A ‘Sunny’ South Korean Song for Sisterhood

… Kang seems to be a strong advocate for feminism in film. Though South Korea cinema (and the country as a whole) clearly needs far more women in off-screen positions of power, Sunny seems like a small but hopeful step towards equality, and may well inspire girls in today’s high school cliques to one day demand those positions.

This guest post by Ben Cowburn appears as part of our theme week on Male Feminists and Allies.

Despite the recent election of the country’s first female president, South Korea isn’t the easiest place to find examples of gender equality. The country has one of the world’s largest gender gaps (1), a corporate culture still shaped by patriarchal Confucian traditions, and extreme pressure on young women to conform to very particular beauty standards. At first glance, Korean cinema appears to mirror this lack of progressiveness, as in terms of behind-the-camera power, the country’s film industry, which boomed with the Korean Wave of the late 90s, seems to be as much a boys’ club as Hollywood (2). However, the situation for on-screen representations of women and girls seems to be steadily improving in South Korea, driven in part by successful filmmakers who could easily be described as male feminists.

Korea’s most internationally visible writer/directors Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho, and festival favourite Lee Chang-dong, have all crafted films based around female characters at least as complex as the men they come into conflict with. Park’s Lady Vengeance gave Lee Yeong-ae a role as starkly uncompromising as Choi Min-shik’s in Oldboy, and his films I’m A Cyborg but it’s Okay and Stoker both feature female protagonists. Bong’s film Mother is based around a searing performance from celebrated TV actor Kim Hye-ja, and even the seemingly male-dominated Snowpiercer features strong roles for Ko Ah-sung, Octavia Spencer, Alison Pill and Tilda Swinton, who gives one of her most memorably strange performances. Lee’s Secret Sunshine and Poetry feature complex, unglamorous, down-to-earth female protagonists, portrayed in award-winning fashion by Jeon Do-yeon and Yun Jeong-hie.

In the less internationally prestigious corners of the industry, South Korean cinema has developed a crowd-pleasing line in modestly budgeted films with predominantly female ensemble casts. Though often determinedly formulaic, films such as Forever the Moment, based on a women’s handball team, and Harmony (3), set in a women’s prison, are relentlessly entertaining, easily pass both Bechdel and Maki Mori tests, and have proved very popular. The most commercially successful example of this mini-genre is Sunny, released in 2011, and directed by Kang Hyeong-Cheol, who co-wrote the script with Lee Byeong-Heon (4). Both Kang and Lee are men, but Kang reportedly based the story on his mother’s recollections of her high-school life (5), and the film, which is powered by the memorable performances and excellent chemistry of its largely female cast, has a strongly feminist message.

Sunny centres around a clique of seven friends in a Seoul girls’ high school sometime in the 1980s (the film is a little hazy with the actual continuity), who are reunited in the present day, after being estranged for more than 25 years. The film is structured to give equal weight to the friends’ time in high school and to their eventual reunion, and cheerfully ticks off most of the tropes viewers would expect from its set-up. In the high school scenes friendships are forged, sisterhood is strained, bullies are bested, cute guys are crushed on, and families are fought with. In the present day, nostalgic jokes and reveries are shared, disappointments and failures are revealed, and the bonds of friendship are shown to be timeless. All pleasantly predictable and satisfying for fans of coming-of-age stories, and elevated by the playful zest of the film-making, entertaining plot absurdities, and  most of all, by the irresistible energy of the cast.

The cast of Sunny’s 80s (left) and present-day scenes (right).
The cast of Sunny’s 80s (left) and present-day scenes (right).

The film is told from the perspective of Na-mi, a newcomer to the school in the 80s, and an under-appreciated wife and mother in 2011. A chance present-day encounter with old friend Chun-hwa leads Na-mi into a series of flashbacks, and sparks an attempt to get the old gang back together. Gang is the right word, as in the flashbacks we see the seven girls trade insults, and eventually punches and flying kicks, with a rival posse from another school. Chun-hwa, the group’s charismatic leader, brings Na-mi into the fold when she proves useful in squaring off against the enemy. Despite some friction (there has to be some friction) with another member, Na-mi is soon initiated into the group, which is given the name Sunny by a radio DJ, and practising a chaotic dance routine to accompany Boney-M’s version of Bobby Hebb’s ode to looking on the bright side.

