Was the Monster a Kaiju?

The South Korean film Host, displays some tropes and narratives that are found in horror or kaiju films.  But I feel like the film tried to blend the two together but failed in a mediocre manner.  The monster that is implied to be born out of the discarded chemical waste, is similar to Godzilla who was born out of the radiation from the atomic bomb.  But I feel like the monster was not feared in the same manner as Godzilla, and it is here where I feel that the film failed to deliver a perfect blend of horror and kaiju.  Godzilla films aren’t considered to be horror films since the basis of the fear it instills is partly consisted of awe due it being a metaphorical objectification of the force of nature.  But the monster present in the film is not at the scale of Godzilla and is more akin to the appearance of xenomorphs from the Aliens franchise, which possess more of a grotesque horror element.  The monster could be said to be the objectification of the result of pollution yet the entire cast seemed to fear the imaginary virus the monster was supposedly carrying more than the monster itself.  The only horror element I was able to find within the film are the scenes involving the girl Hyun-seo down the sewer.  Personally, I believe the film chose the wrong setting if its whole purpose was to be an ordinary horror film.  But considering how the main antagonist turns out to be the government, particularly the US, I was left wondering what function the monster served.  The monster did create chaos with its “virus” but the chaos was at a scale that was containable through the use of a single anti-biological weapon.  There is also a lack of urgency in the government’s part where they are busy finding a way to deal with the imaginary virus with not much attention towards the monster itself.  In conclusion, the film was a mediocre blend of the two genres, however, I think it was able to deliver its criticism against the US for its apathy towards the local.  

The Host

The Host

What stood out for me personally while watching “The Host” was the role the United States played.  In the opening scene, we are seeing an American rudely giving orders to a Korean, orders which not only make the Korean doctor uncomfortable  but which also put anyone in contact with the Han River at risk.  The Korean tries to argue with the American, emphasizing the toxicity of formaldehyde, but the American’s response of “that’s an order” basically gives the Korean no choice.  This jerk of an American doctor is the first American we meet, and as we learn, his orders have serious consequences.  6 years later we’re in Seoul, witnessing a monstrous sea creature emerge from the river and begin to attack. Next, we hear announcements that US forces trained in biological warfare are “dealing with it,” but are refusing to release information.  We hear about the death of Sergeant Donald of the 8th US Army, “who through his act of courage, revealed to the world the existence of the virus.” This is an American newscaster reporting, speaking of the sergeant very highly. However, the US and WHO go on to cite the failure of the Korean government to secure the remaining two infected family members (this was after Gang-du and his father had been apprehended). After that, the Americans publicize their plan to use Agent Yellow, a chemical developed by the US to fight virus outbreaks and biological terror. This results in protests by Korean citizens groups, those who vehemently oppose the use of Agent Yellow. 

In my opinion, the worst scene for the United States is the scene in which the doctor is confessing to his translator that not a single person had actually contracted a virus, not even Sergeant Donald.  The doctor, assuming Gang-du doesn’t understand what he’s saying, tells his interpreter that Gang-du is the US’s last hope; in reality, he means that Gang-du having a virus is the only way the Americans will save face.  Gang-du is forced to undergo what is essentially a brain surgery solely for the purpose of the reputation of the United States. At the end of the movie, we see Gang-du and his Se-joo eating a meal, a statement regarding the Korean virus incident from the US Senate being announced on television in the background.  The US attributed the incident to misinformation.  What was the purpose in portraying the US like this?  In both Anisworth’s and Lee’s writings, they mention the dichotomy of “the West” and “the Other” (Lee 45).  This depiction of the US as a demanding, evasive, untruthful, manipulative country definitely reinforces this dichotomy. 

Who is Really the Host?

My impressions of this film were threefold: I was highly enthralled, I was astonished at the overt social satire, and I walked away from it not knowing who was supposed to be the real monster. I want to look specifically at the scene in the hospital (was it one? The camp, the outpost, in which Gang-du underwent 'brain surgery'). For me, this scene was essentially the thesis of the whole film, but its argument wasn't quite what I expected it to be. As Lee argues, "one of the essential conditions for inculcation of nationalist values among the Korean public is the domestic film industry's projection of Hollywood as a monster trying to devour Korean national cinema" (52).  

