MovieChat Forums > Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (2004) Discussion > confused by changing actors, misinterpre...

confused by changing actors, misinterpreted film

posted 12 years ago by xordu1
4 replies | jump to latest

part of my confusion is that i missed the beginning of the film (the first, spring, i came in at summer). But was anybody else completely thrown off by all the different actors playing the one monk character?

Basically the film i thought i was watching, i didn't realize that each season was supposed to be a decade apart or so. My confusion set in around fall. i was thrown off at first by the different actor, but realized later it was the same character thanks to the dialogue. I didn't get a translation of the newspaper article the monk saw, and didn't realize that it was his wife the monk had killed. I assumed that he had killed the man she left him for. So come winter, I thought the monk was still in jail and yet a new actor playing the monk i mistook for being one the detectives. I thought the detective had been so moved that he decided to go to that temple and live a monk's life, it kind of looked like the detective wearing green after getting into shape or something.

When the woman arrived in winter, i thought it was the woman from summer. I assumed the child was the murderer-monk's child that he impregnated her with earlier in the film, and the reason she was grieving was because the father was in jail for murdering the man she left him for, and that she saw the child as a curse because of this and that's why she left him behind. She covered her face because she did not want to incite any more lust at the temple as she did in the past, that the master;'s words from before stayed in her head throughout her tragedy and she cursed her face for it.

It was only after the film was over and i looked it up on wikipedia i realized the plot i thought i was watching was totally bogus. THe changing of actors made this film very hard to follow.

The film is a pleasure to watch no matter what plot you think you're watching though.

[–] victorherm54 12 years ago

Totally agree. The last young monk who appears, the one who builds a buddha out of ice and does exercises, can't possibly be the same actor as the guy who gets arrested for killing his wife, right?? I thought they looked nothing alike.
Plus, wouldn't he be in jail for, you know, MURDERING his wife? Or did he get just like a 3 year sentence or something?

On top of that, the little boy who appears at the end is the same one from the beginning of the movie.

The only conclusion I could reach in my head was that those scenes were showing you what happened back when the old monk was young, some kind of flashback to show how he first got to that place in the first place, how he ended up in charge of the young apprentice monk in the first place, etc. But then I remembered that at the beginning of the movie, the old monk is already much older than the apprentice, so that couldn't be it either.

So, the point is, that entire sequence was poorly expressed in the movie. It doesn't make the movie any deeper or better to exclude important details and make it hard to follow along. If anything, it comes off as gimmicky to do that, almost like you know the characters and story of your movie aren't strong enough to hold up on their own, so you have to resort to being cryptic.
Because of that, I can't give this movie more than a 7/10, and that's being pretty damn generous, only because I liked so many other aspects of the movie, such as the beautiful images.

[–] AlexSefton 12 years ago

What a retarded post. The monk who builds the ice buddha was the one who got arrested. It's in the official storyline section of this site. You are incredibly stupid. The director used two different actors to depict the older version.

The only conclusion I could reach in my head was that those scenes were showing you what happened back when the old monk was young

Another retarded conclusion. Fortunately this time, you realize you're wrong.

The story is about the circle of life. Spring to spring, thus the student becomes the teacher. Each monk goes through years of making mistakes and learning from their experience before seeking redemption in the ways of buddhism, and they try to pass their wisdom to their student, who will go through similar process. And so on, and on.

All you've shown is that you're incapable of simple rationale. You completely missed the point of the story and you blame the movie for your inability to follow such simple story. Here's your own words :

It doesn't make the movie any deeper or better to exclude important details and make it hard to follow along

It's not hard at all for the average people. Never have I seen such a failure like you.

[–] victorherm54 12 years ago

Wow, thanks for illuminating me on the plot of the movie, Einstein, but I didn't need the help. I know exactly what the movie is trying to convey. As if the title of the movie being called spring, summer, fall, winter..and spring wasn't already a non-subtle hint that the movie is about the cycles of life.

Alas, my retarded simpleton little friend, you clearly are still lacking basic reading comprehension.

You say he used 2 different actors to show his adult version? Yeah, that's what I said, and I said it makes no sense to do that. And it doesn't.
There's no reason why the actor who plays him when he gets taken by the cops, and the actor who plays him (looking roughly the same age) when he returns and it's all frozen and he's doing his exercises and stuff, should be different.

There's no reason to not show a quick exposition that would show that he got paroled or something, or show how much time had elapsed, or show who that woman in the veil is, or why the new child monk looks exactly like the one from the beginning of the movie, etc etc. That wouldn't be dumbing it down. It would be simple exposition to let your audience follow along.
To refuse to do so, in an effort to make your movie appear "deeper" or whatever, is simply a GIMMICK.

[–] Fake_Plastic_Love 12 years ago

The director wasn't intentionally trying to be misleading or cryptic. Aside from you or the OP, almost everyone else instantly can tell the man who returns is the older self. He looks noticeably older and aged as opposed to the young man who went away.

It makes complete sense to use two actors one in his 20s and one in his 40s/50s to reflect the man's different phases of life.

There's no reason to not show a quick exposition that would show that he got paroled or something, or show how much time had elapsed

I'm sorry but have we been watching the same film? The whole film is very minimalistic in terms of dialogue and setting. They don't need to hold your hand through everything and explicitly tell you, "And 15 years later" time card. The identity of the woman in the veil isn't significant. As for the child, it's fitting in the themes of the cycle and repeating the same mistakes.

I can't believe this movie caused any confusion whatsoever, you're in a very small minority if you couldn't understand everything that was happening clearly.