[spywaregorilla]

It is remarkable how the most memorable scenes in parasite (for me) were not any of the crazy plot but the flooding scenes which were nothing but aesthetic symbolism of the movie's message. It didn't matter from a plot perspective at all really, and there was no dramatic sense of danger in it either, but damn did it stand out.

[time_to_smile]

> It didn't matter from a plot perspective at all really

To me this is exactly what made the flood scene so powerful.

When watching the film the flood seems to almost interrupt the narrative flow, "what is this? this isn't what I'm interested in right now. Why do we need this, there's already enough going on for these people?" is your first reaction as a viewer

But that's how real tragedy unfolds, it completely interrupts the story you are telling yourself with something you would really prefer not to deal with but are not allowed to ignore.

Floods, or likewise layoffs, the death of an important family member, etc. never fit the narrative flow we have in our heads. They interrupt our story in a way we really don't want.

I recall years ago getting ready for an important business trip for early stage startup that I had just joined. I was packing when I got a call that a close family member on the other side of the country had died. It didn't fit with my plans, I was going to start a new company, I didn't have time for a funeral, for grieving. Can't we do this next week when I'm less busy?

Of course the next morning the flight I got on was not for a startup but for the funereal.

Tragedy and loss never fit out schedule, not only do they bring their own pain but they destroy everything else we were trying to balance in our lives. Really a brilliant way to convey this idea in film.

[fleetwoodsnack]

Absolutely. Grandparent commentor has some odd notions about what constitutes a legitimate versus illegitimate narrative device, and what constitutes “dramatic sense of danger.”

They mentioned it as an “aesthetic” choice on the part of the writer/director, but the linked video mentioned 4 people who had drowned in a flooded banjiha, and included an interview with a family who claimed to have narrowly escaped with their own lives.

Tragedy striking suddenly and seemingly irreversibly is a common feature of life in poverty; there is no art or artifice about it and (purely personally), it strikes me as naive interpreting it as a visual spectacle and not a visual representation of an underlying reality.

[spywaregorilla]

> Grandparent commentor has some odd notions about what constitutes a legitimate versus illegitimate narrative device, and what constitutes “dramatic sense of danger.”

Feels... weirdly aggressive for no reason. It's a great moment, but it's not a plot focused one. It has no consequences nor any particular proposition of consequences. In real life, yes, floods are dangerous. In real life a flood would be a significant life event. But that's not the character of this scene. The best shot of the film, and personally I think he best shot I've ever seen period, is of the daughter just smoking on the toilet while it overflows with sewage during the flood. She's not afraid, in fact, she's pretty apathetic to it all.

Water is a recurring motif in the film. The rich people stay dry. The water flows down to the poor who get soaked. The fact that people have actually died from this kind of flooding is tragic, but it shouldn't redefine how one interprets the scene. The family narrowly avoids a complete disaster and this is just a brutal reminder that their lives still suck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtxrau3arh4