Wat

Attached: reading-winnie-the-pooh.jpg (960x535, 48K)

I read the story in 3 words.

It was the boning.

I wish the movie was a bit more focused with its themes. It feels like it's just a tiny bit too all over the place. If they developed one theme to shine through more, it would be a much tighter movie.

I saw the story on the shelf and comprehended it in that instant.

I just read "Murakami" on the cover and instantly knew what the whole book was about

The title was spoken to me and at once I knew.

Here's the entire short story:
>Married 31 year old is occasional fuck buddies with 20 year-old quasi prostitute who leeches off her boyfriends
>she inherits some money and goes to Africa
>she comes back with new bf, who she introduces to MC
>they get high together and new bf tells MC that he likes to burn barns
>in fact, he has one picked out very near MC
>MC maps out the barns near him to monitor them, but none of them get burned
>by random chance, MC sees new bf's car outside a cafe and stops in to see what happened with the barns
>New bf says, oh yeah, I burned one down about 10 days after we last met
>Then new bf asks MC if he has talked to the girl recently
>MC realizes for the first time he hasn't heard from her in while
>MC goes to her place and mail is piled up outside
>MC never hears from her again
>The End
This is what they dragged out for 2 1/2 hours.

I walked past a library once and immediately knew the story of this book

So i guess she killed herself?
Ben didn't do it, if he had he would not have showed up when the main character says he's wating with her in the middle of nowhere
Why did he have the pink watch and the cat though?

Attached: 1519328930559.png (478x523, 14K)

It doesn't matter what happened to her. It's left intentionally open while making sure to point that whatever it was, Glen was responsible.

>It's left intentionally open

Attached: 1519329294283.png (578x566, 12K)

It is. If you think it's shown he killed her, you're the retard here

It's crystal clear that Ben murdered her. Only a brainlet would think it's left open just because you don't see it.

It really isn't. You're reading into it too much.

Nigger, read the short story. The whole point is that "Ben" isn't burning barns. He's killing people.

Attached: 1519421490500.png (235x214, 7K)

fucking based

The fuck you on about. Burning in this context just means an act of destruction, it doesn't have to be a literal killing. Again, you're reading into it too much

Read this:
If you don't get that the boyfriend has killed the girl, you really are an idiot who needs to not share his stupid opinions.

Ben most likely fucked her and dumped her, but all the "evidence" of the murder is entirely circumstantial and the connection only exists in the mind of Lee

>Haemi existed
>Ben existed

Attached: 16e.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Holy shit, you're stupid.
Then what's the point of no barn near the MC being burned? You think that was just filler?

did the girl really have breast implants?
or is it just a meme from this board?

It's all in the fucking movie, now you read this:

I don't even know what it's called and only know a story exists of some kind because of this thread and I already know it by heart.

She did. They were awful. You can see double-boob when she lifts her arms with her top off at the farm scene.

How did the new gf die after the lipstick scene?

post pic ?
really strange tho, her tits were already so damn small like sunny side eggs

youtube.com/watch?v=XhiZ_KHggaA

>It's all in the fucking movie
No, it's not. The girl isn't even important to the MC in the book. That's one of the reasons she gets targeted. because she is a neglected "barn" that no one would miss.
The book isn't even heavy handed about it. No watch. No cat. Just she goes missing and no barn was burned. The boyfriend having killed her is the whole point of the story. You are below moronic if you don't get that.

Then why the fuck does he show up in the end?
It makes no fucking sense, or at least go with no weapons.
It's not that evident.

>No, it's not.
Yes it fucking is. You fucking moron how did you miss that? It's the whole point of the movie. Jesus fuck you're a retard. She goes missing. He says he goes burning barns which means a destructive process of some sort that could be but doesn't have to be killing. I swear you're like below 90 IQ at this point

>Then why the fuck does he show up in the end?
What reason would he give for not showing up? That he knows she couldn't possibly be there?
Be more stupid.
>He says he goes burning barns which means a destructive process of some sort
The entire point of the story is that it isn't barn burning, or "some other destructive process", he kills the girl
>I have a barn in mind
>It's close to you
>I pick barns that are neglected and no one would miss
>girl goes missing
You need to stick to capeshit if this went over your head. This wasn't ambiguous.

