Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors (Oh! Soo-jung) introduction and post-screening discussion with David Pendleton and Hong Sangsoo.

Transcript

For more interviews and talks, visit the Harvard Film Archive Visiting Artists Collection page.

David Pendleton  0:00  

Good evening, folks. My name is David Pendleton. I'm the programmer here at the Harvard Film Archive, and I want to give a very warm welcome to the Korea Institute who is our partner on this program and on all of our programs in Korean cinema. It was with them that we presented the evening of Korean colonial cinema back in December and they've also been our partners on the previous visits of Lee Chang-dong and Bong Joon-ho. Like directors Bong and Lee, Hong Sangsoo is a major figure in what we can call the sort of the renaissance, or the wave of Korean filmmakers that have emerged since the mid 1990s—including people like Lee Chang-dong, who has actually held a role as a cultural ministry in the government, who makes very important films, very serious films looking at Korean society. There's the master of genre cinema, Bong Joon-ho, whom we had here last year. And then there is Hong Sangsoo, who has been really a favorite on the festival circuit internationally ever since his first film in 1996, The Day a Pig Fell into the Well. Hong Sangsoo is somebody who works—what we might characterize as an independent filmmaker. He is an independent filmmaker: he owns his own production company—which has produced all of his last movies—he tends to work on fairly small budgets, and he tells stories that are usually about people trying and failing to have relationships with each other and tonight's film is no exception.

He was born in Seoul in 1960. He studied first in Seoul, and then came to the US getting a Master of Fine Arts degree in film from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, then returned to South Korea to begin his filmmaking career. He's also done some screenwriting, teaching screenwriting at the university. Now he's made twelve films. He's just completed his twelfth film. The one that we're going to see is the third one. We thought it'd be interesting to have director Hong talk about his old work and his new work, and this seemed like a good film to present. For one thing, Hong’s use of black and white cinematography, I think makes visually very clear, this film's relation to a certain kind of modernist filmmaking that we often associate with the Japanese New Wave, with the French New Wave, with the European art cinema. But also, it's a film that I think makes clear some of the sort of philosophical preoccupations that underpin his work. He's talked about his films as being structures that he thinks up, that are then filled with details of everyday behavior. But what he's really interested in is the structure underneath and ways of presenting the structure, illustrating the structure.

In this case, the structure of the film is very clear, because it's in sections with chapters, almost like titles. And as you'll notice that at a certain point, events that we've seen before are presented again, but with a slight difference, the question then being, what are we seeing? What are these differences mean? And that I think has something to do with Hong's fascination with narrative, with storytelling, with plot, and the question of plot or storytelling as a way of sort of organizing our experiences and its relationship with memory. This is also an interesting exercise in the question of point of view in the cinema. In other words, whose eyes are we seeing through? Un literature, it's very easy for an author grammatically to signal point of view. But in the cinema, the question is, how do you do that? In other words, are we seeing the events repeated because they're from two different people's perspectives? Is what we're seeing objective or subjective?

All this abstraction nevertheless doesn't do justice to Hong's real sort of light and often ironic touch. His films have sort of gotten progressively more comedic, I would say over the years. This being the third one, this one's still fairly serious. Although you'll notice, it's not quite as heavy as the first two. They sort of get almost progressively lighter and more comedic, I would argue, almost like some sort of a spectrum.

But in any case, it’s Hong’s touch and his vision of who sort of is able to sort of his deeply detailed vision of human behavior, I think, that is what makes his films so remarkable and makes him, really, a major figure at presenting characters that we care deeply about and that his films are are both very cerebral and very emotional at the same time, which I think is one of the things that I find so remarkable.

He will be here after the screening to answer your questions. And then after the Q&A, there will be a reception upstairs in the lobby. And again, tomorrow night, we'll be showing his newest film Oki’s Movie, which is very a very different film indeed. So come back for that. And now enjoy Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors.

[APPLAUSE]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Pendleton  5:31  

So I thought we would start by, I'll ask you a couple of questions, and then we'll open it up to the audience.