The 80s scenes are a blur of logo-strewn sports bags, candy-coloured sweaters, synthed-up disco tunes and reverb-heavy ballads. The script mixes in references to current K-pop groups, as well as winking predictions for a future of professional video gamers and “portable phones.” Anachronisms are also cheerfully thrown around: characters mention watching MTV, which wasn’t broadcast in Korea until 1991, and the story plays out against a backdrop of civil unrest, which seems to suggest the student-led June Democracy Movement that flared up in 1980. This turbulent background seems to mainly be set up to allow for a highly entertaining slow-motion fight between the two gangs amidst a melee of riot police and protesters. The ridiculous bravado of the scene, which is clearly filtered through the older characters’ memories of the fight, makes the clunky exposition and obvious expense of the extra-strewn scene completely worthwhile.

Na-mi, Chun-hwa and friends in action.
Na-mi, Chun-hwa and friends in action.

The heightened, highly-charged nature of the flashback scenes reflects Na-mi’s nostalgic (and sometimes painful) recollections of her school days, and contrasts nicely with the slightly more subdued style of the present day scenes. At times, the two time periods are swirled together, as in another deliriously weird fight sequence, and in a touching montage in which Na-mi’s teenage disappointment over an unrequited crush is cross-cut with her mid-40s acceptance of a path not taken. Mostly, though, the streams are crossed with playful in-camera transitions, which employ doorways, walls, and windows as time portals, and music as a bridge between periods. A pivotal (and probably obligatory) scene in which Na-mi watches a video recording of the teenage gang members addressing their older selves is adeptly realized, thanks to the vitality of the girls’ ensemble work, and the weaving of on-going conflicts into the video.

There are few scenes in the 80s storyline in which Na-mi doesn’t face an elemental teenage challenge, either from within the gang or from the outside world, and this helps sustain a charged and immediate atmosphere. Though the present-day scenes aren’t quite as potent, they provide plenty of opportunities to underline the important role the girls played in each other’s formative years, and what they have missed out on since high school. The easy, affectionate chemistry between the older actors nicely mirrors the frenetic fellowship of the younger cast, and the present-day scenes deliver plenty of abrasive humour to complement dollops of well-earned sentiment.

Na-mi and Chun-hwa in a present-day scene.
Na-mi and Chun-hwa in a present-day scene.

The actors in both story-lines brilliantly unify their linked performances, and this was clearly a major focus of the casting and Kang’s work with his cast. Particularly compelling are Sim Eun-kyeong and Yu Ho-jeong as the younger and older Na-mi, and Kang So-ra and Jin Hee-kyung as Chun-hwa, but each member of the gang is sharply defined, especially in the 80s scenes. The characterisation is mostly archetypal, but the girls are all shown to be witty, smart and determined, and no one is bodily humiliated or slut-shamed. In fact, sexuality has only the briefest of roles in proceedings, which is perhaps a little unrealistic, but helps to keep the focus firmly on the friendship between the girls. The single romantic complication is swiftly dealt with, so that the gang can get on with the real business of practising their dance moves, kicking ass and keeping the world at bay with a combination of mutual support and bag language.

Swearing plays a surprisingly important role in the film. Early on Na-mi’s possibly senile grandmother spews out a stream of backwoods invective, which Na-mi later copies to help the gang scare off their rivals and gain acceptance. In both time periods, the friends routinely refer to each other as ‘shibal nyun’ (usually translated as ‘fucking bitch’), and one of the younger gang members dreams of writing a swearing dictionary. The film’s original cut had so much cursing that it to be edited to ensure a PG-15 certificate, which seems to have been the right choice, as the film presents some very positive messages for teenage girls. The director’s cut restores the characters to their full, foul-mouthed glory, which gives scenes in the past and present bite and authenticity, and could be seen as a challenge to the subservient role women are often still tacitly expected to perform in Korean society. Other satirical touches include digs at South Korea’s enduring obsession with very specific beauty ideals, such as “double eyelids,” and the undermining of a male teacher’s army-derived methods of corporal punishment.

