Cinematic marvel

Rating: 9/10 (15 February 2020)

Four highly coveted Oscars (including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay), being awarded to a foreign-language film, is an unprecedented event in my memory. This makes Parasite (South Korean 2019 tragicomedy) a must-see movie.
Having just come out of the theatre, I can admit in all sincerity that the film has affected me on multiple levels. But before broaching the poignant essentials, should firstly dispense with the banal, which I expect the woke and self-righteous movie-goers are likely to focus on. These will undoubtedly include such predictable clichés as injustices of income inequality, disdain of the chauffeur-driven elite towards "smelly" subway riders, aloof callousness to the upper classes, etc. These elements are undeniably featured in the film, but purely as a foil for a deeper exploration of the human psyche, which deserves to be examined with some specificity.
Viewer warning: Parasite, while a monumental piece of cinematic work, is not a joyous viewing experience. The unrelenting intensity, unleashed on the viewer almost from the start (not too dissimilar to that of observing a circus acrobat on a tight rope without the safety net), is sustained without respite throughout the two-hour-plus duration.
Armed with only a cursory knowledge of the South Korean society, culture, and class hierarchy, I felt somewhat disadvantaged, particularly during the early scenes. At the risk of being exceedingly presumptuous, I fear that most of the US movie-going public might be in the same boat, despite the prominence of the ubiquitous Samsung, KIA Motors and other Korean brands permeating global markets. If not for the omnipresent media denunciations of its dangerously unpredictable neighbor to the north, we would probably know even less about the Region. While ignorance is generally considered to be a bliss, in the case of Parasite, not knowing the Korean societal dynamics, one can't help but experience the frustrations of cognitive dissonance right from the start.
On the one hand, we are presented with:

a close-knit Kim family, exhibiting an unmistakably cooperative and mutually supportive spirit;
healthy, good-looking, clever and articulate offsprings;
athletically accomplished mother (the inference is drawn from a prominently placed photo, displaying her hammer throwing prowess in what appears to be a serious track & field event).

While on the other hand:

all seemingly underemployed (e.g., relegated to pizza box assembly as an income source);
underpaid (e.g., mooching off the neighbors for WIFI signal);
under-housed (i.e., shabby, vermin-infested, basement-level dwelling, where drunken public urination in front of their window is a near-regular occurrence).

The initial culturally "foreign" element driving the dissonance is that despite the unambiguously self-reliant and skilled family members, the mother feels she needs to kick the husband out of his slumber to "come up with the plan". An accomplished hammer-thrower evidently needs a man to do the heavy lifting (pun intended) when it comes to figuring out options for protecting the family or improving its finances.
What makes these incompatible realities even more disjointed is the apparent inability of the siblings, who clearly exhibit an above-average portfolio of skills, to claim their proper station in society. The brother, while devoid of formal university education, has superior math, English and college entrance test-acing skills. The sister, in addition to her mastery of drawing and appealing looks, has perfected the improv and BS artistry to such an extent that in any meritocratic setting she would easily achieve a distinguished career in marketing, politics or screenplay writing. The film creators are seemingly posing a two-part question:
1. is it the social status and family pedigree, rather than merit, that acts as a dominant determinant of one's ability to succeed; or perhaps...
2. it is a self-inflicted limitation imposed by one's own belief system that places the current circumstance or family history to be the obstacle to advancement?
The filmmakers are hinting at the latter by incorporating the heavy rock imagery, introduced to the audience in a form of a gift by a family friend (looks more like a ginormous paperweight, rather than heirloom). The brother becomes so inextricably linked to the rock, particularly during periods of high stress, that he seems unable to separate himself from it no matter where he goes. Predictably (in keeping with Chekhov's dramatic principle) this heavy rock becomes the instrument of his near demise. Curiously, it is the same metaphorically tuned brother who misses such an obvious boulder of a symbol (again pun intended).
However, it is the juxtaposition of the affluent Parks vs the poor Kims in the film that takes the cake (definitely, pun intended). An unspoken shield seems to reliably insulate the wealthy from various external forces. While a heavy downpour can dispossess the slum dwellers of their property entirely, it is only a minor inconvenience for the wealthy (down to the leak-proof pretend American Indian tents). While basements of the rich can withstand a nuclear attack from the pot-bellied dictator north of the border, any substantial deluge simply drowns basements (or basement homes, as the case might be) of the poor in raw sewage. Another purpose of incorporating the heavy rain scene into the film is to remind us that often "when it rains, it pours". That is, while the Kims managed to cleverly contrive themselves into the Parks' household, the elation proved to be short-lived as they discovered other subterranean dwellers in the Parks' house, whose status is even lower than that of the Kims, leading to dramatic disequilibrium to a comfortable and promising situation.
According to the filmmakers, while the invisible walls of wealth and privilege protect the affluent class from external threats, no one is safe when it comes to the "enemy within." The message here seems to be that as long as the class resentment is obvious and inter-class mobility is driven by factors other than merit (e.g., antecedent, lack of connections, body odor, cheap underwear or any other subjective and artificial boundaries) the risk of societal discontent is always lurking in the background, bringing the fragility of human existence to the forefront, often causing the innocent to suffer.
The carnage scene in the latter part of the film, while abrupt and sudden, can indeed be foreshadowed as a natural consequence of open expression of disdain that Parks Sr. signals to Kim Sr. in no uncertain terms.
Where I struggle with my interpretation of the film is the title. There are no obvious parasites in the plot. Even the subterranean male dweller performs light sensor duties at appropriate moments, thereby communicating his respect and appreciation. The Kims dutifully fulfill their respective roles. While the Parks Sr. works for his money. Perhaps the idea behind the title is to suggest that there is a symbiotic feeding off one another that remains fundamentally destructive as long as the gulf between societal layers remains unbridged. Not sure. Need to think about it some more.
Nine out of ten.