First of all, thank you very much for coming all the way here.

Hong Sangsoo  5:41  

Thank you for inviting me.

David Pendleton  5:42  

Oh, it's a great pleasure and an honor. Thank you.

I thought maybe I would start by bringing up something that you mentioned about actually your brand new film—which you haven't even finished yet—and then turn it into a question about the film that we just saw. Because you had said yesterday that your newest film started– You just knew that you wanted this person to go to a place three times, is that correct? And I'm wondering, this idea of coming up with the architecture of the story first, or the structure, and then sort of filling in the details, seems to rhyme with some of the things that you've said about, about your working method. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the origins of this film. In other words, did this film also start with the idea of making a structure, of you know, having certain events repeated? Or did it start with the idea of wanting to tell a story about these two people, and then you work from there?

Hong Sangsoo  6:37  

I think I start with usually an everyday situation, like going to theaters and things like that, but that specific everyday situation for me has something inside like a seed. So I feel that. So it’s like an intuitive decision—okay, I will go with this material—which is a small situation or some small relationship. And then, I feel if I go through that situation with my process of making film, I will be able to question some things on the way.

This film was shot a long time ago, like eleven years ago, so I don't remember exactly what went on when I conceived the idea. Probably… the two people, even though they are very close—like lovers—they share some of the same experience. And then when they start talking about the same experience, what they remember differently, it actually happened to me. So maybe that was the beginning of this film.

David Pendleton  8:06  

Yes, is it accurate then to say that the two different sections of the film are told from a different different points of view? In other words, were you thinking of it as one part of the film is telling things from the man's point of view and one part is telling things from the woman's point of view?

Hong Sangsoo  8:26  

Yeah, about right. But there are a few details, which are not quite right, in that aspect.

David Pendleton  8:35  

Right. Right. That's what I was curious about, because, for instance, in the section that seems to be from his point of view, at the very beginning, there's a conversation that happens after he's left the frame between the woman and the filmmaker, about him, for instance, that he couldn't have witnessed.

Hong Sangsoo  8:49  

I kind of noticed in the middle of making the film about this discrepancy, but I just liked it as it is. [LAUGHTER] Maybe I didn't want it that clear-cut comparing, matching...

David Pendleton  9:07  

Right, right. Well, it seems like often in your films, there is this question of what seems to be sort of an objective, or there seems to be this question of, Who is the camera seeing as?, in other words. Like, are we watching things from an objective point of view, or is the whole thing being told very subjectively? And it seems to me that's one of the major questions that you seem to be working at a lot in your films. I'm wondering if this idea point of view is something that's interesting to you or…?

Hong Sangsoo  9:38  

Subjective view of myself, the director?

David Pendleton

Mm-hmm.

Hong Sangsoo

It’s an artificial thing, film. So I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective thing, anything objective. Everything is always subjective—just conflicting with each other. It’s two different subjective viewpoints. And then I tried to combine these two subjective viewpoints into one thing. That's what I wanted to do. But I don't believe there is such a thing as anything objective in the world.

David Pendleton  10:16  

Right, right. Well, I mean, that's I think one of the things that's very interesting about your filmmaking is the way that you use the idea of storytelling in the films, for instance, or just the idea of the sort of overall structure to get at that idea of this lack of objectivity.

I wonder if you could also talk a little bit about what made you interested in becoming a filmmaker in the first place? Is that something that you always wanted to do? Or is that something that happened while you were studying, or…?

Hong Sangsoo  10:53  

I was about nineteen years old, and I didn't take this entrance exam. I didn't know what I was going to do. I had no idea. And I met this theater play director. I was quite drunk, and he told me this out of drunkenness, whatever. He said, “You seem to have some talent for this theater play.” I don't know why he said that. But just hearing him say that, that night, I thought about theater play for the first time. And I felt maybe I can do it, like–

David Pendleton  11:37  

You mean directing for the theater, for the live theater?

