Text Review: Burning

The recent thriller mystery movie Burning from South Korea directed by Lee Chang-dong gives rise to the in-depth consideration of my identity in this complex society. The story centers around mysteries that happened among three people from distinctive classes. Lee Jong-su is a young man from a broken family performing part-time jobs in Peju where he came across his childhood neighbor and later his trusted friend Hae-mi. Hae-mi does model for a living. She has trouble paying off her debt and also lives a struggling life. On her trip to Africa, Hae-mi got to know Ben, a wealthy young man. Ben achieved great success at a young age, he once told Jong-su that he has a hobby of burning plastic greenhouse because it means nothing to him and those burning plastic greenhouses give him a sense of relaxation. The movie goes on with constant mysteries showing up, such as the disappearance of Hea-mi, the existence of Hae-mi’s cat, Ben’s secret of killing, and so on. The whole movie swings between virtual and reality. It contains a lot of metaphors that subtly reflect the characters’ identity and social reality. One of explicit reality is the difficult employment situation of youth in Korean, in other words, the issue of the hard to change class solidification. Jong-su and Hae-mi are representatives of youth that struggle to find their place in a competitive society, they do not know their identity or the meaning of their lives. They are the subalterns who live at the bottom of society, the pressure and difficulties give birth to their anger, but there is nowhere to release these negative emotions. And these emotions get stronger when they meet people who possess high social class and take what they have long desired for granted.

 After ran into Hae-mi, Jong-su realized that he has found his own greenhouse, a place he can get comfort and support. However, with the disappearance of Hae-mi, and the Hae-mi’s belongings he found in Ben’s house along with all other “spoils of war” in Ben’s personal collection, he believes that Ben killed Hae-mi. His only greenhouse got burned. There is a scene in the movie that presents a burning greenhouse in front of a young boy, it is a scene that appeared in Jong-su’s dream. He is burning because of the disappearance of the only meaning of his existence. He is burning because it is so easy for Ben to take away his hope. He is burning because he has to accept the reality that people like him and Hae-mi are just these burning greenhouses that nobody cares about them or means nothing to people like Ben. They are the “perfect” models of the subaltern and the other we have learned in this class who live with the struggle of letting themselves be heard or letting themselves be recognized. It seems to be an impossible mission for them to move up their social class. The relationship between Ben and Jong-su and the different meanings of greenhouse reveal the insurmountable gap among classes. Lee I believe there are many people out there burning just like Jong-su and maybe some of us will eventually join them in the future when we enter society. It is an unchangeable injustice that we have to accept probably for the rest of our lives.

The dramatic ending and mysterious metaphors interspersed with the plots present an authentic image of the subaltern and other identities. The friction among different social classes, the collision of different identities, and the cruel reality of classism presented in this movie bring the othering concept to a more intricate level. To Ben, burning greenhouse is a hobby, greenhouse means nothing but a toy that pleases him. While to Jong-su, the greenhouse is a hope. To students, I think the metaphor of plastic greenhouse is also a concept worth us to explore further for clear understanding of our identities.

Context Research Presentation

WEEK 10: Interpreter oF Maladies 

Globalization increases diversity and spreads culture through immigration. The population flow gives birth to a group of children “who look back to their parents’ homeland at a generational remove and come to terms with the ongoing presence in their lives of a “home” country very different from the one in which they have grown up.” In the Interpreter of Maladies, Jhumpa Lahiri presents her depiction of these concerns through stories. Jhumpa Lahiri was born in London in 1967, the daughter of Indian immigrants from the Indian state of West Bengal. Lahiri moved to the US with her family when she was only three years old and grew up in Kingston, Rhode Island. As an Indian immigrant, Lahiri is part of that unique group of children who observe their parents’ home more like a stranger.

In 1999, Lahiri published the Interpreter of Maladies whose stories center around the dilemmas in the lives of Indians or Indian immigrants. She includes various themes such as the marriage issues, the disconnection between American immigrants’ generations, and young immigrant generations’ confusion about their original homeland. The Interpreter of Maladies consists of nine stories set in either India or America. Most of them relate to the second-generation Indian-American rather than immigrants themselves. Jhumpa Lahiri had said that “When I first started writing I was not conscious that my subject was the Indian-American experience. What drew me to my craft was the desire to force the two worlds I occupied to mingle on the page as I was not brave enough, or mature enough, to allow in life.” When I read the the Interpreter of Maladies, I always behold the conscious of the connection between cultures, there are many questions based on issues of identity and representation worth considering.

Set the story “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” as an example. The story is told from the girl Liliya’s perspective, whose parents are Indian immigrants. Mr. Pirzada is a regular visitor to Liliya’s family who has a wife and seven daughters living in Dacca. Lahiri’s depiction of Liliya’s pray for Mr. Pirzada and her naïve question about India and its surrounding territorial disputes reveals her disconnection with her origin homeland. She prays and comforts Mr. Pirzada just like she is observing a disaster has no relation to her life. Liliya has empathy for what Mr. Pirzada has suffered but fails to realize the point that the suffering comes from her original homeland.

 

 

References

The Two life, NEWSWEEK STAFF. Newsweek 2006

https://www.newsweek.com/my-two-lives-106355

 

Jhumpa Lahiri’s personal wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhumpa_Lahiri#cite_note-newsw-13

 

July:10 Jhumpa Lahiri, “The Interpreter of Maladies” 2020

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/80books/blog/july-10-jhumpa-lahiri-interpreter-maladies

 

Interview with Jhumpa Lahiri, by Arun Aguiar. 1999

https://www.pifmagazine.com/1999/08/interview-with-jhumpa-lahiri/

Youtube resource, Jhumpa Lahiri interview. 2003

 

Diary of Systemic Injustices

(Photo from INSIDER)

The issue of sterilization has long been a debate. A recently short video reminds of such a familiar systemic injustice topic related to female sterilization. In the video, a grown-up woman is crying about finally getting permission from her doctor to do the tubal ligation after the whole five years. I am not familiar with tubal ligation as a young adult but what I know is it should not take five years to get permission for the surgery that prevents a woman from an unexpected pregnancy. In 2020, the norms of requiring women to get permission from their husbands or fathers to tie their tubes still existed, and in addition to the social biases, the law neither has issued protection on performing the operations without the consent of both spouses. There is a man in the video yelled out the unjust point with the indignant question, he said: “A grown-up woman need to get permission from somebody else to have something done exclusively to her own body that does not hurt anybody else, and does this not pissed anyone else off?” Women have long been oppressed on the issue of female fertility and their bodies have long been disrespected. It gave me a sense of absurdity when I first get to know that such a private issue is a long-lasting debate in society and the reality is that women can have no control over their bodies. How will the young generation think if they are told that part of their organs will belong to their future husbands one day? This is never an issue limited to one generation. The unjust control over women’s bodies is the century-old systemic injustice born under the structure of male privileged. The masculinity put women through the othering. I am not saying that male has no right to intervene in the decision but the purpose of discussing such an issue should never be getting permission. Women should possess control over their bodies and there is no way to achieve without the laws and authority giving up their hypocritical power over reproductive rights in the name of protection. And the government should do what they can to guide public opinion in the right direction.

References:

INSIDER Magazine, Shira Feder. 2020

https://www.insider.com/a-woman-needed-husbands-consent-to-get-her-tubes-tied-2020-2

Original video of the woman having tubal ligation.  2020

https://www.tiktok.com/@staticjones/video/6880269163642834181?lang=en