The monster in this film was disgusting, and was clearly supposed to be a product of American carelessness and disregard for the safety and well-being of the Korean people. However, the idea that the infection, the disease carried by the monster, was supposed to be in the brain of those affected struck me as confusing symbolism. The doctor tells Gang-du that there is no disease. This immediately follows what seems like fairly compassionate but strangely meta-fictional critique of his search for his daughter. Why didn't he call a human rights organization, or the police? Why didn't he take action and tell someone what was going on? This is ironizing for the genre, as no horror film would be complete if the police/armed forces/people in charge could control the situation or exert influence. Yet, there is a strangely intense degradation of Gang-du, as well, who has been ignored not only by Americans and Korean officials but by his own family. This American faux-sympathy seemed confusing out of place in a Korean film about Korean people trying to overcome an American monster. It would have been different, I think, if the doctor's speech had been more absurd, but his insinuation that it was the minds of the people that were the problem seemed subversive in the wrong direction. 

In a film that so poignantly captures the monster-victim dynamic as part of a nationalist-imperialist dialogue, this scene stuck out to me as a criticism of the Korean people that was not satirical enough to be fully anti-American. I think that I ended up buried under too many layers of thinking and could no longer distinguish who was helping and who was hurting the search for the lost children. It's not until AFTER the brain surgery, in point of fact, that Gang-du gains enough stability and agency to find his daughter. The infection, perhaps, was lack of Korean national confidence, and only when faced with the condescension of the American doctor and his essentially superfluous surgery that a conclusion could be reached. 

Lee allows that the film "invites multiple readings" and this scene seemed like the main door to most of them.

The Host

The Host, directed by Bong Joon-ho, became the biggest domestic hit ever, drawing approximately 13,010,000 viewers nationwide (Nikki J.Y. Lee 47) in South Korea.

As Nikki J. Y. Lee, the author of Localized Globalization and a Monster National: The Host and the South Korean Film Industry, has stated “The Host does not appear to draw overtly on nationalism or the concept of the Korea nation.” (Lee 53),  I think the film focuses subtly on some anti-U.S. sentiment and South Korea's role and relation with the U.S. and centres on the notion of family and family identity.

The film does reveal some anti-U.S. sentiment that portrays Americans as people who are careless about the locals (South Koreans) and as the dominant force that interferes and dictates South Korean government including its territorial and health concerns. For example, in the opening scene in a lab, a U.S. military officer/scientist orders a Korean military officer/scientist to dumb many bottles of toxic liquid in the Han River despite the fact that the Korean military officer is unwilling to do so since it could devastate South Korean environment by contaminating the Han River. Also, in the film, U.S. government broadcasts a warning about the danger of a “virus” (non-existent) allegedly transmitted by the mutant monster and pressures the South Korean government to close the area in order to prevent the spread of “fake” virus which prevents family members from rescuing Hyun-seo, Park Gang-du’s daughter and hinders South Korean government from tracking down the monster (Lee 47) in their own country.

However, the movie also presents itself as a family-centered drama appealing to audiences of multiple generations (Lee 54). Hee-bong, Park Gang-du’s father, represents the senior audience while Hyun-seo, a junior high school student, represents teenagers (Lee 54). Also Park Gang-du’s younger siblings, Nam-il and Nam-joo, speak to people particularly those of student movement generation in 1980s and 1990s Korea and people in 20s respectively (Lee 54). The fact that the movie could attract many demographic groups into theaters is perhaps one of the reasons why this film has become South Korea’s blockbuster movie. 

Disguising Hollywood

I really enjoyed the article by Lee focusing on The Host. From my understanding of the article, Lee was trying to demonstrate that the success of Korean blockbusters is due to the underlying national context in terms of the economic and the social, but it is presented through a Western system of distribution. For me, based off of everything I've read so far, the article seems to be presenting an idea that is already well-received in the Korean film industry (however I could be entirely mistaken, I am quite tired at the moment).

I think for most people they interpreted a very negative impression of the US through this film. First off, there is the American scientist right at the beginning who forces the Korean scientist to incorrectly dispose of toxic chemicals into the Han River. There is also the use of the American medical unit who comes in and pretends that there is something wrong. The deadly virus of which they are searching is not actually confirmed by scientists, which makes the decision to quarantine certain members of the public to feel all the more wrong, even if in a situation where there is an unknown animal attacking people and there is a possibility of something deadly to be transferred through contact.

Based off of this presentation, people do get a very negative impression of Americans. This reminded me of the way in which Americans are presented in Welcome to Dongmakdol. A conflict was created in by outside sources and is wreaking havoc on the Korean population. However, there is an empathetic American character presented in one of the first scenes with the monster. This character, like Smith in Welcome to Dongmakdol, helps the Korean population. The American in The Host, unlike Smith, is known to have died due to wounds inflicted upon him by the monster. I'm trying to think of why he would be presented positively. Even looking back upon the film, it seems like the camera is always shifting focus from Gang-du to Donald (the American) and back again, potentially creating some sort of parallel between the characters. This happens when Donald is arguing with his partner in the background, and the camera shifts to a similar argument between Gang-du and a different woman. Later on, when the monster is released from the trailer, Gang-du looks on from his position and Donald runs out from behind, and the camera shifts focus from Gang-du to Donald.

