The Host

Plot: A US scientist stationed at a South Korean army base instructs his Korean subordinate to dump chemicals down the drain, from where they will float out into Han river. Years later, a mutated monster out of the river kidnaps a girl, whose family comes together to disobey the government and find her.

Hot take: I might be completely wrong here, but here's what I think. The main plot of the movie is completely irrelevant. What is brilliant about it is everything that happens around it. Dr. Bong is making some strong statements about America and its involvement in foreign policies. He took pieces of history (US tactics in Vietnam, Iraq and Korea) and placed them around the shitty plot for people to drink up. So you get your action-horror-monster plot to follow and gasp for, but in the background you see the oppression and struggle of people living through consequences of the men on top. If the people in charge were more focused on figuring out the issue at hand and supporting its victims, most of the problems which the heroes have to face would never surface. He manages to take real things that US has done, colourise them to fit a fantastical plot then taken a single family who is exposed to consequences of all those actions. I personally empathised with them (I watched it with someone who didn't at all) and so had a glimpse of what it feels like to be hopelessly flailed around by the government. To ease off Americans for a sec, the movie also feels a bit like a shout-out to Korea for being a puppet-state for the US so it's not just the baddies that are meant to feel bad.

Good directing, the shots were wonderful and very suspenseful. Bong's movies retain a plastic, fairytale-like quality to them which I don't know whether I like or not. In this case, I think I would argue against it. Let's be real, they're his movies are a bit kitsch.

Scenes to remember: people throwing trash and food at the first sighting; the girl being swooshed away by the tail; the opening scene; the family having a group breakdown as cameras gather around them; protesters lying down and girl filming the scene.

PS kek big COVID vibes throughout all of the movie. Shoutout to BONG for predicting everything 14 years earlier.

Call me by your name

Plot: It's Italy in the 80s and, like every year, a research assistant (Armie Hammer) arrives at the professor's house to perform studies over the summer. During his stay, he forms a deep emotional connection with the professor's son (Timothée Chalamet).



Aga's take: I haven't read any reviews of this movie, but I hope they're great. I think there are many things that can be praised:

• Camerawork capturing the idyllic atmosphere of the scenery and life in a little Italian university town
• Lighting which felt natural for the whole movie
• Acting especially by the lead role, which was very expressive, emotional and real
• Writing and plot which were true to coming of age and captured youth in a non-labelling way
• Music which was integrated into the story, present, memorable
• Moral of the whole story, the simple beauty of it, single monologue scene of the father which captured the greater picture but didn't feel too full of itself but rather like sincere advice given to the viewer. Or maybe more like a painful conclusion about life's realities
• Very subtle background of changes in the political landscape of the story, which remind the viewers that the times the characters are placed in play a significant role

Beyond technicalities, the movie is beautiful. I think the story, although relevant, should be treated as secondary to the actors' play. So many emotions and internal conflicts are presented without any words. Stills from the movie are also P E N G. It's so well acted, so well directed and so aesthetic that I think you can shuffle through the stills and get the whole story and everything that comes with it without watching the movie. And on top of that you get great music and writing?? The longer I think about it, the more I enjoy the memory of this film.



I have a couple of questions that I would like to hear your thoughts to when you watch the movie.

*** SPOILER ZONE ***

Why does the family speak many languages? It would still make sense to have them speak one, it wouldn't take away from their aura of intellect.

Why does the beginning of Elio's relationship with Oliver begin as antagonistic? Is it portrayed that way to show his imatrurity and conflicting feelings or is there more to the way their interactions develop?

Why does Elio play the songs in different styles?

How is the boy's educated background, his love of books and music significant to the story and the way he addresses his feelings / how the environment reacts to his behaviour? 

What does it MEAN that they call each other by their own names?

I have my own thoughts on the above but I would like to hear yours first.

I have this thing that follows me around:
I'm not a big fan of touchy movie monologues which are meant to capture the point of the story, but I enjoy returning with my thoughts to the professor's conversation with Elio near the end of the movie (professor is played by Michael Stuhlbarg who I think is THE repression actor haha). He talks about Elio and Oliver having something most people don't have a chance to experience in their lives. He has come close to something similar but there was always something lacking for it to happen.

Firstly, I enjoy the ambigiuity in the monologue. The it is never explicitly named. Has he come close to having a relationship with another man in the past, but he never broke society's expectations to enjoy a relationship? Or does he talk about love in general?
If we take the second interpretation, I think what he says and the way the scene is crafted become more interesting. The professor points out that only a chosen few in the world get to meet someone on this planet that "they can call by their own name". I cannot be sure whether the director has achieved this purposfully to that effect, but I felt the scene was very touching and personal, framed almost as if it was us sitting on the couch next to our dad smoking a cigarette and sharing his reflactions on life. 

Are we just meant to empathise with Elio? Or is he talking to us? But if so, is he reminding us that statistically we are like him not Elio; we will come close but never have this deep connection with another human?

I think by creating this scene to have such an intimate feel, the director contradicts himself. We sit in groups of hundreds in the cinemas, each one recalling a bond in our lives that is so special it's comparable with the one presented in the movie. We empathise with the boy, understand the pain he's feeling and what the hopeless separation is doing to his soul. And then we're told that this bond is one in a million. So either 999,999 of us are dillusional or every bond of love we form, no matter the sex or language, we all get a chance to experience this unique, one-in-a-million feeling. Yada yada the mysterious flows of love and nature, every life is a story untold, blah blah. I don't think the moral itself is a very interesting one, but I think the contradiction of form and substance is an interesting one to think about. Are there any other movies that do that? Do they do it consciously?

Anyway, I enjoyed getting high to this movie. ✌