>the boyfriend of the girl i just killed called me to meet him and her in the middle of nowhere
>yeah i'll just show up unarmed and trust this guy who has been following me
You're fucking braindead

Ok, I understood that barns don't mean barns, as I've said since the first post. Now show me where you got that burning means killing.

that's what the short story is you fuck,
it's not the same as the movie

he really isn't
you really are

This is where the movie broke from the story. The girl isn't his girlfriend. She's just some slut he cheats on his wife with. She's missing a year and he doesn't even notice it until the "boyfriend" asks if he's spoken with her (basically gloating over his kill).
In the movie, clearly Ben is s sociopath who doesn't think that the dude has it in him to do anything based on mere suspicion. He shows up out of curiosity and is taken by surprise.
That's the whole point of the girl going missing.

>that's what the short story is you fuck,
I literally say
>Here's the entire short story:
The movie is just a filler-laden version of the short story. The entire point of the short story is that the boyfriend isn't burning barns, he's killing people (namely, the girl). You think they adapted the short story and just jettisoned the entire point of it because you are a 40 IQ drooling retard.

I didn't read your post
the movie and the story are different things
don't care about anything you have to say

>That's the whole point of the girl going missing.
Yes, we know she went missing. How do you know it means she was killed? We already know that barn burning is a metaphor because of barns. How did you get from the girl going missing that burning in this context meant killing.

>In the movie, clearly Ben is s sociopath who doesn't think that the dude has it in him to do anything based on mere suspicion. He shows up out of curiosity and is taken by surprise
Yes this was my initial thought, but it's such a shitty poorly written ending that i had to think he actually didn't do it
It makes no sense he would be this oblivious considering he's a killer that leaves no traces behind

I encourage you to share your opinion about this movie with everyone you know who's seen it, just so they know the level of retard they are dealing with when they talk to you.

didn't read that one either

>How do you know it means she was killed?
The movie version beats you over the head with this. Ben has a trophy drawer. The girl's watch appears in it after she goes missing. He has her fucking cat. how do you not see how obvious it is?

Yes you did.

Yea Forums X is on, so I get notified when you reply, and I reply to let you know I didn't read yours

Why did he have all those knives?

>It makes no sense he would be this oblivious
But it does. He's intrigued by the MC. The MC is the only person he shared the "bar burning" story with. The MC is the only person to ever make him feel jealousy. He's a sociopath craving stimulation, so of course he wants to see what's up when the dude calls him and says he's with the girl and wants to meet. A lot of serial killers kind of want to get caught. Maybe he wanted the MC to stop him. There are lots of reasons for him to show up after killing the girl.

Are you 12? Seriously kid, stop embarrassing yourself.

Found the retard. Ben didn't do anything wrong,

you write lots of posts

>The movie version beats you over the head with this. Ben has a trophy drawer. The girl's watch appears in it after she goes missing. He has her fucking cat. how do you not see how obvious it is?
Because it fucking isn't. Just because he keeps a trophy from each successful "burning" doesn't tell you that "burning" is killing. That's entirely in your head.

Are there people in this thread that unironically believe that "burning barns" wasn't synonymous with him killing someone?
I need this clarified because I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling.

>Just because he keeps a trophy from each successful "burning" doesn't tell you that "burning" is killing.
Right. He paid for her to permanently go away on vacation.

Attached: 1519345337247.png (645x729, 69K)

I have never seen such ridiculous bickering about such a boring goddamn short story and gook movie.

Attached: 4035683.39999998_1541979829995.jpg (490x361, 133K)

I'm with you. I'm absolutely appalled at the morons who are even arguing this point. I've tried explaining this at a 3rd grade level repeatedly, but it isn't sinking in. And they aren't trolling. Just dense as fuck. I think they want to believe that they're clever and that the movie is tricking you into thinking Ben was the killer, but they're just overthinking it and looking stupid in the process.

I can give you 5 examples of what it could be:
1). Driving them to suicide
2). Kidnapping them and keeping in one of his houses
3). Kidnapping them and selling them to North Korean brothels (they live near North Korea and his business is deliberately made vague)
4). Making them overspend and then cutting them off, forcing them to run away from the banks (the movie makes a point of telling you her credit cards were maxed out)
5). Getting her hooked on something addictive and then pawning her off to one of his friend

Every single one of these could be "burning" a barn. Just because you can only understand it one way doesn't mean everyone here is such an idiot.

Lol, that's the fucking point. Ben is lying and Lee is trying to find something to blame him because he needs a culprit for everything that is wrong with his life.

No. The girl is the real killer and she's wearing Ben's skin. That's about the level of your dumb theories.

>that's the fucking point
No. You clearly missed the whole point.

What in the movie points to the fact that "burning" a barn is killing and not any one of a billion things Ben could have done?