I remember from class, Professor Cho said quite frequently during any movie with Song Kang-ho that he was the ideal Korean citizen (forgive me, I forget the exact wording). Therefore, what is the director trying to say by creating the parallel between Donald and the parallel between Gang-du/Song Kang-ho?

The Host and Globalization

The Host (2006) by Bong Joon-ho is a Korean blockbuster that has amassed large nationwide fame. It broke the domestic hit record, with 13,010,000 viewers in the nation. According to Lee, the box office success of the movie marks a “disjuncture between the nationalist ideology appropriated by the domestic film industry and its economic interests.” (Lee, 54) This is because the movie does not incorporate an overtly nationalist sentiments and tackle any particular Korean issues.

There were few scenes where foreigners were casted to play the civilian role. This made me think of the ethnic nationalism that Shin mentioned. It was suggested that Koreans feel less related to foreigners living in Korea than Koreans living abroad. However, the movie The Host portrays foreigners crying amidst the Korean population, very naturally. Does this detail provide a base for the argument for similarities to Hollywood movies?

In my opinion, The Host incorporated many details that still were appealing to the Korean audience. In the scene where the whole family were having a meal, we could see the family members giving food to the youngest child and taking care of her. This emphasis on family not only attracted diverse segments of the audience, but also related to Koreans’ importance of family. 

[The Host]

The film The Host (2006) directed Bong Joon-ho, depicts a story about a bizarre creature that resides in the Han River. When reading Ainsfield’s article on the perception Japanese and Americans have toward Godzilla (Ainsfield, 53), it reminded me of other monster-related Korean movies, such as D-War (directed by Shim Hyung Rae in 2007). While The Host able to capture the international audience, D-War failed to do so; many Korean critiques claimed that Korean audience was generous towards D-War simply because it was a Korean movie (advocating the domestic film). I have not watched the film, but I assume that the dragon failed (at least for Americans) in sympathizing with the audience.

On the other hand, The Host was more than some monster that horrified the Koreans in the movie; the film introduces contemporary global political issues as well (Lee, 50). As mentioned in Lee’s article, I also interpreted the creation of host as the result of US government’s tyranny toward South Korea. For example, the movie implies that the toxic chemicals thrown down the sink by US medical official’s order (despite Korean personnel’s objection) created a mutation of a creature (the guaemul). At the same time, the first scene of the movie described South Korea’s obedience toward US – although the Korean staff is reluctant to pour the toxic into Han River, he does so anyways. Furthermore, the intervention of US in trying to figure out the “unknown virus” caused by the monster reminded me of US involvement during the Korean War as well; US approaches South Korea by justifying their interference as “helping the Koreans who do not know what they are dealing with”. To me, this called up the idea of “White man’s burden”, where the White (the Americans) position themselves as a higher being than Koreans – that South Koreans would not be able to solve the problem without their help (even when in fact, there was no virus to begin with).

One of the film techniques surprised me was Bong’s use of long shots without frequent use of cutting and editing. For instance, in the scene when the monster attacks the people for the first time, everything becomes chaotic. In describing this scene, where Kangdo runs alongside the host, the camera films for an extended time of period. As a viewer, this made the scene more realistic, as if the audience was running with Kangdo. This also reminded me of the long shot in Bong’s other film, Memories of Murder (the section which shows the crime scene). 

What is the monster symbolizing? America? Hollywood? Capitalism?

I would like to give a couple negative thoughts I had whenever I tried to search for this film online, before I start talking about my academic opinion on it:
   First, Stephenie Meyer, really? Why'd you have to go and name your novel The Host after the release of a highly successful movie (at least nationwide) with the same name? Just typing in "The Host" on the search engine of Google gives me link after link on Hollywood's The Host, based on her creation, even though it's clear that the Korean film The Host achieved more success.
   Second, the original title is Gwoemul, which means "monster". So "The Host" as a title can be quite misleading, but it does seem to sound like a sci-fi work, so I'll let it pass.

Now, onto my academic response...

