Apart from the clear “broken, emasculated man” connection between both of the films, there are several other similarities that I’d like to discuss. First of all, the common theme of pulling teeth that appears in both films is bizarre to me, and I’m wondering why both films focused on this specific physical pain. I clearly acknowledge the fact that pulling teeth inflicts physical pain on the men, emphasizing their broken masculinity, and I also understand the concept of hypermasculinity that is very apparent in Old Boy. In The Stray Bullet, his toothache is more of a constant pain that persists throughout the entire film acting as a parallel to the relentless intrusion of misfortune in his life. But why teeth specifically? Perhaps the notion of pulling teeth promotes the notion of pulling the roots out from within the men’s mouths, rendering them powerless and hindering their speech. I also noticed that both films incorporated climbing a lot of stairs, especially in a never-ending sense, perhaps to signify the difficult, ceaseless climb of South Korea in attempt to get out of their “nationless” state. Adding on to the idea of stairs, both films incorporated heights and rooms looking down over everything (the penthouse in Old Boy and the apartment in The Stray Bullet). The symbol of the birds and the cages in The Stray Bullet were also extremely interesting, and apart from the stated connection of feeling “caged” as a nation, I interpreted the frequently apparent birds as symbols of the colonizer – especially after the line was stated about crows (the colonizer) sitting right on top of the scarecrow’s head (the colonized) and pecking its eyes out.
In response to the readings, I was confused about Doane’s connection between “women and waiting” (2), and the subsequent link between that notion and the target female reader of the novel. Doane states that the film narrative can be seen as the extension of the novel, hence why women are the best consumers of film. However, I am confused about the seemingly contradictive statements that she suggests. I cannot understand how Doane’s two concepts regarding female spectatorship can coexist: the idea of the female’s “overidentification” with the film due to her over-empathetic, novel-reading position and the opposite notion of the woman’s inability to relate to the film’s protagonist since that would be taking on an active, masculine role. How can the woman spectator simultaneously “overidentify” and be incapable of relating?
Relating Chung’s argument, I also find it ironic that men are able to be spectators due to their tendency to “misrecognize.” It’s counterintuitive (but comprehensible) to grasp that through misrecognition, or more ignorance, the man achieves a state of power. However, once a man experiences recognition or understanding of the reality of the situation (as in Chung’s discussion of the “scene of recognition” in The Stray Bullet), then he is rendered powerless due to his emotional involvement (which I can see relating perfectly to the idea of the woman’s passive, powerlessness due to her over-empathetic spectatorship or, in Chung’s terms, tendency to “recognize”).