I've gone over this too many times with you to try again. I can't fix your stupidity.

Which means you have nothing but can't admit it. I'll take it.

I do not think so. Lee represents the modern man who needs to find a reason or a tangible concept that shapes everything that is wrong in his life. He dreams of being a writer like Faulkner, but you rarely see him writing. There is a scene in which Ben tries to hold a literary conversation and Lee looks very lost. He lives alone and does not have a girlfriend. His mother abandoned him and his father doesn't care what happens. What is the problem? He doesn't know how to externalize his misfortune. That's why Ben becomes his scapegoat. The movie shows you how everything is circumstantial. What Ben said that day under the influence of alcohol and drugs, the nature of Hae-mi, the clock, the cat ... There isn't a conclusive evidence. But he wants to belive in something else. Everything is part of his imagination. Like the movie suggest at the begining.

Bro, give it up. You're not arguing with a reasonable person here. You're arguing with what I assume to be, and pardon me for using that word, snyderfags. They are physically incapable of understanding subtlety. Just save your time.

ben did it retard

then who was girl friend kill?

because theres no fucking barns burnt even when ben claims to have "burnt a barn recently". Lee finds the stuff from the girls in Ben's appartment and ben already has a new girl there. why would he have the girls belongings if she had left?

god is dog backward, guys get it?

wat

was i the only one that got religion tones from this movie

The exact moment he should have turned 360 degrees and walked away.

Attached: Burning.2018.KOREAN.720p.BluRay.x264.DTS-FGT_00:04:13.000.jpg (1280x536, 149K)

They made a straightforward murder story
>incel meets bimbo
>bimbo meets slayer
>gets slayed
>incel rages on the slayer
then they added artsy scenes to bloat it, made the incel jog everywhere and nasturbate and boom, awards everywhere.

I'll give you a helping hand:
6). Ben is an alien and "burning" is sending them on UFOs to his home planet.
7). Ben is an agent of Zion and "burning" is redpilling them.

>"burning" could be anything g-g-guys!

so real killer killed girl not fake imagine killer make up in real killer in his mind?

Oh, me again with the UFOs.

Forgot to add that "they" don't "live near North Korea". Ben lives in Gangnam you stupid retard, that's the center of Seoul.

is ben a real or a fake

to this retard and anyone else that thinks that "burning barns" was ANYTHING apart from killing

from the original

"I don't know. I'm not going by some schedule, circling dates on the calendar. I burn a barn when I get the urge to."
"But when you want to burn one, there isn't always the kind you're looking for just waiting for you, is there?"
"Of course not," he said quietly. "So I make sure I've got a good one picked out in advance."
"Have you, already decided on your next barn?"
Frown lines formed between his eyes. And he breathed in a rush of air through his nose. "Yes. I've already found it"

>I burn one when I get the urge to
urge to kill

>So I make sure I've got a good one picked out in advance
After meeting the girl and dating her for some time he's already picked her out in advance

>Yes. I've already found it
He already knows that he's going to kill her

They obfuscated the obvious for muh mystery and muh suspense because it's an art movie.

me in the middle

The point is, in the short story it didn't feel that way. In the movie, it is more clear. The screenwriter said he wrote the script just because he was frustrated by the story's lack of clarity.
Anyway, this is Murakami. A girl disappears in each one of his stories. That's why the short story didn't scream murder for me. It was way more chill. I commend the director for making a good movie out of it. The ending of the movie was a huge gamble though. It sacrificed the Murakami aesthetic to make itself memorable and provide some kind of closure, closure which is rarely provided in Murakami stories. I can understand that and it made for a better movie.

>The screenwriter said he wrote the script just because he was frustrated by the story's lack of clarity.
guess he failed
lol at the obvious presence of the watch and the dog and everything
why would a covert killer leave evidence lying around
guess he was really annoyed by the story to lay it in so thick.

i confuse this story

I assumed they belonged to his father. I enjoyed the subplot of the son trying not to repeat the same mistakes as his father very much.

The knives are a Chekhov's gun type of deal. Since they showed them at the start I kept wondering when they were going to appear.

I think you should stay away from art films for your own good. You're taking it way too literally.

Why? Ben killed her and he killed Ben, that's all that happened

thanks you

> Just because he keeps a trophy from each successful "burning" doesn't tell you that "burning" is killing

did you even watch the film

Attached: 1540585315935s.jpg (250x250, 6K)

Wrong. Ben didn't kill the girl and we don't know if Lee killed Ben.

Burning alludes to the scene where he burns his car.