   Lee's article mentioned how this film had reached the top spot in the box office nationwide before James Cameron's Avatar was released, thus taking up the coveted spot for about three years since its debut in 2006. I was able to watch The Host in a cinema in Seoul back in 2006, and I remember how crowded the room was. From the moment I saw the scene where a US military officer had bottles of toxic liquid poured into the Han River, which the monster would claim as its domain, and especially with the hesitation of the accompanying Korean military officer, I was thinking that this film seemed to resonate an anti-American sentiment. Lee could have translated this anti-American quality to a certain "ambivalence toward Hollywood that lies at the heart of the South Korean film industry" (46). It sort of gives the impression that perhaps Korea does not need the help or inspiration of American entertainment makers to achieve success in whatever forms of art. Even if that was not among the public images conceived, there was a nationalistic tone, however subtle. As a reader, do you think this blockbuster was capitalizing on national pride or nationalist sentiments? Or to take it one step further, was the director purposely using nationalist sentiments in the hope of attracting more Korean audience members? This could be a possibility after I read this statement by Lee on a case study of Korean film industry's attack on Hollywood: "One of the essential conditions for inculcation of nationalist values among the Korean public is the domestic film industry's projection of Hollywood as a monster trying to devour Korean national cinema" (52). So here she is positing the monster as a symbol of Hollywood that Korean films want to eliminate in order to cultivate an independent platform that would more accurately portray Korean society and culture.

   But instead of the monster being a symbol of America or Hollywood, I prefer to think of it as a hideous experiment gone wrong due to the consumption of Western-style capitalism in Korea. When the monster invaded the shores on the Han River, it could be equivalent to the invasion of the Korean economy by capitalism. Think about which jobs appear to be more widely respected by ethnic Koreans nowadays. Most of them are associated with large, corporate, and privately-owned companies. Many college/university graduates tend to gravitate toward the companies with renowned names and numerous branches. Think about highly powerful and influential characters in several Korean dramas. They often are businessmen who are making lots of money in some private company. They may even be the CEOs. And sometimes, they seek flings which eventually turn into love, and so forth. When you think in those terms, this monster-standing-in-for-capitalism theory may appear to be a practical approach.

Donald the Hollywood Hero: East-West Tensions in The Host

In Localized Globalization and a Monster National: The Host and the South Korean Film Industry, Lee suggests that the 2006 Korean film The Host is an example of the South Korean film industry’s efforts to both project Hollywood as an Other and promote itself as a “nationalist film industry essential for sustaining Korean national cinema” (60). Thinking within this framework, the portrayal of Americans is of particular note in the film--specifically, that of Donald, an American soldier living in Korea. Donald first appears in the initial action scene involving the monster. While Koreans, including protagonist Park Gang-du, are running away from the monster, Donald makes a show of running towards it in an attempt to save a group of people trapped in a trailer. Gang-du and Donald are immediately portrayed as counterparts: they work together to attack the monster, but Donald is attacked and injured.

Here we see a classic American heroic archetype: the white protagonist who leads the Asian supporting characters to defeat the enemy. For example, the 1956 American film Godzilla, King of the Monsters! edits the original 1954 Japanese film to include an American white protagonist who leads the Japanese in defeating Godzilla. This character can also be seen in films such as The Last Samurai and Lawrence of Arabia.

This archetype is subverted, however, when Donald unceremoniously dies in a hospital while Gang-du goes on to hunt and kill the monster. This mirrors Lee’s notion of South Korean cinema as fundamentally nationalist--Gang-du, the Korean protagonist, displaces Donald as the hero of the film. However, the film is more complex in its discussions of national heroes and heroism, as evidenced by the Korean and American media’s treatment of Donald and Gang-du. Donald is hailed as a hero by the media, while Gang-du is portrayed as a sick fugitive. Perhaps, in light of this, Gang-du is not simply representative of the South Korean film industry’s answer to the American hero. Perhaps he also signifies both the Othering of Hollywood by the South Korean industry, and the Othering of South Korean film by Hollywood.  

[The Host]

The host is a 2006 South Korean monster film, directed by Bong Joon-Ho. According to the Lee’s article, she mentions that the film touches on contemporary global political issues. For example, in the very beginning of the movie, an American military pathologist commands a reluctant Korean assistant to violate protocol by dumping over 200 bottles of formaldehyde down a drain which is leading to Han River. This is causes the creating of monster in Han River. I thought that it is possible that the US can violate protocol in reality since they have a part in Korean politics. But still we do not really know if they are actually acting like that and it was very sensitive issue to treat in the movie. Also, I thought that this movie criticizes the weakness and incompetence of Korean government. For example, on the news scene, they tell citizens that the US and WHO assumes that the Korean government cannot solve this problem, so they will involve and solve this problem. Even though the movie contains some critics, this movie “dominated the South Korean box office in the summer of 2006” (Lee. 47). It was biggest domestic hit and 13,010,000 people watched this movie. Later, it was released in other countries and it was very successful. I can also agree with the fact that the movie was a great success because before the host released, it was very hard to watch Korean movie in Canada, but the host was playing on several movie channels on TV. I was very surprised and very happy that the Korean movie was introducing to foreign audiences. Today, many Korean movies are targeting to global market and many Korean directors already released their Hollywood movie such as Snowpiercer by Bong Joon-Ho. I think that the success of host stimulated development in Korean movie and it was good start to globalize.