Hong Sangsoo  11:40  

Yeah. So I started studying and then went into this department called Theater Play and Filmmaking. And once I got in, the senior students in theater department, they were very boorish you know,

David Pendleton  11:58  

They were what, “foolish”?

Hong Sangsoo  12:01  

Boorish. They always asked me to do things. I didn’t want to do it and things like that. So I looked around, and I saw these film students, they were more gentle, and you know… [LAUGHTER] And so I changed my major.

David Pendleton  12:18  

[LAUGHING] What made you decide to make this film in black and white? Because there's often such beautiful use of color in your films. Although the use of black and white I think is also very beautiful. To me, it sort of makes it seem to harken back to an earlier era, sort of like the era of 1960s modernist filmmaking. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about...

Hong Sangsoo  12:40  

I like black-and-white photography a lot, because when you see a black-and-white film, it is usually a class film or art film. You have this preconception, prejudice, whatever. So I was afraid for people take my picture as art. I mean, you know [?when you’re young?], so I kind of hesitated using black and white, but when I made this one, in the beginning, maybe it's the third time now, maybe it's okay to shoot in black and white? You know what I mean? [LAUGHS] And then, because it's winter, I thought this winter in Seoul can be very beautiful in black and white. And there are many things you're supposed to compare in film, so a black-and-white picture might reduce the visual information in a certain way that is easier to compare. But that was my calculation. I don't know if it works like that or not.

David Pendleton  13:51  

Or even it would be easy to notice the discrepancies in the two versions of the events somehow because they were in black and white. But you don't like your films being thought of as art films, then, is that correct? Just because there's a certain amount of–

Hong Sangsoo  14:06  

You know when people say “art film,” there are so many things attached to it. I just don't like that nuance. Film should be just film.

David Pendleton  14:26  

So you don't like the comparison to other media,  other forms of art, or this idea that…? When you say “film should be film,” what do you mean by that? That it should be sort of about everyday kinds of things?

Hong Sangsoo  14:39  

I don't want my film to be categorized in anything. It’s a film, and my film.

David Pendleton  14:46  

I'm also curious about the English-language title of the film because that's also another—the fact that it's a reference. It's the title of this Duchamp piece on the glass, right? But the original title, the title in Korean is the name of the character, Oh! Soo-jung. And also, for instance, The Day a Pig Fell into the Well is the name of a John Cheever short story. Woman is the Future of Man comes from a Louis Aragon poem. I'm curious about the English-language titles of your films. And in particular, you know that the choice of Duchamp for this one, which I think also at least for the English-language audience, then leads people to sort of want to think of it in terms of modernism, etc.

Hong Sangsoo  15:37  

For me, it's like this, I walk on the street, and I see this postcard. And on one postcard is Virgin Stripped Bare or something like that. When I read it, I just kind of knew that this is a good title. So then, a few years later, when I make something, this thing comes back, and then I use it. So it's just a title.

David Pendleton  16:20  

Right. It's not meant to be a reference to Duchamp at all. [LAUGHS / LAUGHTER]

Are there any questions in the audience? Is anybody brave enough to ask the first question? We do have microphones. By the way, we are recording this, so we ask that you wait for a microphone before you ask the question. Anyone?

All right, well, maybe I'll ask another couple of questions until people get brave enough. I'm also curious about the way that you work with actors. When you write a screenplay, do you have specific actors in mind for characters already?

Hong Sangsoo  16:58  

Usually not. Now it's a little different, but usually I have like twenty pages or thirty pages—less and less. Now, maybe it was a ten-page treatment for my Hahaha two years ago. I had like ten pages of treatment. When I am done, I start looking for actors, including the ones I work with already. And when I meet these people, I try to see a kind of streak going through their being. It’s like an impression, a first impression thing, you know, when I see this person as a person, you have this impression that he might be this kind of person, and I tried to relate to this impression to the ideas I already have.

David Pendleton  18:07  

The ideas you have for the character, you mean?

