Am I Still Korean?

I mean technically, I no longer have Korean citizenship.

I can never tell if I am going overboard when I exercise my reluctance to be “Korean”. Out of the many I have met with similar backgrounds, whilst living across the great Pacific, a great bulk have been very aware of their Korean backgrounds and yearned to return to a place that, to them, was far more familiar. However, at the same time, some of my Korean – or to expand this to a broader spectrum, Asian-Canadian – friends were more or less on my wavelength, dreading the thought of coming into contact, in Canada or elsewhere, with the Asian culture that they were no longer a part of.

My, conflict with myself derives from the realization that my rebellious nature towards accepting my Korean roots is essentially some sort of existential angst. But that is not to exclude the fact that my formative years were spent in the west, not the east. Insert snarky joke about the rising sun. Of course I naturally conform with western traditions…that is what I grew up with to a certain degree. But during my infancy, I also lived in Korea until I was five. I remember taking the subway in Seoul with my grandpa and enjoying the hell out of it.
But this conflict, despite not being resolved, leads to another problem. I find myself to be hypercritical of a great deal of Korean related, for lack of a better word at the moment, things. I find so many things to be ridiculous. The idea that kids go to tutors until 10PM is absolutely ridiculous; the fact that Koreans thought the solution to a horrendous appearance in the World Cup was to try harder is beyond insane (how about you change the system in which you coach the players? Oh no? You think trying harder is all you need to be concerned about? Ok, fine. Don’t make critical decisions); and it boggles my mind that plastic surgery is so deeply integrated into Korean culture.

Before, I didn’t think this level of criticism was problematic, but then I realized I was not being fair. A lot of these things are bad, but they are a result of years of cultural development. But that is as empathetic as I will get.

There is an article called About Face by the New Yorker. It covers the cultural importance of plastic surgery in Korea. It talks about the numerous ads in the Gangnam subway stations, showcasing before and after pictures of girls who went through plastic surgery. But it also introduces many other aspects that I did not know about plastic surgery or in a broader sense, Korea’s obsession with trends and the sense of a collective “I”. Apparently, in the midst of the Korean War, American surgeons offered plastic surgery operations to Korean civilians who were injured amidst the combat. Apparently this was how plastic surgery got introduced to South Korea. Do I resent America for bringing in something that I find absolutely disgusting now? No. Of course not. At that moment, although there were cosmetic benefits, it was to help an individual not suffer to exceptional degrees.

Nowadays, as the article mentions, there is a show in Korea that brings out individuals who suffer disfigurement or other ailments that cause their faces to be unpleasant. Surgeons then offer a free cosmetic makeover and they bring out the new and beautiful person out to the cheer and applause of the crowd.

Can I really be disgusted by something like that? I am not sure. Some of these people do deserve something like this, and plastic surgery certainly isn’t cheap. If it makes them happy, I guess there is nothing to really be disgusted by.

But then comes the scenario of an individual who looks fine to begin with, and gets plastic surgery to look more like a celebrity that either they admire, or is incredibly popular with the vast majority of the Korean population. That…is disgusting. That this is something that is encouraged, that there are parents in Korea who tell their daughters or sons that they would look more handsome if they got a nose job. What the fuck people. Seriously, what the fuck.

I think for the most the part, there is an inherent natural aesthetic beauty to a face, but once you start mucking around with the parts, the face becomes visibly alienated, even if the surgeon is Michelangelo with the knife. It really troubles me to see that. Or the numerous bandaged women who go walking around in broad daylight, stopping to get as many trendy shirts and shoes as possible, or the young couples that are entering shopping malls whose average price for a shirt is over $150. I am too judgmental, I know. I could pick apart myself and my family and friends could probably point out a hundred other flaws that I was too ashamed to admit. But Damn.

However, despite all this, a part of me still wants to be a part of Korea. I want to retain some semblance of a connection with the country I was born in. I can’t lose that part of me completely, but I am afraid I already have.