The american monster

Lee argues that, beginning with the hugely popular Korean film Shiri, watching a film in Korea became a “national event in which the audience were identified as patriots,” in a battle between two film industries as if there was literally a war between the USA and Korea (50). The Host is not just a movie about a Korean population’s struggle to kill off a threatening monster, but about the frustration in not being able to eradicate the influence of another foreign intruder: the United States. 

Instead of praising the US army for their decision to come to the assistance of the plagued people, the film paints their coming in a sombre and threatening light. When newscasters announce the intervention of the World Health Organization and the US, there are numerous shots of running soldiers, moving tanks, machine guns and other military imagery that demonstrate the unrelenting hand of the American state. American intervention is seen as over-the-top, harmful, misdirected, and detrimental to the people themselves instead of a generous helping hand in a dire situation. In this way, the American occupancy becomes yet another unwelcome and dangerous presence in the city, just like the appearance of the monster itself. For example, right before the release of Agent Yellow, there are riot police pushing back the crowds of protestors, and a robotic voice announces the potential harms of the gas for elderly people, children, pregnant women, and people with respiratory disorders. While our protagonists are concerned with the giant lethal monster kidnapping and eating people, the US army is concerned with the so-called viruses within the population itself, terrorizing the public instead of the real monster. 

What’s more, when the American doctor comes to Gang-du to talk to him, he jabs Gang-du’s forehead with his finger to point to the location of the virus, saying “it’s in the brain.” The brain surgery he performs (violently against the will of Gang-du) is a metaphor for the invasive molestation of Korean consciousness itself by the American government. While the Korean government, anxious over viral infection, plays willing "host" to the American visitors, Gang-du resists being influenced by their professed authority and it is up to him and his family to tackle the monster themselves. 

The demonization of American influence in the film stems from what Lee argues is a resentment over the monopoly of Hollywood over the film industry. The Host purported the capabilities of the Korean film industry not only in the massive box office success of the film, but in its criticism of American influence in Korea as something evil disguised as good. 

The host

Director Bong Joonho, which rerecorded huge number of audiences in South Korea, produced the Host. According to what Lee states “recent emergence of the Korean blockbuster and suggests that the Korean film industry’s ambivalent practices do not necessarily constitute de-Westernization… localizing Hollywood does not de-Westernize the practice of making blockbusters so much as it globalizes the domestic film industry” (Lee, 50).  In the film, audience was able to see that there is an anti-American attitude. For example, the film begins with the US military officers orders a Korean military officer to pour the toxic liquid into the Han-river, which created the host and brought the result of citizens’ death. 

The ending scene abided in my memory, when the little survived boy SeJu and Kangdo eating dinner together in the store. This scene seemed a bit irony to me, because the host destroyed Han-river, where the store was located at, and even the store was destroyed. When the camera zoom out and showed the store located in the Han-river by it self and used the long shot leaves an aftertaste to the audience. How could Kangdo and Seju stay at the Han-river, even though that place remained as the traumatic place? This could be the contrived argument, but I could say that this scene portrays the people in South Korea. Even though there were various hardships in South Korea such as Korean War, IMF, etc. people in these days make a fair living. Moreover, even though there is 60years of ceasefire, most people in South Korea do not aware of the War in these days. 

Another irony in this film was there weren’t many supports from the government. For example, after Donald was hurt by the host when he was helping Kangdu, US doctors helped him and the person who interviewed said, without government’s permission, they cannot tell anything about it. However, at the funeral, the yellow guy came and turned the TV on, there weren’t broadcasting about the citizens’ death.This scene indirectly shows the citizens’ social dissatisfactions towards the governments. 

   The ending scene when the camera moves out with the long shot and shows the store staying at the han-river with lots of snow approached as a tension to me. Some would say that the ending scene seems to be quite and peaceful but for me, it builds up the seance of tension. It was interesting to see the ending scene with the long shot because, the other film, memories of murder that was produced by director Bong also ends up with the long shot at the end and leaves the aftertaste and let audience to infer the conclusion.