Clown, Part 2

OK, now that I have the initial review King and the Clown out of my system, I'll comment on it, again.

Much like Brokeback Mountain, King and the Clown has a few stories going on. Although most reviews are going to point to its gay themes, which are just hinted at--there's no sex, no nudity. Indeed, the sensuality boils down to one rather brief kiss. The raunchiness, as it were, is left to either the skits that the jesters do, or to the king and his queen.

King reminds me of a bunch of other films, from Kurosawa period pieces, to soap operas, to period dramas like Amadeus, especially, the relationship of the king and queen. It's not nearly as serious as films like Ran or other Kurosawa films. It draws more from, say, soap operas, making the action more intimate.

The film also raises class issues, but as much by paying attention to the minstrels as the courtesans. In Ran, there is the clown jester, but all you get from the jester is that he is a jester, loyal to the warlord that has been booted out. You know he is of a lower class, but there's not much made of him. In many ways, he's similar to the many women that throw their bodies at arrows to protect their masters, non-descript.

King pays more attention to the minstrels, who seem much more of a family, then the dysfunctional monarchy (most monarchies set in the past seem to have this issue, with people willing to kill their own spouses, next of kin, whoever). There are Shakespearean elements where the king is going somewhat mad, unable to live to the expectations of his deceased father, who was highly respected. This plays out in a key scene where he has a father son shadow puppet scene, which you realize, rather quickly, is his relation with his own father.

For a long time, Gong-gil, the effiminate male that seems the source of interest for both the leader of the troupe, and the king, is not much of a character. Jang-sang, the leader, is much more interesting. You can see him pout, even as it's not fully established right away, his affection for Gong-gil. Indeed, it's tough to say how well they connect, but it may have to do with the delicate topic of gay romance in Korean films. Gong-gil's role is a bit underdeveloped, which is too bad, because it might establish a reason for why either character is interested in him, other than he makes a genuinely convincing looking woman.

The queen is also a weak character, mainly being jealous of Gong-gil. She has a kind of maternal relationship to the king, who is seen as someone that is trying to be his own man, but has troubles. The queen mainly looks irritated and wonders why the king is so enamored of this guy.

The character actors, who play smaller roles, seem vaguely familiar. At least one of them, I'm pretty sure, is in The Host (well, I can't really find evidence of this).

King keeps its focus on the love story, even as there is a side story of the overthrow of the king. The resolution isn't so simple mostly because Gong gil eventually realizes he is in love with Jang-sang. Eventually, both are content that they are minstrels, even as they've spent a brief time living among royalty.

I liked the film, but can't quite say it is as gripping as The Host. Certainly, the attitudes toward gay themes are a bit naive, but each culture goes through its own stages trying to address this topic. For example, the issue, I think, hasn't been addressed in mainstream Indian films. It has been dealt with, somewhat, in arty films, like Fire by Deepa Mehta (dealing with lesbians).

Well, there you have it. Decent, but not great.