Here is a link to the article.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/about-face

 

We Know What’s Going to Happen, You Don’t

Do you ever watch your favorite show, read your favorite book, or start a great film and already know what is going to happen? The plot unfolds right at the beginning with you, the viewer/reader, as the initial confidant and the eye-witness to the madness. Then as the plot of the said show/book thickens, and the music starts racing in the background as the characters look at each other in worry, you sit back and realize that wait…you already know the big secret of the plot…the other characters don’t! This my friends is called dramatic irony, and I absolutely can’t stand it.

“Dramatic Irony – a literary device by which the audience’s or reader’s understanding of events or individuals in a work surpasses that of its characters.”

Yes it can be found in the classics like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, and even modern works like ABC’s Revenge (cough, cough..hint, hint). Dramatic irony can be the best thing that could ever happen to a plot, and the absolute worst thing that can happen to an audience.

I came to the realization that I detest dramatic irony whilst watching my favorite drama/mystery TV shows. Yeah it’s great that we know that there’s a murder and some form of deception by this person, but do we as viewers really need to sit through 5 seasons of watching characters build up the courage/knowledge to confront the people or entity holding them back? Now that’s just ridiculous.

Dramatic irony sets up a storyline that we know will run its course. Did you think if we knew who the mother was before Ted met her, we’d even care after 9 seasons? What really pushes viewers and readers to stay passionate about these creative works, is the perfected art of surprise. Not many writers have it in them to continuously draw its audience in without giving much away, but to be honest, that is what makes for great drama. It’s the constant need to know on the audience’s end that will always make the pages worth flipping through or the shows worth watching.

In giving the very juicy goods away as soon as audience becomes acquainted with the text, it becomes a game of what character do I care enough about to stay invested in this? What character will I wait to know what I know, and will they react how I want them to? Even with this criteria in mind, I find that character-pull is becoming more and more weak. Do I even care about this character’s reaction enough? Eh..not really.

I urge creators of dramas to consider dramatic irony’s effects, and if it really brings forth what you want it to. Consider practicing the art of surprise, and how keeping the audience in the dark might bring forth amazing stories.

Real World Implications

There’s a term in art analysis called suspension of disbelief. This refers to the ability of the consumer to ignore the implausibilities of a product. It is absolutely crucial to the enjoyment of the patron. Surprisingly, this can be pretty hard to break, though a lot can. Having too many implausibilities in one scene or expecting the consumer too believe too big of one can shatter this suspension. For me, my suspension seems to be much more easily broken than for others. I personally prefer this as it allows me to keep a critical mind, but quickly annoys the people the around me. The thought of how the scene fits in the real world often breaks my suspension, especially when it comes to the death of people.

I see the death of a nameless character and disturbs me. It breaks by suspension because it makes me wonder how the director can be so flippant about someone dying. In this fictional world, that character was a person, they had a life and people who will be devastated by their death. These movies ignore that and move on as if nothing happened. I think about who they are and how their disappearance will affect so many others. It especially disturbs me when they are just a bystander. They played no part in the plot, yet they are the ones to suffer. It’s an innocent’s death, yet the director treats them as simply an object. I stop becoming an active participant in the movie as I contemplate all of this.

Don’t get me wrong, death can be a very important part of a movie, but I think directors should consider if it is necessary because, more often than not, the death would be unrealistic in the real-world. Even in fantasy movies, the plot must follow some general rules of the real world. You can’t kill a person without some affect somewhere else. That is where the suspension of disbelief breaks. We can’t treat these characters as lifeless plot points, because they wouldn’t be if the film world was real. It is necessary to remember that because the film world must feel like a real world.

Marcel the Shell with Shoes On

The first week of April is here, which means we are a few shallow and anxious breaths away from a whirlwind of papers and exams, and of sleepless nights accompanied only by the sugariest of late night snacks and the saltiest of tears. It’s the time of year where one good reprieve from the frontline of studying is the difference between a mental break and a hard-fought conquest. As you prepare to either give yourself an exhausted pat on the back or tell your parents that “hey, grades aren’t all that matters, you know? I hear the circus is hiring,” I present you with an oldie but goodie.

