rich family that are living off the work of the poor."
One final observation regarding the movie and slavery: note that Donald Trump decried a foreign film getting the Oscar. And he said what? "Bring back 'Gone with the Wind.'" He might like identifying with Rhett Butler or Scarlett O'Hara. He'll have more of a problem with "Parasite" because he with whom he would identify, would be the rich dad, who didn't like the smell of poor people, but who himself was the worst parasite. I understand Trump hasn't seen the movie, but even without seeing it, his intuition is correct. He wouldn't like it. He'd be happier with "Gone with the Wind."
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
 |
One reason that Parasite "works" in both Korea and in the United States, so much so that it won the highest recognition a film can earn, is that it exposes a nerve that is buried deep in each culture. This awareness of a history of slavery, and the inhumane treatment that, by definition, goes with it, is buried deeply and denied in some, and not buried much at all and near the surface in others.
In the United States, cries for reparations are still debated in the political arena each election cycle, and some respond to the cries, and some reject the cries. In Korea, the hierarchy of society and it's exaltation of some, in speech and in social regard, reminds us of a by-gone day when the hierarchy was not just marked with speech levels, but with attire, with housing, with education, with power and position, which indeed were blatant reminders that some people were slaves and some people were owners of slaves.
Guilt. All of society feels some guilt for the past practice of slavery and the social and economic conditions of slavery. Perhaps that is why the extreme poverty and the extreme wealth depicted in the masterpiece movie, "Parasite," resonated with the viewer. We cry out, inwardly, this isn't right. This isn't fair. This isn't the way it should be. We learned this a hundred years ago, but we're doing it again today.
Slavery isn't overt any more. In America, it was marked mostly by color, by race. Although there were free black men and women, still, black meant slave. Look at another recent movie, "Twelve Years a Slave" about a free and educated black man that is kidnapped and sold off as a slave and his struggle to regain his freedom.
Slavery isn't overt in Korea any more. It wasn't the racial divide that marked slavery in Korea. It was worse. It was not overt except for the markers that society established ― your status was determined by your birth, but it was marked by your education, clothing, housing, and social relationships. People knew you were a slave, and you could only escape that fact by living in a new place where people didn't know you were a slave, and you could pass yourself off as a commoner, or freeman. That's why there were so many runaway slaves at the end of the Joseon period.
One's initial encounter with slavery is "long-distance," that is, we look at it somewhat unemotionally, disinterested, distant; like the movie. At first the differences between the "slave" and the "owner" is antiseptic and observed, as from a distance. Yes, here is a poor family trying to get by, and here is a rich family that has everything materially that they could ever want.
But the long-distance, disinterested aspect of the viewer changes with the violence that suddenly besets the movie. And the dissonance that was an interesting part of the movie, but in my opinion not critical, suddenly jumps out at you. It's like really learning about slavery. Slavery was not an archaic system of happy owners and happy slaves, singing about picking cotton. It was institutional violence. It was a system of physical subjugation, which at times, if the slave stood up for themself, or was humiliated and told that they smelled, could trigger an uprising and end in bloodshed. Just like in "Parasite."
In the movie, who were the parasites? The poor living off of the rich, tricking the rich, conning the rich? I remember interviewing a man years ago in Korea who remembered the days of slavery. He said, "Slavery was not an easy thing. The slaves were constantly tricking and conning you. It was hard to maintain control."
In slave societies, it's clear who the parasites are! Not the slaves; the owners!
One clever thing about the movie is that as you think about the title, you realize that you start off thinking the poor family were the parasites, but then you think, "no, wait a minute, it's the rich family that are living off the work of the poor."
One final observation regarding the movie and slavery: note that Donald Trump decried a foreign film getting the Oscar. And he said what? "Bring back 'Gone with the Wind.'" He might like identifying with Rhett Butler or Scarlett O'Hara. He'll have more of a problem with "Parasite" because he with whom he would identify, would be the rich dad, who didn't like the smell of poor people, but who himself was the worst parasite. I understand Trump hasn't seen the movie, but even without seeing it, his intuition is correct. He wouldn't like it. He'd be happier with "Gone with the Wind."
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
![[INTERVIEW] North Korean defectors bear brunt of remittance scams](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/75c261156ac7415fad92dc1d7c1b30cf.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Foreign-born entertainers seek to revolutionize local industry](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/4a6b2bd3d23044d699dee3c5bb956863.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