The Sunny girls face off against a rival gang.
The Sunny girls face off against a rival gang.

The teenage characters have a refreshingly diverse range of ambitions (most of which remain unfulfilled in their present day lives, of course), and they are never objectified or marginalised, with costume design and shot choice underlying another important theme: that each of the girls needs to become the protagonist in her own story. This is somewhat unnecessarily spelled out out at several points, but the film mostly follows through with the idea, only fudging things a little in its final scene, which seems to present money as a key to solve everyone’s problems. More importantly, though, the resolution shows the women learning to take inspiration from their teenage selves, and vowing to reclaim agency in their lives.

Although seemingly machine-tooled to yield maximum comic and emotional impact, Sunny has plenty of rough edges and plot contrivances: Na-mi’s husband is mysteriously called away on a two-moth-long business trip, to give her more time to bond with her estranged friends, and the climactic event that closes the 80s storyline doesn’t convince as a reason for the girls to completely lose touch for a quarter century. The director’s cut, which I watched, could certainly use a trim, with a few unnecessary side stories adding little to the main characters’ arcs. None of this really matters, though, as Kang and his cast manage to cram in plenty of heady scenes of triumph, defeat, affection and antagonism into the 80s storyline, most of which are paid off in the present-day scenes. Do the 40-something friends reunite to perform the dance to Sunny they practised as teenagers? Does each woman find solace and strength in her re-invigorated friendships? Does the dictionary of swearing ever get written? I couldn’t possibly say.

The 80s cast in off-duty poses.
The 80s cast in off-duty poses.

Sunny proved endearingly popular on its cinema release (6), and became the second highest grossing domestic film in Korea of 2011, due in part to a surge in nostalgia for the culture of the 7080 generation, but mainly to strong word-of-mouth. As with Bridesmaids and The Heat, the film clearly shows the huge demand for female-lead films, and like those film’s director, Paul Feig, Kang seems to be a strong advocate for feminism in film. Though South Korea cinema (and the country as a whole) clearly needs far more women in off-screen positions of power, Sunny seems like a small but hopeful step towards equality, and may well inspire girls in today’s high school cliques to one day demand those positions.


1 – South Korea currently ranks number 111 out of 136 in the World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report, and the country has been on a downwards trajectory for the last few years.

2 – All of 50 most popular Korean films to date have male directors.

3 – One of the most successful Korean films with a female director, Dae-gyu Kang, Harmonymade me weep repeatedly when I saw it on a plane a few years ago. I blame the altitude.

4 – Not the devilishly handsome actor of the same name, best known to international audiences from The Good, The Bad and The Weird.

5 – According to a Q+A transcribed here.

6 – The film opened at number in the Korean box office, stayed there the following week, and returned to the top spot five weeks later.


Ben Cowburn is from England, and currently works as an English language teacher in Jinju, South Korea. He also writes and takes photos. Words and pictures, can be found at: thelightthroughthewindow.tumblr.com.

‘Wadjda’: Can a Girl and a Bicycle Change a Culture?

At its heart, this film is about how young Wadjda, played by newcomer Waad Mohammed, navigates her culture and adolescence as a Saudi girl, her relationships with other girls and women, and what seems to be the changing attitudes of her country

Wadjda Poster resize

Written by Amanda Rodriguez

I’ve been waiting for Wadjda to come to my local Fine Arts Theatre for months so that I could review it for Bitch Flicks! Wadjda is noteworthy because it’s the first Saudi Arabian film to ever be directed by a woman, Haifaa Al-Mansour. At its heart, the film is about how young Wadjda, played by newcomer Waad Mohammed, navigates her culture and adolescence as a Saudi girl, her relationships with other girls and women, and what seems to be the changing attitudes of her country (more on all that later).

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3koigluYOH0″]

Personally, though, I was intrigued by the storyline of her new-found passion and desire for a bicycle.