Marcel the Shell with Shoes On is a video-short series created by Jenny Slate and her husband Dean Fleischer-Camp. You might know Jenny from her time on SNL, or as Jean-Ralphio’s sister Mona-Lisa on Parks and Rec, or even from this incredible interview on Late Night with Seth Meyers where she talks about the time she got high in an astronomy class in college. She really shines as Marcel, who is quite literally a little shell wearing shoes who has a very bright and rose-colored look on the great big world. It’s the perfect pick-me-up for just about any time you’re down, and is an essential piece of any finals coping strategy. If you don’t believe me, see it for yourself:

As an added bonus – here is Jenny Slate on Conan singing Landslide by Fleetwood Mac as Marcel:

Why Binge Watching is Better

For some time now, binge watching Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon has been the vice of students hiding from their homework. We know it’s wrong, we frown upon it when others do it, and we hide under our blanket to bask in the shame. However, in my own experience I have found that binge watching gives me a better experience of watching the show. Back when cable was the only option, I had certain shows that I watched religiously – Gilmore Girls and Buffy the Vampire Slayer to name a few. The shows played one episode each week or day (if they were reruns) at the same time in chronological order. The problem was, I would miss an episode or the station would skip ahead in the season. This gave me a disjointed sense of these shows by skipping/missing an episode or by my own forgetfulness about what happened in the last week’s episode. Sitting down to watch 3-4 episodes of Scandal at a time gave me a much better concept of the arc of the show and a much closer relationship to the characters. I watched the entire first season of Transparent in one sitting and by the end I felt a deep sense of unity with the characters and it was as though I was a part of their journey. When I binge watch, I’m able to see the concept of the season as a whole. I didn’t realize how much this could do for me as a viewer until I got all caught up on Scandal and had to start watching the new episodes once a week. A lot can happen in seven days of waiting for a new episode, it begins to feel as if you’re only seeing snippets of these characters’ lives whereas in binge watching you can see how the episodes flow into and set up one another. Obviously spending hours staring at the TV isn’t something that should be done too often, but binge watching shows has given me a new appreciation for the production team’s vision for the show and improved my viewing experience.

From Shapes to Stories

In 1944, psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel produced a simple film. The animated short features a large rectangle, a small circle, and two triangles—one large and one small. The shapes move about the screen for a minute before the film fades to black. Throughout the video, there is no audio, text, color, or other features. As for design aesthetic, the film goes beyond minimalism. It is frugality.

But in this frugality, stories arise. While the lack of concrete detail could render the film to nothing but a handful of shapes floating around a screen, viewers manage to derive meaning. It’s an interesting phenomenon. Despite the absence of normal elements—people, animals, and places—stories can still be created. The hardiness of our storytelling ability is akin to cockroaches surviving nuclear detonation: Generation without “sufficient” nutrients. This demonstrates a uniquely human disposition. No other creatures seek for meaning so desperately that they build narratives from moving shapes. Is our thirst for meaning so strong that it is never fully quenched? At what point can we see triangles as triangles and nothing more?

Heider and Simmel designed the video for a study about the activation of anthropomorphic descriptions when we see geometric shapes. Basically, they were seeking to understand why we attribute human features to nonhuman things. Personification of the world has been a large part of human history. Myths and legends have given faces to oceans and voices to winds on a quest to understand our place in the world. When encountered with the unknown, this anthropomorphizing nature is a coping mechanism. We seek to fill the holes in a situation and craft a story so that we can understand why something is happening. We paint the void with our minds, and it allows us to make sense of things. This is why we experience emotions when seeing a painting, listening to music, or watching animals interact with one another. When we cannot understand the context of the situation, we create one. Even with things as simple as circles and squares.

It is for this reason that we find television and films enjoyable. They cause us to react emotionally, despite the fact that they are abstract representations. Granted, modern technology has enabled higher graphics and sound, narrowing the gap between the concrete and abstract. Heider and Simmel’s film suggests that anthropomorphism needs little input.

Some say our anthropomorphism is dangerous, as it distorts reality. But I say it makes us human.

And, well, we couldn’t have art without it.