Posted on Thursday 21 April 2005
New York Times writer Manohla Dargis dismissed Old Boy with such knee-jerk virulence that I had to go see it, even though I am also cautious about films that use extreme violence as a shortcut to pathos. My interpretation of her horror of the film is that high-art cannot be achieved with the use of shock and blood, and it is an increasingly common mistake to interpret a visceral repugnance to witnessing pain, suffering, mutilation et al as the rearrangement of the senses, the world-made-new euphoria that high art is supposed to provide.

It’s a valid point, but it also reminds me of the traditional discomfort that a previous generation consistently exhibits when viewing the art valued by their children. Old Boy is not a comic book; the focus is certainly on revenge and the sadistic urges it creates and amplifies, but the moments of revenge fulfilled are not in any way cheap tricks designed to thrill the viewer. The movie is extreme in the same way that all dramas are extreme; what is drama, after all, but recognizable people placed in unusual circumstances? Dargis hates Old Boy, but one could assume she appreciates Oedipus Rex.
In fact, in many ways Old Boy could be read as a 21st century remake of the Greek classic—the devastating disproportion of the punishment to the crime; the unrelenting drive to solve the mystery of his imprisonment in spite of all signs pointing to an answer he doesn’t want; the agonizing self-destruction upon discovering the truth; even a faint similarity in his name. Oh-Dae-Su. But I may be stretching it a bit here.
What is different about this version is that at the end, this movie believes in the redemptive power of love. Even when this love is used as a tool of revenge, it is proof that love is its own power, that it will find the beauty and joy in any situation no matter how ugly. It seeks its own level, and one argument could be that its level is grace and forgiveness.

Or is it? Another just as compelling argument could be given that love and truth cannot interact; one must destroy the other. In the case of Oh-Dae-Su’s nemesis, truth destroys love. For Oh-Dae-Su, however, love destroys truth. This may be why Oh-Dae-Su cuts out his tongue, while his torturer has a bad heart. The tongue and the heart cannot co-exist in one body.
But Oh-Dae-Su does extract a tattered and bloody bit of happiness from his experience, while his enemy ostensibly triumphs, but suffers terribly upon enacting his final revenge. This may be because of an early decision on Oh-Dae-Su’s part to reject revenge in favor of discovering the truth. His antagonist, however, was wholly focused on revenge and devoted his entire life to it. And when it was done, his life was meaningless.
Another major difference between the two plots is the substitution in Old Boy of hypnosis for fate. While this may not seem like a major difference, it does allow Oh-Dae-Su his ghastly, happy ending. Hypnosis does create the same horror of inevitability for contemporary audiences as the whimsy of the gods must have created thousands of years ago. Like Oedipus, Oh-Dae-Su suffers terribly due to circumstances for which he is blameless. At the end, however, he uses hypnosis to create his own happiness, which is a powerful comment on our ability to take fate into our own hands. Oh-Dae-Su, while a victim of fate at first, uses the tools of his suffering to relieve that suffering in the end.
 [<a href='function.call-user-func-array'>function.call-user-func-array</a>]: First argument is expected to be a valid callback, '_config_wp_siteurl' was given in <b>/home/.bottom/f2equen1/fathairy/wp-includes/plugin.php</b> on line <b>48</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>: call_user_func_array() [<a href='function.call-user-func-array'>function.call-user-func-array</a>]: First argument is expected to be a valid callback, '_config_wp_siteurl' was given in <b>/home/.bottom/f2equen1/fathairy/wp-includes/plugin.php</b> on line <b>48</b><br />
/wp-content/themes/snobtheme-by-sw4n/images/header.gif)