Some background: I’m a late bloomer. I learned how to drive a car and ride a bicycle at the ripe age of 28. As a woman in my late 20’s, I became obsessed with learning to ride because of the freedom and exhilaration that the bicycle promised. The speed, the control, the sexiness of the road bike, the hint of danger, and the allure of the new experience all kept me riding clumsy circles around my parking lot with a neighbor friend holding the saddle (and therefore keeping the bike upright). For me, learning to ride a bike was not a matter of course as it was with most of the people I know, so I could identify with that longing for the unattainable that Wadjda embodies. Eventually, I learned to ride and became obsessed with it, pedaling my Bianchi 30, 40, 80 miles at a time. I also got really into following professional cycling (more on that later, too…I promise it’s relevant).

Director Monsour, herself, knows a thing or two about doing that which seems impossible. Though she had the permission of the Saudi government to make her film, she was forced to hide in a van for most of the outdoor filming, as it would be unseemly for a woman to give direction, especially to her male actors.

Haifaa Al-Mansour makes history as Saudi Arabia's 1st female director.

Monsour’s heroine also defies convention with her insistence on buying a bike to race her male friend, Abdullah.

 

Abdullah gives Wadjda a helmet.

Wadjda also wears brightly colored hair clips, Converse sneakers with green laces, and listens to American music. I find it somewhat troubling that Wadjda’s markers of rebelliousness are primarily associated with her exposure to Western culture, but her mother (a generation older) is a complex mix of culture and gender role compliance as well as rebelliousness: her daily work commute is three hours because her husband doesn’t want her working with men, she scolds one of her friends for not wearing a veil with her abaya, she claims Wadjda’s Western music is evil and that girls can’t ride bicycles because it will affect their childbearing abilities, she threatens frequently to marry Wadjda off, and when Wadjda must don a full abaya at the command of the school headmistress, she looks on with glowing pride as it is a treasured rite of passage.

Wadjda & her mother perform dawn prayers.

On the other hand, Wadjda’s mother values her daughter’s happiness and ability to dream, she wears a nose stud, and she rejects the idea of her husband taking a second wife, willing to face drastic consequences if he doesn’t respect her wishes. This shows that over the generations, Saudi women are changing, with mothers imparting traditional values to their daughters while still giving them an increasing measure of freedom and autonomy. Monsour says of her own parents, “They are very traditional small-town people but they believed in giving their daughters the space to be what they wanted to be. They believed in the power of education and training. They taught us how to work hard.” Monsour also asserts that, “[P]eople want to hear from Saudi women. So Saudi women need to believe in themselves and break the tradition.”

I admit that when I saw all the women in the streets and in cars wearing full abayas, I was shocked at the imagery. I immediately perceived them as ghosts flitting through the public sphere with heads down, trying to escape all scrutiny, all notice. As a feminist, I bristled against these uniforms that hide the female form, declaring it taboo and the property of her husband. As the women sat waiting in a hot van with only their eyes visible, I realized, though, that the plight of women in Saudia Arabia isn’t that different from that of women in the US. It is a spectrum, with the US on the opposite end. Saudi culture insists women be completely covered, whereas US culture demands skin, cleavage, form-fitting clothing, and sexiness while simultaneously judging the women who do and those who don’t conform to that standard of femininity. Both cultures insist that the female body is a matter for public debate with the dominant patriarchy making the final judgment (as is apparent in US culture with the current backsliding on reproductive rights due to conservative male decision-making). The female body in both cultures then does not belong to individual women.

The strangely similar treatment of the female body in both US and Saudi culture brought up another intriguing comparison for me: women and bicycles. Abdullah (among others in the film) declare to Wadjda that, “Girls can’t ride bikes.” Now, you might think in the US we get off the hook because most little girls (unlike myself) do, in fact, learn how to ride bikes at an early age, and nothing is thought of it. However, how many of them are encouraged to become professional cyclists? Though there are plenty of American women just like Wadjda who won’t take no for an answer, who follow their dreams to become competitive athletes and cyclists, what does the cycling world look like for them? They’re grossly underpaid, under-represented, and there’s hardly any media coverage of their events. Female cyclists (and, in most cases, female athletes in general) aren’t taught to dream big like their male counterparts, and if they do actually achieve success in their sport, where does it leave them? Mostly, it leaves them in anonymity (do you know the name of the most acclaimed female cyclist in the word? doubt it, but I bet you know the name Lance Armstrong) without nearly the recognition, range of events in which to participate (there is NO female equivalent of the Tour de France), and their rate of pay is a mere fraction of that of male professional cyclists. In essence, US culture is telling us that girls can’t ride bikes. Think about that whenever you want to get all righteous on the Saudi gender inequality issue because we sure as hell haven’t gotten it figured out here in the States.

