Ecocriticism in the world of Bong Joon-ho
graphic by @aleexamarie
We’ve been making art that reflects the many sides of the environment for as long as we’ve thought about nature. This includes film, where nature has been central in several genres in many ways. The frame for the existence of ecological films is a lot bigger than what’s often discussed. Ecocinema is a genre of films which center nature, whether it be trees and animals, or climate change and its consequences for different beings. They’re watched through what’s called an ecocritical lense, where different fields of study such as biology, philosophy and social science cooperate to analyze the ways nature is portrayed in art. The term ecocriticism is derived from literature where the focus was on descriptions of nature and human beings’ relationship to it in books, especially in the romantic era. When we look at ecocriticism in film, we do the same analysis.
While most people might associate eco-films with modern dystopian disaster-movies, humans have been navigating natural disasters and with that, nature itself, on the big screen since the silent era. The frame is not only long with time but wide with geographic coverage because as often as we speak of Hollywood blockbusters with New York sinking through the ground or San Francisco entering a new ice age, ecocriticism in art is a global phenomenon.
One filmmaker who continuously includes eco-critical analyses into his films is South Korean writer and director Bong Joon-Ho. Through merging several angles of analysis, Bong creates sharp and beautiful films which are as enriching for the eyes as they are for the mind. While all of his films have political commentary in them, three stand out in terms of ecocritical thought;
In The Host, which premiered in 2006, a monster rises from the Han River in Seoul after an American company completely disregards safety protocols and dumps heaps of chemicals down the drain. The film is based on an incident when the American Military dumped a big amount of formaldehyde down drains in Seoul, and just like in the film, this led to big protests. The Host combines several political commentaries, with ecocriticism in the context of anti-imperialism being the biggest one. The monster is a returning symbol for ‘the Other’, and in The Host as well as other films like Godzilla, it’s the colonizer or imperialist being Othered. Ecocriticism in the context of imperialism adds a layer that’s often disregarded in art. In both contemporary and historical ecocritical films, the line between protagonists and antagonists (and thereby eco-heroes and eco-villains) has been very blurred.
Dystopian realities are presented with very little context, leaving us with a disastrous world with no answers as to how protagonists ended up in the situation they’re in and how they’re going to get out of it. The Host rejects that from its opening scene. We’re told from the beginning that the disasters we’re about to witness are a result of a specific company's choices and this, in combination with the history it’s based on, sets the tone for the film in regards to protagonists and especially antagonists.
Similar concepts can be seen in Snowpiercer (2011). Here, we see the result of a failed attempt to bring the temperature of the earth down; instead this attempt threw the earth into the next ice age. The last people on earth are all trapped on a train that’s strictly divided based on class, and the lower-class part of the train is preparing for a revolution. The film is Bong Joon-ho’s English debut and differs from The Host in its more globalized political commentary. Whilst The Host was political in a more South Korean context, Snowpiercer touched on those elements on a more globalized note. Just like he does in The Host, Bong makes a clear distinguishment between the protagonists and antagonists in the film, making it clear who’s in power in the situation people are suffering in.
In Okja (2017) we follow 9-year-old Mija as she tries to rescue Okja, the animal she’s lived with all her life from the meat company that created him. 10 years ago, Mirando Corporations announced that they’ve started a project to birth so-called “super pigs”: an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional commercially produced meat. They send the first pigs to farmers all over the world to follow their upbringing. The plan for Mirando Corporations was to bring back the super-pigs, but Mija created a bond with Okja that she refuses to give up and when Okja is taken from her, she’s dead set on bringing him back. Whilst the two previous films also discuss systematic violence, Okja does this while opening up a wider conversation about commercial meat consumption and the commodification. One question asked in conversations about the climate is how to change humans’ attitudes towards animals and how to close the seemingly growing gap. One of the many pillars in the ruining of our environment stems from the idea of humans being separate from nature, thus giving people more freedom to exploit the earth because they don’t believe in a connection between the effects it has on earth and the effects it has on themselves. In this context, animals become objects solely made to be exploited for profit. Okja exists outside of all of this, and Mija’s reason to save him is not solely for her own gain but also because she believes he deserves a life with people who care about him.
Something that differentiates these films from many contemporary Hollywood-films as well as historical ecocritical films is the overt criticism of the system and the element of hope embedded in Bong’s films. The wave of filmmakers Bong is a part of, all have elements of critiquing ‘the system’ in their films due to the context of which they rose from. Many of Bong’s generation got started after the fall of the military power in 1988, and the cautiousness with the system stayed. This is interesting to see in his Hollywood-oriented films, where overt criticism of the system isn’t as established in larger productions. His criticism creates, as seen in all the films previously discussed, clear antagonists who are behind the problems characters are facing. There is a great importance in the clear line between people who are suffering and people who are creating problems for the sake of the audience watching. There’s always some level of ideology embedded in films, and as we consume them, we consume what they have to say as well. This becomes truer the more realistic the film is, and many ecocritical films (as many are a part of the science fiction genre) are either partly or fully based on reality. The clear contrast between protagonists and antagonists in Bong’s films create a clearer narrative, because to end whatever ecological disaster they’re dealing with, they have to find the antagonist.
We’ve been conditioned to believe there are no big antagonists in the question of the climate crisis and instead, there is a growing assumption that we, as a society, are all antagonists in our own ways when this isn’t necessarily true. There are people to hold accountable for the state of the world, and when people get to see it clearly in art, they might be able to see it a bit clearer in real life too. The critique within Bong’s films also create an element of hope embedded in them. His protagonists; the way they organize and the way they set their mind to solutions, creates an atmosphere in which the hopelessness many are conditioned to feel about climate change almost erases itself. Hope is vital for any movement, the idea that there is a better world waiting for us as long as we’re ready to build it and fight for it is what keeps many going. We are nothing without it, and Bong showcases this so well in his films.
By Nilo Khamani
(she/her)
Edited by Makella Ama