Venice 2012. The Awards

I’m surprised that people still haven’t seen through the sham that is Kim Ki-duk. Haven’t his phony films reached their expiration date among cinephiles already? Or maybe he’s had a change of soul and his work post-Arirang is much different from his earlier, morally reprehensible cinema…

Yeah, I mean, that must have worried P.T. Anderson a lot… because the Oscars are such a legitimately prestigious award, only the cream of the crop make it there.

I am happy to read Nicole B’s comment. It’s exactly what I think, and I started to worry today: "3 choices: a) Am I blind and insensitive about his works?; b) The little retirement before Arirang really changed him; c) People are still overreacting.

@Ursulino: Cinema Scope’s twitter re-posted its past year review of Panahi’s “This is not a film” in which a “parallelism” between Kim Ki-duk’s Arirang and Panahi’s effort was established. It’s a fun read. Link: http://t.co/y3pxgtSW

Thanks for the link, unoquehable! I almost forgot that they wrote about Arirang a while back. That film was truly heinous I think.

Ursulino, I’ve always thought it was: C. Haha :) I really have yet to read an eloquent defense of Kim Ki-duk…

I did read that there was a controversy about the awards but if the judges thought the master was a better film then why didn’t they give the golden lion, which is a better award, to the master instead of the silver lion?
I know Kim’s films aren’t everyone’s cup of tea but I never thought him as a sham and it’s very much probable that he won the award for the right reasons.

Thanks for the link unoquehabla. I feel relieved hahaha. It seems that my impression that Ki-Duk’s only great attribute is his ego is shared between many. (I couldn’t digest him SINGING during the ceremony in Venice!) [And indeed, “This is not a film” is really a true lesson of cinema and humanity.]

Kim Ki-duk is phony??? He must have fooled a lot of relevant film critics (and i’m not talking those populistic or wannabe ones who have a blog and think they’re film critics) if that was true. Way to discredit a filmmaker and autheur with just a shallow use of a single term. That really is eloquent criticism, yeah…

There are many other filmmakers i dislike (which you probably adore), including a lot of those Old Hollywood studio darlings, but i would never call them phony, just not my kind of cinema. Personal preferences are one thing. Trying to make your own opinion about someone an absolute thing and questioning others who happen to appreciate his work is something completely different. It would be like me saying: “when will people see through the pathetic and cliched works of many old hollywood directors” (because i happen not to be a fan of theirs)

Testy, testy. Stop being so sensitive, bluesoul. Obviously, I’m criticizing Kim Ki-duk, not his admirers, or you. I think he’s phony. That’s it. Clearly it’s my opinion and my personal preference to call him a sham. You and those relevant film critics can like him for all I know. Also, I didn’t know I was obliged to put up eloquent criticism here before I said anything against Kim Ki-duk. I must have missed that in the MUBI handbook. And go ahead and dislike those Old Hollywood darlings “which I probably adore (?)”. I’m not sure who they are, but it’s a free world.

Of course, I might not need to say much because Mark Peranson is far more eloquent than I am.

You said “I really have yet to read an eloquent defense of Kim Ki-duk” while dismissing him as “phony”. You expected others to explain why exactly he is great while you provided no substantial arguments as to why he is phony or why his movies wouldnt be good or whatever. It’s the type of arguments when some people say “he/she sucks” without really argumenting why.

My reaction probably has something to do with the fact that this is Mubi (not IMDB with the popcorn hollywood fanboys) and that i see a lot of Hollywood hacks (not just Spielberg) and real phonies getting media attention so it is quite bizarre seeing Kim Ki Duk being called as one out of all the people that make movies. Its your right to call him such, but its my right to respond to such claims as well.

“I’m not sure who they are” – Preminger, Cukor, movies like Gone with the Wind….

I don’t know about your reading habits but Kim Ki-duk has many detractors in the “real” cinephile, non-IMDB community. The link above to the Cinemascope article contains one of many such criticisms. Also, I have the right to an unqualified opinion as much as anyone, and I have the option to present my opinion in whatever way I see fit. That’s why I’m not calling you out to explain your distaste for Preminger and Cukor et al in the same way you expect me to shape my opinion according to your standards. And that’s why I am not obliged to substantiate my dismissal of him even if I expect to read an eloquent defense elsewhere.

I’ll take Hollywood hacks over Kim Ki-duk any day of the week. At least they don’t pretend that what they’re making is high art. And great use of ad hominem there: looking up my taste in film to devalue my comment.