Hong Sangsoo  18:08  

I mean the action or situation or form, whatever. I try to match them together. And if I feel that something will happen in this matching up, then I say, “Can you work for me?” And then I start talk a lot with him or her. Drink with them, just try to observe as much as I can. It's not an analyzing process. It's just feeling him a lot. And then when the time comes, I start writing concrete things, action or dialogue, things like that.

So actors are very important in a sense that they are like filters. Even though I have ten elements, ten details, if I pour this detail onto this being, only maybe three come out. And I use only three. Sometimes they stimulate in many ways. They function in many different ways. And [they are] very important elements in making my films.

David Pendleton  19:47  

No absolutely. I mean, are there certain actors that you're interested– I mean, you've worked with some fairly famous actors, but I'm wondering if you have any idea about working with stars, people in the star system, as opposed to lesser known actors.

Hong Sangsoo 20:09  

I work with a few actors who are called stars. When I work with them, people expect that their being in my film will make [a difference] in terms of numbers of audience, but that never actually happens. [LAUGHTER] That's also one reason that when I use an actor who is supposed to [?be an extra?], I don't care whether they are a star or not, just that I see this streak in their being. Yeah.

David Pendleton  20:48  

Oh, is there a question now? Okay, we've got a couple of questions. There’s one in the back. Yes, Mariel.

Audience 1  20:56  

I've not used a microphone before. We haven't really gotten to the point about this film. And the film is extremely unusual. I've been going to movies for years, and I have never seen a movie in which the entire movie was a man trying to get a woman he's interested in—who happens to be a virgin—in bed and have intercourse with her. And that's the entire movie! And it's absolutely unusual therefore! And I want to know why you decided to do it.

[SCATTERED LAUGHTER]

Hong Sangsoo  21:38  

To be honest, I don't really know. [LAUGHTER] You know, it's an intuitive decision, [from] the first [idea] to material form. And I just believe in my way of working and go through that process. Every day, I discover something, and then I try to it make into one thing and wait for your response.

David Pendleton  22:07  

I mean, it seems like you work very intuitively, but you also talked about sort of wanting to get at certain things, through the process of putting all these little details together, right? And I'm wondering, is what you're trying to get at sort of observations about human behavior? Or is it something more sort of abstract or something more poetic?

Hong Sangsoo  22:32  

There are many, I think, things I wanted to do, but I don't start with one reason, or one objective. That's why I said this one small everyday situation should be the beginning, because it's a very concrete and small thing that I sense there is some seed inside. Only when I put this thing into my process, then it becomes something. So till then I don't know what I'm doing. That's how I want to work. I don't want to know in the beginning,

David Pendleton  23:11  

Right. And then in the end, once the seed has germinated and it becomes a film, are the things that you were trying to get at, are they moments in the film, or are they emotions that you're trying to arouse in the audience?

Hong Sangsoo  23:32  

I think many, many things are happening. One thing is maybe if I have done something repeatedly, habitually, without thinking too much, just accepting the [UNKNOWN], views about my action, maybe ten years past, and because I have an opportunity to make a film, I think about depicting the behavior of myself or someone else by going through this process, and I somehow position myself in a certain perspective and then see this repeating things in a different way. Not necessarily judging or anything, just seeing a different way.

David Pendleton  24:28  

Seeing the characters in a different way or seeing sort of behavior in a different way? When you say “not judging,” you mean like not judging the characters.

Hong Sangsoo  24:41  

Because I believe you are stuck with certain views about many things throughout your life and only once in a very long while do you see things in a different way. And that's, I think, a great moment in everyday life. Maybe it's the same thing I try to do in filmmaking.

David Pendleton  25:15  

Well, it goes back to what you were saying about there's no such thing as an objective image, or there's nothing objective, that it's all subjective. And that's one of the things that cinema can do then is sort of encourage us or help us see things differently, in other words. That's interesting.

Hong Sangsoo  25:28  

Because I don't want to come up with any different conclusion or a new conclusion, because as soon as you make up some conclusion type of thing, it instantly becomes another lie. So the important thing is, for me, is staying and just looking at things. Keep discovering things, but never make another conclusion. Never make another system of thought. So for that, I think film is a great thing.

