I feel like my view of Korean cinema may be prejudiced by the narrow
amount of movies I have seen from that region, three quarters of
which have been by one director, Park Chan-Wook, who besides being
one of the world’s greatest living directors also happens to be one
of the most interested in exploring man’s capacity for cruelty. Is
Korea a crueler place than the average? It seems like it though my
sample size is stupidly small.
The main reason I saw "The Handmaiden" is because Park Chan-Wook directed it. His masterpiece remains
2003’s “Oldboy” a story that involves a man being randomly
imprisoned in a room for fifteen years without ever being told why,
and that’s just the beginning of his troubles. “Oldboy” isn’t
the most violent movie I have seen but it is arguably the most
intense and as such it is a textbook example of how a movie’s visceral impact
has less to do with the amount of gore one sees but how that gore is presented
and what story it is connected to. A similar thing can be said with
“The Handmaiden” but with eroticism. There isn’t all that much
sex or nudity in “The Handmaiden” (although the movie does not
shrink from it at all either) but it is dealt with in a highly stimulating
fashion. For one acquainted with American cinema, this is something
hardly done. Sex in American movies is either purposefully ignored to assuage the MPAA or
subject to more purely romantic feelings. When sex as a vehicle for lust is explicit in an American movie,
it is generally the only thing in the movie worth watching, i.e. it is pornography. It is very
rare that a well-made American movie will show sex in a provocative fashion. (The exception that proves the rule is Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide
Shut.”) But such is “The Handmaiden.” It is a movie that could
see Oscar nominations for costumes, set design, and makeup, and it is
unambiguously and unabashedly erotic.
The title character, handmaiden Sook-Hee (played by Kim Tae-ri) is a
poor Korean girl in Japanese occupied Korea in the 1930s. She is
recruited by a legacy hunter, Count Fujiwara (played by Jung-woo Ha),
to be the handmaiden to the Lady Hideko (played by Min-hee Kim). Lady
Hideko has been secluded from the world since a child in her large
estate by her evil Uncle Kouzuki. The plan is for
Sook-Hee to help Count Fujiwara to seduce Lady Hideko. He will marry
the Lady, take the fortune, and then imprison her in an insane
asylum. Sook-Hee will keep the Lady’s clothes, jewelry, and large
sum of money.
There are many power dynamics intertwined with the sexual intrigue
and this seems to be one of the main things that Director Park Chan-Wook
is particularly interested in exploring. Lady Hideko is in control of Sook-Hee
because she is her servant. Sook-Hee is in control of Lady Hideko
because she is an innocent that Sook-Hee takes care of. “Ladies are
truly the dolls of maids” thinks Sook-Hee to herself while dressing the Lady in her evening attire. The Count is
manipulating both of them and tricking the Uncle who has ruthlessly
ruled over the Lady her entire life. What the Uncle is doing to Lady
Hideko exactly is one of the bigger reveals in the second half of the
movie. The truth is less and more disturbing than you would think.
I suppose poor people when they feel lustful, just have sex.
Sado-masochism seems to be an outgrowth of an upper class upbringing
that promotes ascetic values, commercial productivity, polished
manners, but, try as it might, cannot do away with base
animal instinct. What results is a scene that can be as absurd as it
is erotic. Lady Hideko is prostituted by her uncle to his wealthy
gentlemen friends in a way that blurs the word’s meaning. She is
made up, completely dressed in an elegant kimono, and placed far away
on a stage that doubles as a zen garden. The men, dressed in tuxedos,
are on the far side of the room, and do nothing but look at her and
listen as she reads Justine by the Marquis de Sade or some other
erotica. Afterwords the Uncle auctions off the book to the wealthy
men. So is she is a prostitute? Technically, the men are buying and
selling books. Eroticism is truly known and understood in the eye of
the beholder. Bring up a man to be a gentleman and dress every woman
he sees from calf to neck in Victorian clothing and the result is
that a glimpse of ankle will become scandalously exciting. As a sexy
mathematician in a dinosaur movie once put it about a completely different subject, “Life finds a way.”
One of the movie’s main pleasures is the twists and turns of its
plots, so I won’t go too deep into them here except to make one
gripe about the way things are revealed. When a movie uses voice
over, it is supposed to relate that a scene is happening from that
person’s point of view. When a story is told from a certain
person’s point of view, the audience should know what that
character knows at that moment. Unless of course, the character is
trying to deceive the audience. But I never got the sense that any character was breaking the 4th wall and actually attempting to deceive me. So why didn’t I know everything that character knew at the time they knew it? This seems to me to be a lapse in
storytelling discipline. No I’m not going to tell you what I’m
talking about.