If there is one theme in Wadjda that cannot be overstated, it’s: The personal is political. In Wadjda, the story of a young girl learning to ride a bike has profound cultural, religious, and gender implications. Her stand is powerful and brave, but more importantly, she never questions the rightness of it. Wadjda never once doubts that she should be able to own and ride a bike. It takes many, many small, personal commitments and triumphs like Wadjda’s to build the foundation of a movement for change.


Amanda Rodriguez is an environmental activist living in Asheville, North Carolina. She holds a BA from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio and an MFA in fiction writing from Queens University in Charlotte, NC. She writes all about food and drinking games on her blog Booze and Baking. Fun fact: while living in Kyoto, Japan, her house was attacked by monkeys.

 

‘Thérèse’ Explores Twentieth Century Marriage Convictions and the Sexual Paths Of Two Women

Thérèse film poster.

Written by Janyce Denise Glasper

The 2012 film Thérèse touches on the aftereffects of burgeoning sexuality between two women–Thérèse and her sister-in-law, Anne–and focuses on a companionship that was formed when they were young girls.
“Have you thought about it?” Anne asks. 
“You mean sleeping with your brother every night?” Thérèse asks back. 
“Yes? Doesn’t it scare you?”
“No, I never think about it.”
“You’re lying!”
“No, I swear. Never.” 
In this particular scene, the night before the big wedding between two adjoining pinery owners, Anne speaks of sexual intercourse with the vivid curiosity of a lively young woman. Her widened bright eyes and excited mouth speak candidly about scandalous romantic stories and masturbation–the latter a taboo topic among women of twentieth century France. Thérèse sees it nothing more than another trivial duty, another part of a rich union. Cigarette smoking, free thinking Thérèse appears bored with the overall thought, expressing little emotion, little joy. In terms of love, Thérèse affectionately nicknames Anne her “little girlfriend” and the soft, intimately close soon-to-be sisters clasp hands and sleep together–a picture of a long-time bond.
It was always three’s company between Thérèse (Audrey Tautou, center) and the Desqueyroux siblings, Anne (Anaïs Demoustier, right) and Bernard (Gilles Lellouche).
After the quiet wedding, the marriage bed occurs and Thérèse does not relish the occurrence or find satisfaction. When Bernard is lying atop of her still body, he grunts loud and moves awkwardly, selfish in his lovemaking skills. He is all about himself. No affection. No lingering touches that instill ardor. Cold, stoic Thérèse floats inside of an impermeable bubble, mouth closed, blank opened black eyes voided, arms lying limply on his back. She is as rigid as society conviction. Sex is a tedious obligation, not a pleasure.
This disheartening emotional prison that Thérèse is sequestered inside isn’t the kind that’s listed on the New York Times Bestseller List by historical romance novel writers who pen independent women seeking pleasure by graciously giving lovers. Thérèse’s privileged life has become the source of grave unhappiness, of silent depression. Her marriage isn’t a quintessential novel. It’s mundane and slowly killing her, especially with Bernard caring far more for the baby growing inside than Thérèse.
Thérèse (Audrey Tautou) enjoying one of Anne’s letters.
However, Anne’s sensually fluffed letters stimulate Thérèse’s duress. Anne has fallen in love with a roguish man named Jean that incites her vivacious spirit and electrifies naïve frustrations brewing between girlhood and fantasy. Her luscious words bring fruitful splendor to Thérèse, a vicarious longing that also inadvertently fuels Thérèse’s great jealousy. In Bernard, she feels no spark, no fire. In such a strict upper crust rule where women must obey husbands and yield to their every command, Thérèse has ultimately denied wanting those kinds of desires, growing up motherless and shadowing her father’s character, bearing perfect picture of the sophisticated society wife. Anne overtly shares captivating joy of having a man titillate ripening womanhood and this wicked experience is unknown to Thérèse, who greedily reads these letters in private vein, visibly shaken by the depth of Anne’s growing fulfillment.