David Pendleton  26:07  

That's really interesting. Do you think that film is sort of inherently like a storytelling medium? Do you think of yourself as telling stories through films? Or is the narrative less important than being able to see differently and not judging, as you said?

Hong Sangsoo  26:24  

I think somebody can call it a story too, but I don't believe I am a storyteller. The important thing is, in the beginning, I choose a certain thing without knowing why it’s an important thing or choose a certain material situation. And then the other thing is form, which comes with this material. And the two things kind of collide and make something else. That's what I do.

David Pendleton  26:57  

That’s interesting. Other questions in the audience. There's a question down here. Haden, do you want to ask a question? And then we'll go to this gentleman over here.

Haden Guest  27:05  

Sure. First of all, thank you so much, Songsoo, for this wonderful film. I'd like to talk about drinking a little bit, because it seems to me that drinking is so important in your film and speaking about in relation to narrative, it seems that drinking is such a sort of engine for the narrative in the film, for the development of characters, but at the same time, what you're saying there's a certain directionlessness, a certain wandering quality to the narratives, the sort of films within the films that are these incredible drinking scenes in your film. So I'm wondering if you could talk a bit about drinking in your films and I have two specific questions. One is Ozu, I know you've spoken of as an influence on you— Ozu, a director in whose work drinking is so important—and then I also want to ask, Is it true that oftentimes while these scenes are being performed the characters are actually drinking alcohol?

David Pendleton

The actors, you mean.

Haden Guest

The actors, I'm sorry.

Hong Sangsoo  28:14  

I think as a filmmaker, I don't do things in this way: Oh, okay. I have this intention. So I find a way to materialize this intention. I don't work like that. The type of personalities in the film, the type of conflict in the film, or dilemma or anything important in the film, are all chosen by intuition, I think, because I don't have a better word for it. “Intuition” might be the best word. Which means when I do some decision making in making the film, I don't think like, “Okay, okay. Drinking will create a certain effect,” or something like that. Drinking just comes in, and then I accept it, and use it. You know the difference. In the beginning, I used to make them really drink a lot, but people become really drunk, [LAUGHTER] and we had to stop in the middle. In this film, all three main characters got drunk so bad that we had to stop. They had all their own sins and so gradually, I kind of tried to control them. [LAUGHTER] Nowadays, it's just maybe two glasses of beer. And then afterward, I try to mimic it with something else.

David Pendleton  30:06  

There was a question over here. Go ahead.

Audience 2  30:10  

There was a reference in your introduction to Claire Denis, which we have seen a number of films here at Harvard, especially movies like Friday Night and Yankee Go Home—that particular one has to do with the sign we saw toward the end. Yankee Go Home happened to be the title of the movie. Anyway, this is quite a contrast to how Claire Denis characterizes a relationship and displays moments of importance of events. Could you tell us about your encounter with her? I know you both discuss the places you have been. In [UNKNOWN], however you discuss that. That’s what's been described in some of the text materials. Can you tell us about what you perhaps have discussed since you’re so contrastingly different in the approach you take describing relationships?

David Pendleton  30:58  

You're basically asking for director Hong to compare his work to Claire Denis’ work, in other words?

Audience 2  31:05  

Perhaps more curious, since you're so different, when you met and [talked], what would have been the topics of discussion?

Hong Sangsoo

Why suddenly Claire Denis?

David Pendleton  31:15  

I mean, we did mention in the notes that she was the president of the Un Certain Regard jury when when you won the prize, but that was–

Hong Sangsoo  31:23  

She’s my good friend. I like her as a person very much. And we used to drink a lot. [LAUGHTER]

David Pendleton  31:36  

Do you recognize any similarities as filmmakers?

Hong Sangsoo  31:40  

I think it’s different films.

David Pendleton  31:43  

Are there other questions? There's one right there in the middle.