The question isn't: "what's the meaning behind that", but "what happened?"

Ben didn't kill the slut.

>ben didn't kill the slut

except he did

i cant tell if you guys are baiting or genuinely retarded

YOU GOT ME BURNIN

divine wisdom

film.avclub.com/there-s-a-secret-about-burning-that-only-steven-yeun-kn-1830162999/amp

Here's an interview with Steven Yeun saying the director told him to act in a way where the audience doesn't know if joongsu's perception of him is correct. He says he's the only one that knows, not even the director.

There's no proof that he did it. Therefore, he's innocent.

Lee is definetly wrong. He's an unreliable narrator. The characters experience psychological and physical changes that doesn't make any sense. Why? Because everything is part of Lee imagination. The murder is his clementine. Ben didn't do anything.

>anonymous imageboard
>lol am I reading bait or not
really user?

Yawn imagine debating a shit movie
>director muddles up straightforward murder story
>lol so deep did it happen did x happen did y happen

Lee is the director.

Nice damage control retard

I'm watching this now thanks Yea Forums

my brain is shrunk and shriveled after reading this thread. I gain no deeper knowledge of this movie. my confusion is constant and sharp

That girl had some amazing tits. Were they real?

ITT: people who argue about the specific thing the director intended them to argue about, it's left to the viewer to decide if the MC is right or wrong in his actions.

Some retards just think they know the answer, it's the same kind of twats that say Childs was the thing at the end of The Thing because of one reason or another. Bunch of mouthbreathers if you ask me.

On a certain level, he's a kind of director. But a shitty one. He uses other people in his inner world to saturate the wounds that his family and society caused. That's why Ben and the Whore have a dissimilar attitude throughout the story.

I'm saying he's the director of the movie. The protagonists name is Joong-su.

Pretty sure the only reason people are gonna watch this is because steven yeun is in it.

Ok now I'm interested , what's the movie name in English?

Burning, the video of her tits was posted earlier. They're fake

We don't know because Lee is an unreliable narrator. The tiddies look natural an small in the sex scene, but then they get bigger when Hae-mi dances.

The protags name is Joongsu

Or because of Cannes special selection you pleb

I saw it because Steven Yeun is cute. :3

Fgt

Congratulations, you got played.
>how do we make the movie open ended?
>just muddle things up bro
it's just lazy.

There clearly was ambiguity otherwise the film would be garbage. The film leads you to believe that Ben has killed her. It's not just hinted at, it's pretty much spoonfed to the viewer. But the fact that we never see what happened, that all three of the focal characters are mentally unstable to varying degrees, that the only evidence is circumstancial, that the movies is 150mins, that the MC is driven by some form of class-based resentment that's potentially clouding his perspective - all this should open your eyes to the possibility of the viewer (and MC) being led down a rabbit hole.

If the director were to come out and say, "oh yeah, of course he killed her, wasn't that obvious" I'd lose a lot of respect for the film. Like what even is there to it beyond its unreliability and ambiguity?

Your view is a little bit superficial and epidermal, I believe. Like watching the finger when someone points to the moon.

Is there anything of substance you'd like to share?

How do you know? Did you touch them? >all this should open your eyes to the possibility of the viewer (and MC) being led down a rabbit hole.
it wouldn't be an art movie without those. A 2hr+ artsy piece of shit oh boy

>director fluffs the FUCK out of a shitty simple murder movie so he can make it artsy
>oh shit there's so much more to it!
Why do you do this? Remove the artsy scenes and the movie becomes a standard murder thriller.

based

What a retard. The whole point is you cant be sure what happened.

>This brainlet

Its one of the most unconventional narrative film

That's just pretentious speak. Show me something that indicates Ben didn't kill her. Or that it's all part of the lead gook's imagination.

I'm pretty sure after thinking very much about the film that Steven Yeun's character essentially helps girls like Shin Haemi, girls who are at the short end of the stick and want to 're-invent' themselves by leaving everything in their life behind and becoming someone completely different. One of these methods is basically learning how to convincingly lie to their friends about past experiences, or about completely new traits about themselves. Hence the whole 'pantomime' technique. I feel like the whole 'trip to Africa' was a lie and Shin Haemi was consulting Ben on how to detach herself from her old life and leave everything behind. One of her motivations clearly being to become an actress. If she can convince her only friend, if she is willing to take drastic measures, then she has what it takes.

