MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Friday, July 31st, 2009 - 9 Comments »

DP/30 – Thirst dir. Chan-wook Park

thirst490.jpg
Chan-wook Park is a young legend in the genre film world, already having delivered titles like Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, plus one-third of Three Extremes and J.S.A.: Joint Security Area.. all before his 45th birthday.
We talked, with the help of a translator, about his career, his latest film, Thirst – the first being released domestically by a division of a major studio – and his commitment to both a Korean revival house movement and to anti-piracy efforts.
Here’s the sneak peek…

The full video interview is after the jump…


9 Comments »

9 Responses to “DP/30 – Thirst dir. Chan-wook Park”

  1. LexG says:
    July 31, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Are there any smokin’ Asian chicks in this?

  2. anghus says:
    July 31, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    my favorite director. great interview. can’t wait to see thirst.

  3. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    July 31, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    Has anybody out there seen this? I detested Oldboy, but then I loooved Sympathy for Lady Vengeance so I’m not sure where I should stand with wanting to see Thirst.

  4. transmogrifier says:
    July 31, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    Quite frankly the idea of someone detesting Oldboy would usually lead me to advise them to give up watching movies all together, as they just don’t get them (I kid, I kid…..*shakes fist and snarls*), but I think you should just do it. It is like three short story ideas stitched together in an energizing, unpredicatable joy of film-making, and the last act in particular is interesting in its refusal to do simple black and white with regards the power and desire of vampirism.
    If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but you will have definitely seen something, and you’ll want to talk about it after.

  5. MarkVH says:
    August 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Camel that’s funny, ’cause I’m the complete 180 degree opposite – I absolutely loved Oldboy but hated and was genuinely offended by Lady Vengeance, one of the rare times that’s ever happened.

  6. jeffmcm says:
    August 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Was that because Lady Vengeance seemed to be openly and unironically stating that bloody vengeance could be good for the soul? It made me a bit confused but I still adored the movie.

  7. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    August 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    I liked it because it didn’t look like it was lensed through a dirty sink, among other reasons.

  8. jeffmcm says:
    August 2, 2009 at 2:08 am

    Why should that disqualify a movie (not to mention, my DVD copy doesn’t look like that)?

  9. Triple Option says:
    August 3, 2009 at 10:04 am

    I saw it over the w/e. I wouldn

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

Keil S. on: The Great Gandolfini

djiggs on: The Great Gandolfini

Tuck Pendelton on: The Great Gandolfini

Sideshow Bill on: The Great Gandolfini

christian on: Don Draper: Critic

anghus on: Don Draper: Critic

brack on: Superman & How I Analyze Movies

arisp on: The Great Gandolfini

leahnz on: The Great Gandolfini

palmtree on: Don Draper: Critic

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I don’t really think, Sean, that you need to know about my various sexual liaisons. Or that anyone else needs to. I did write about them. I filled a hundred pages of Moleskine notebooks with my one-night stands, my affairs. But I decided they didn’t belong in a professional memoir. First of all, these are real people we’re talking about. Many of them were enjoyable. Some were abject failures. My wife said to me when she read the pages, ‘Of what purpose is this in a memoir? Of what purpose is this other than to titillate?’ The point is, I never see them. It’s because I have nothing in common with them, frankly. And probably didn’t at the time. I could not provide a sensible reason why I married these women. The thing is, in the case of my marriages, it takes two people to fuck up a marriage. It wasn’t simply the fault of these women that I lost interest in them and realised they were insignificant relationships. Which is how I look at them right now–as being insignificant. I see them as blips.”
~ William Friedkin On Cutting Interviewers Off At The Sass

“I have to imagine from Mr. Spielberg’s point of view, the paradigm shift in the 1970s was just the new “normal,” a “halcyon era” from which we are straying in the 21st century–because theatrical exhibition is tenuous (as it has been since the 1940s), the home video market has dried up and people are watching pirated movies on their phone. Spielberg’s coming-of-age era was for him the halcyon period that the 21st century “implosion” will cause to go “crashing into the ground.” But he is wrong. The market for movies is actually diverse and highly segmented–although from the top-down movie industry vantage point and media punditry you would not think this to be true.  Would we really mourn for Mr. Spielberg or ourselves if Lincoln would have been made for cable or had played on public television?  Is it bad for humanity that cable television is creating wonderful, resonant stories in long-form series that people want to watch at home on TV (or streamed onto their computer)? I don’t think so, but it is a paradigm shift and it might affect people’s theatrical moviegoing habits. Televisions in people’s homes have had that effect for seven decades–it is not a new phenomenon. As Art House cinema impresarios we need to focus on what WE can do at our theaters and in our communities. It is not productive for us to fret over what pundits say or about what well-meaning filmmakers like the Stevens–Spielberg and Soderbergh–say. We should fret about what we can do in our communities. What we can do to support filmmakers.”
~ From A Response By Russ Collins, CEO, Michigan Theater–Ann Arbor And Director, Art House Convergence, To Mr. Spielberg