The Crux of Parasite Lies in its Ability to Provide an Enjoyable Viewing Experience; Yet it Lacks Enduring Appeal

Bong Jun-ho, the director of "Mother," has been somewhat disappointing since then. Initially, it was thought that Hollywood and Netflix limited him, but now it seems that the director, with a penchant for enigmatic narratives, became too focused on technique and cleverness while abandoning the complexity of social criticism. Explicit metaphors and critiques of class aren't praiseworthy in themselves, as they are fixed objectives of a certain type of film. The appeal of such films depends on 1) the effectiveness of the critique and 2) how it is presented.

So, 1) is "Parasite" effective in its critique? Not really. Merely showcasing class differences does not fulfill the task. The parasitic relationships depicted in the film lack a deeper "social meaning" and are rather straightforward, representing literal "parasitism" – taking some food, taking some drink. This kind of parasitism is too focused on "physiological needs," and it doesn't necessarily reflect the societal construct of "class."

If Bong Jun-ho had designed the "class difference" as progressive – for example, the lower class parasitizing the upper class, and the upper class parasitizing the decaying national bureaucracy, subsidies, and environment – or as cyclical – the lower class parasitizing the upper class while the upper class simultaneously feeds off the lower class in an exploitative manner – or as global – the lower class parasitizing the upper class while the upper class parasitizes Americans with a "hegemonic benevolence" – all these multi-layered socio-economic parasitic structures would enrich the meaning of "parasite" itself.

However, the current portrayal of "parasitism" tends to be superficial, only depicting poverty itself – even showcasing the "bright and hardworking poor son's excellent achievements being effortlessly nullified by the wealthy girl's family background," a basic portrayal of class struggles. In a sense, it falls short compared to "Snowpiercer." While "Snowpiercer" had a more overt and direct metaphor for class, it at least provided an explanation for a system akin to an ecological pyramid. "Parasite" doesn't even bother to enrich this.

So, 2) how is this critique presented? Critiques can take various forms. One of the more straightforward methods, like Ken Loach's style in "I, Daniel Blake ," involves subjecting a character to extreme misfortunes to evoke empathy and tears, eventually extending the critique to the entire system. A more sophisticated approach can be observed in films like Thailand's "Bad Genius," which, beneath its spy-thriller packaging about exam cheating, ultimately addresses class issues. While not necessarily refined, it successfully combines commercial appeal with a logical exploration of social criticism.

The biggest issue with "Parasite" in terms of how it approaches criticism lies in the overly fantastical nature of the entire story. It can be considered a wild ride—neither entirely absurd nor satirical to the point where the critique becomes difficult to approach using logical reasoning. One might argue that it delves deep into societal issues, yet Song Kang-ho's parasitic character fails to elevate the central theme. Considering it as a societal allegory becomes challenging due to the story's extreme nature, making it almost impossible to represent society in a condensed form.

The two groups of parasites depicted in the film seem more like parallel relationships, lacking any fundamental differences at their core. It's not a progression or escalation of parasitic relationships, such as the housemaid's "parasitism," nor is it a complementary relationship based on mutual benefit. By the end, Song Kang-ho's character's parasitism even devolves into something more basic—simply sneaking into the kitchen for food late at night, falling short of the intricacies found in the housemaid's role.

Essentially, in the latter half of "Parasite," the story becomes a lure for the audience through its bizarre and fantastical plot points. The core of the narrative shifts away from critique, reflection, satire, or even humorous commentary. Instead, the entire film is primarily driven by an underground parasitic element that is so surreal that it borders on the impossible.

Now, for the third question, 3) why is "Parasite" enjoyable, and why did Cannes choose it? Cannes has had questionable tastes for quite some time, such as selecting "Burning," "The Square," and "I, Daniel Blake." These choices often stem from a small committee's preferences and the occasional star power. While "Parasite" might meet these criteria, its technical expertise, Bong Jun-ho's filmmaking mastery, and a lack of competitors with notably superior "artistry" allowed it to stand out.

Returning to the previous question, why is "Parasite" enjoyable? Bong Jun-ho's foundation, from "Memories of Murder" and "Mother" to "The Host," transformed from an arty genre film to a purely genre film (while not completely abandoning distrust of the state system). "Snowpiercer" and "Okja" were distortions of Hollywood's industrial technique combined with his filmmaking prowess. In a sense, "Parasite" merges the technical expertise of "Snowpiercer" and "Okja" with Bong 's own cinematic skill, creating an incredibly "enjoyable" film. However, the deep-seated compassion, powerlessness, and non-obtrusive critique found in "Memories of Murder" and "Mother" are missing.

This is the crux of why "Parasite" is both enjoyable and not enduring.