She's obviously able to convincingly conjure up stories (she already aspired to become an actress beforehand and could lie to her parents in the past), and I feel like Ben convinced her to lie to the one person she truly trusted, Jongsu. In the scene involving her dancing topless at dusk, I think its supposed to portray her feelings of re-inventing herself as someone new, then when her high slowly fades away she realizes how much she has lost her old self. This is further emphasized when Jongsu confronts her about becoming a whore. I felt it was somewhat odd at first that she would lie to the one person she trusted, but I believe Ben convinced her to do so.

I think when Ben is seen with a different girl after she disappears, is when he feels Haemi is ready to be on her own, and he takes on his next disciple. The whole statement on how 'you don't believe you have an orange in your hand, you 'forget' it's not there in the first place' really comes into play here. That's why he keeps her watch and her cat. That's why he lies to Jongsu's face and convinces Haemi to do so as well.

Ben probably has some sort of superiority complex, and, as he puts it simply, 'plays' with other people. He loves seeing others go through different emotions, ones he can't go through himself (he states he can't cry), he's fascinated with manipulating others into transforming into completely different people, and seeing them lie to themselves, and others, thus 'playing' with their emotions. Definitely a hobby that came as a by-product of growing up rich and not learning about dealing with consequences of one's own actions. Which is why he seems genuinely surprised when Jongsu stabs him and kills him in the end, since he thought it was all a game and he himself would never be on the receiving end. I personally think Ben had so much money to himself he never had to work, and boredom drove him to manipulating others as a sense of satisfaction, with the objective of allowing his victims to transform themselves being some sort of 'moral' justification for his actions.

A lot of what we see of Ben is through Jong-su's tainted perception (he is jealous of Ben's wealth and possibly Hae-mi's attention) which makes innocuous things like the yawning seem more insidious than they could actually be,

a) Ben could literally be burning women. Cremation and makeup are spelled the same in Korean. The bracelets and watches he keeps could very well be mementos or trophies from his victims. He kills women who he knows no one will look for because they are in such a ditch in their lives.

b) He traffics them (specifically, he sells them as sex slaves in Africa). He promises women who come from humble and unfulfilling lives a life of luxury and adventure without revealing what that entails. We know he has traveled to Africa more than once (note all the African art and souvenirs in his apartment) and his door man mentions to Ben that he is back from home (which we find out later is a lie since his family clearly lives in Korea). While he could very easily come from money, which I think plays into the commentaries on class and what people inherit, this could explain his income. This makes me consider that him showing off the women to that specific circle of friends is not just him parading around these "low class" people for their amusement but also a way of "showing off the wares" so to speak, specially if they are also involved in that as well.

c) His way of "burning abandoned greenhouses" is taking these women from sad sack lives and giving them new lives. This is the one I think there is the least evidence for but again works if you consider that our perception of Ben is through Jong-su's lens who is essentially a jealous country bumpkin who doesn't understand metaphor, takes everything literally (checking the sames greenhouses for a month+).

based

I think that if the ending where Jong-su kills Ben is real and not imagined (which is a whole other tangent), it plays into Ben having no idea what happened to Hae-mi. For one, if he did kill her, why would he be surprised Hae-mi isn't there and arrive without protection into something he would know absolutely know is a trap?

Other things.

-Another proof on Jong-su's mental health and his patheticness is his masturbation on haemi's room because he keeps trying to relieve that moment where he was having sex with haemi.

-Haemi's is supposedly a poor (maxed out credit cards) so it's possible she just started a new life with the help of Ben

>who doesn't understand metaphor, takes everything literally (checking the sames greenhouses for a month+).

He's also poorly educated like many people because despite taking creative writing in college he can't intellectually discuss why he likes Faulkner (and yeah he doesn't know what the fuck a metaphor is).

She cute.

Why Yea Forums is so obsessed this flick?

Murakami is reddit cringe

I think Ben killed her but you can't quote from the book to support your theories on the film. They are separate works of art and conflicting interpretations are possible.

it was the best film of last year. It's not fantastic or anything but the year was pretty shitty.

>Blatant critique of capitalism and korean society
>Lol did he kill her or not

Attached: pqafkb6d9ba01.jpg (645x729, 57K)

>rich guy takes desperate young women and use their dreams and passions for entertainment before disposing of them when they get boring
>no but he was really helping her guys

Yawn

It's one of those movies where brainlets post about like it's a masterpiece because they're so smart they saw the hidden meanings and think the lead gook imagined killing Ben. Imagine being so fucked in the head.

If you want to critique society, make a documentary. Films are for telling stories.

>Stories don't have themes
Jesus christ this board has some retards.

Attached: abc.png (226x223, 7K)