Thérèse takes part in Anne’s family double crossed meddling, vowing to keep Anne away from her aching desire to marry a Jew. It’s unbearable seeing Anne break and shatter, like fragmented glass breaking in these tormented scenes. She is a pitiable wreck, refusing to eat, her disposition waning to a waxen pallor of imminent heartbreak. When Bernard’s dogs viciously attack her and he does the same straight after, the scene showcases a terrifying parallel between certain men and ferocious animals. Bernard may be gentle at times, but he has a violent side as beastly as a dog’s bite and treats his sister with cruel disdain. And as it turns out, Anne’s beau is too good to be true as well. Jean turns out to be a ruthless cad, a real asshole. This surprises Thérèse. He tells Thérèse in boastful fashion that he never has had an intention of marrying Anne or acquiring the deep tender feelings foolish Anne had so generously penned:
“Anne certainly has shared her life’s passions with me. You know what I’m talking about… the life that awaits her. The life that awaits all women around here. A bleak, provincial life. Proper, conventional, and rigid.” 
Should Anne’s desires have remained dormant? Untapped? Are we to bow down to Jean and thank him, though prior he also asks, “Is it forbidden to play for a bit?”
My need to punch Jean became stronger as he continued talking. It didn’t matter what books he read or how intelligent he appeared to Thérèse, who eventually secretly writes to him throughout the film. The fact remains that he intentionally took advantage of Anne’s innocence, sullied her world, and played her like a damned toy. It begins to become hard to choose a side. Do viewers side with Anne’s family who bar and treat her like an asylum patient? Yes, they have valid reasons. Yet it’s sickening how women are not allowed to have the same sexual freedom as men and that if they showcase signs of this, they are relegated to being treated like they have mental incapacity. Sexual feelings and thoughts are wrong. They must be shut out. Even today, women who showcase sexual liberation are labeled horrifically. The other presented question is do we congratulate Jean who stirred a passion that burned so brightly inside Anne? Do we say, hurray to the man who made Anne his intended victim–his target for foreplay? Either way the choices are unfair to Anne. They are for Thérèse, too. They both have to conform to tradition- ignore natural bodily desires and submit to marriage, to a man of family choosing.
Thérèse (Audrey Tautou) often is lost in thought and women in her time were not allowed to think.
The second shown sex scene between Thérèse and Bernard is a disturbing, grossly violent act, occurring some time after the birth of the couple’s daughter. It shows Bernard being further self-seeking and rough. Thérèse has swatted her hand, but he is forceful and initiates a randy monstrous shallowness. She looks perplexed by this turn of events. Now Thérèse does have a friendship with him, a certain kindhearted camaraderie. In certain scenes he is more like a brother than a husband. Yet in this one horrid night, Bernard demonstrates his power and Thérèse has no choice but to succumb to him and her growing downfall to ruin by trying to kill him.
Anne’s fate is adjacent to Thérèse’s. After being mentally and physically imprisoned by her family, Anne’s awakened passions are replaced by civil, respectable duty. Completely subdued and complacent, Anne prepares to marry a kind, dull gentleman that family prefers. The life which has scarred Thérèse  will be Anne’s. She has lost whimsical magic and charm. Her eyes are no longer merry and twinkling. Her smiles have lessened. She and Thérèse have both become muted in the course of the film.
Thérèse’s final scene with Anne is a sad one as well. It is apparent that they’ll probably never cross paths again. No more holding hands and sharing secrets. The past of two carefree girls has passed. They are fragmented shells that have dealt with family rejection, male dominance, and having sexual beliefs turned eschew. One cannot help but mourn the loss of their spirited personalities.
 Thérèse (Audrey Tautou) and Bernard (Gilles Lellouche) in happier times. 
Bernard does give Thérèse the keys to her freedom. He aches as he sees her literally dying before his eyes. Thérèse has lost so much, including rights to see her own child, but by the end, she gains something unexpected.
She has liberty.
Unfortunately, not many women can say the same.