Audience 3  31:47  

Hi, hello. I just want to thank you for coming. And I really appreciated it the way in which I felt that what was most captivating about the film was how it explored this space in between. So you choose this one every day, kind of possibility, and then it is expanded to a point where every human articulation is made clear. I don't know. But one thing that I'm feeling like, also, with the questions regarding the subject matter, and the drinking, is that there is a very, particularly Korean quality to this film. And as an immigrant, I can say, as a partially outsider to Korean culture as well as an insider, that it is very Korean, and the relationship between the man and the woman is extremely Korean. And I was wondering, with all the international exposure of your films, whether there have been anything like feminist critiques of this film, or how would you respond to that? And it's very interesting to me. I feel like it reflects very deeply on Korean culture and relationships.

Hong Sangsoo  33:11  

Thank you. It's always possible, some people don't like my films for their own reasons. And they're also part of my audience. When you make something and put this thing out into the world, you have to expect all kinds of things. I'm curious about any kinds of response. Used to be, in the beginning, maybe till the middle of my film career, there were some feminists who were saying some things I couldn't really understand. It’s absurd, because many intelligent female friends like my films. And I didn't know what they were saying.

David Pendleton  34:11  

Feminist critiques meaning that the women in your film–

Hong Sangsoo 34:17  

They don't see it in context. They don’t see it as a film or as a whole. They see a certain action and they just don't want to see it on screen.

David Pendleton  34:27  

It's interesting. I mean, I often feel like actually the men in your film don't come off as very good. The men in your film are usually like less, if anything, less admirable than the men. It's interesting. I mean, again, the use of that phrase “virgin stripped bare,” tends to sort of– I mean, again, I had the impression watching the film for the first time that you know, in a way that she was going to be this pawn in this game. But in fact, what we see at least at the beginning of the second half, is that what he sees is a coincidence that she finds his glove and sees him there at the palace is actually her intention because she's been looking for him. Although, then after that the sort of the seesaw or the battle of wills, then it becomes sort of a pitched battle at times. Anyway, this is my comment really more than a question. I'm sorry.

Are there other questions? Oh, yes, there's a question right there.

Audience 4  35:25  

So I don't know anything about film, and I just came to your film, actually, to hold hands tonight, but it was absolutely brilliant. I mean, really, really brilliant. And watching, you know, understanding just how your mind was working through it, you really are so incredible. And it's such an honor to kind of have sat here and watched you and watched you talk. It's absolutely amazing. But there's some sort of existentialism in the film, but it goes beyond existentialism, because they end up kind of together. And for me, that's, you know, if it was a really existentialist film, it was really Duchamp, they were end up, you know, separating, and they both have miserable lives or something, but you put them together. Is there any way you could have ended the film with them going separate ways? Did it have to be that they ended together?

Hong Sangsoo  36:14  

I really appreciate your comment. I missed your question.

David Pendleton  36:19  

Oh, the question was, could you have imagined could you have ended the film with them separating instead of becoming a couple? I mean, I think maybe you see the ending as sort of a happier ending than I do.

Hong Sangsoo  36:29  

At the end after the film?

David Pendleton

Yes.

Hong Sangsoo

I think she will get married to this guy. And then maybe five sons. [LAUGHS / LAUGHTER]

David Pendleton  36:46  

But that final shot where they’re embracing and he's sort of, like collapsed into her and she's sort of looking off. I mean, it really feels like– To me it opens this real question of what her feelings are for this guy or what she plans to do.

Hong Sangsoo  37:03  

Maybe she has some guilt in her heart but who doesn't?

David Pendleton  37:07  

Guilt because of having slept with–

Hong Sangsoo  37:10  

I think she needs this kind of guy. Because she has gone through so much. She needed someone like this guy.

David Pendleton  37:18  

You mean like coming out of her crazy family with the older brother? Interesting. Are there other questions? Yes. In the back.

[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

Well, on that note, why don't we all adjourn to the reception upstairs in the lobby. Please come back tomorrow for his newest film Oki’s Movie. Thank you. Thank you very much, director.

Hong Sangsoo

Thank you very much.

[APPLAUSE]

©Harvard Film Archive