Film Review: The King and the Clown (2005)
The film features a rich narrative, strong and clear dramatic arc and is a visual treat.
This was an interesting watch because it was laced with so many classical tropes used in storytelling, which reminded me constantly of Shakespeare. Even without the likeness to Shakespearean writing, these tools of storytelling are age old, tried and tested tropes- classic in every sense of the word- and it was refreshing to watch because of the sublime use of these. Another possible reason could be that tools such as these could possibly used in a film with plenty of dramatic scope, and this is one such film. I feel like dramatic scope is something that, these days, you’d only get to this extent in a Pixar feature film. After watching the film and taking a step back to look at the bigger picture, I realised that every single tool used has been used very strongly.
One such tool is the creation and use of drama. In the film, drama is created using many, many other elements, which I’ll come to shortly, but this drama is the very medium in which the entire story plays out. Almost every dialogue, action and reaction is bathed in dramatic splendour. Something that I found interesting in this regard is that most of this drama goes unnoticed unless the viewer consciously thinks about it; because the jesters’ job is drama- the characters are readily meant to be dramatic. Through most of the film, the characters themselves are performing, such that their performed characters and their own character blend in together. Their performances become their direct actions which have a cause and effect cycle. The characters portrayed by the jesters become symbolic of their fate in the story and this in turn heightens the dramatic theme of the film (more on the use of symbolism below). Something of a dramatic cycle is created here. An example of this would be when Gong-gil portrays the King’s mother and Jang-seng the previous King- there is dramatic irony in the exchange that occurs between them and this scene seals the film in its new tragic pathway. Another manner in which this blending is done is by not showing any rehearsals of these performances- we too are seeing them for the first time, and so it becomes like a part of the story in the eyes of the viewer. The second reason why the presence of such copious amounts of drama may initially go unnoticed is because most of the takes place in a 16th century King’s court and palace; because everything is already so lavish, the drama itself blends in against this background of vibrancy and pomp.
There is also copious use of symbolism and dramatic irony in the film. There are a few instances when a later occurrence is alluded to in the beginning (Jang-seng and Gong-gil playing blind) and an older occurrence is reminisced in the end (after Jang-seng is blinded, the two repeat dialogues from the first time we meet them, reminisce about when they pretended to be blind, etc). The closing performance of Gong-gil and Jang-seng is a symbolic reminiscence of their entire journey together. Another instance of the dramatic irony is when Jang-seng deliberately tries to anger the King- he does the same stunt while attempting to dodge his arrows that he does at the opening of the film, but in a completely different context, alluding to the first instance when he did this stunt. It is at this point when the viewer looks back on the film and realises how the circumstances have changed. The rope on which Jang-seng performs this stunt is also a source of symbolism through the film. It represents a prominent part of Jang-seng and Gong-gil’s identity and relationship and is present at the opening and the close of the film, introducing as well as wrapping up the story. Like Poetry, Seopyeonje and Spring, Summer…, the the beginning and the end of the film meet and the story completes a full circle, either literally or symbolically. Also, the fact that Gong-gil played the King’s mother in the performance seemed of some symbolism and irony to me because I suspect that the reason why the King was so enamoured by Gong-gil in the first place is because he reminded him of his mother in some way that Nok-su and other women could not. There are many, many instances of dramatic symbolism, too many to list, but these are the ones which stood out to me.
The music score was something that I really enjoyed and thought did an excellent job of creating drama. The use of music was really clever and only heightened the drama throughout the film. Aside from the fact that it helped creating a dramatic atmosphere, the soundtracks were fitting to the story and characters and made each scene more vivid and rich.
One of the most intriguing things about the film was how much I found myself analysing it in a very similar way to how I would analyse Shakespeare. There are so many common points and similarities- the way the drama, symbolism and irony has been woven into the story, the script with its dramatic dialogue, monologues, soliloquies and puns. Even the treatment of the comic and tragic themes of the film were very Shakespearean- in the first half of the film which had the theme of a comedy, there was generous use of nonsensical and brash humour, which I recall finding in Shakespeare’s As You Like It, and when the film took on the theme of a tragedy, it so thickly alludes to Macbeth in the degeneration of the King’s character and his descent into madness as he starts mercilessly killing (and dismissing) people from his court. The similarity to Macbeth became most apparent when, after the hunt, the King kills a minister and the minister says, “Heaven has seen the evils of your tyranny and will punish you for it”. Although it is not entirely similar to Macbeth, there is definitely a very strong Shakespearean feel to the film.
The character development is something which influenced the story and drama more than anything else. Each of the main characters undergoes a change and develops in their own way according to the circumstances that they are exposed to.
Gong-gil’s character is largely unexplored, being portrayed for most part of the film as shy with a feminine reserve. However, it is very evident that when he performs, he is at his confident best, which endears him to the audience. We initially see him as a weak willed person who must give into the demands of others because of who he is. The viewer is shown Gong-gil’s true element, first when he and Jang-seng play two blind men and when they perform a pair jump after reaching Seoul. Gong-gil’s character is designed to be instantly loved by the audience because of his unexpected charm and underdog demeanour (when he is not performing). It quickly becomes clear that Gong-gil very much enjoys his job and takes it very seriously and is sincere and seems to be a bit of a perfectionist while performing. The cleanest example of this would be when he insists on doing the performance of the King’s mother before they leave as they would not get to do it anywhere else, which is more important to him than fleeing with Jang-seng before things get out of hand. Gong-gil’s character does not really start to degenerate until after this performance. Following this, we no longer see him in his element, until the last scene when he performs with Jang-seng. The viewer feels most empathy for Gong-gil towards the end after Jang-seng has been blinded, because his love for Jang-seng comes out then and we feel his loneliness. Gong-gil receives empathy by virtue of him being a more emotional and emotive character, once again endearing him to the viewer.
Jang-seng from the beginning is shown to be fiercely protective of Gong-gil. He is instantly seen as sharp, clever, business minded and a born performer, in his witty and audacious best when he is performing. The degeneration of his character begins when Gong-gil starts being called in to see the King, suggesting his need for and to look after Gong-gil- he starts coming undone when Gong-gil starts to get pulled away from him. This is further reinforced when the jesters are asked to perform the piece about the King’s mother being poisoned. He does not appear to be in his element while performing anymore but just wants to be done with it- he is no longer jovial and happy doing what he loves to do. Jang-seng’s character only resurfaces, ironically, when bailing Gong-gil out with his handwriting, when trying to anger the King the next day and when he and Gong-gil share the last performance together at the end. Empathy is created towards his character because, from being the most stolid figure in the film, he is let down by the person he loves and mistreated for no fault of his own. This empathy that is felt by the audience is felt, even though Jang-seng himself says at the end that he was blinded by the glitter of money on coming to Seoul. The audience is made to feel empathy towards him at the close of the film when he relates his desire to be reborn as only a minstrel, which is a simple way to the hearts of people.
The relationship between Jang-seng and Gong-gil was a little confusing throughout the film. it is clear that Jang-seng feels the need to protect him and does want a better life for Gong-gil, so that he may be treated with respect for his craft and not as a tool for selling sex. There is always a tension of potential romance between the two of them. Only at the end it becomes somewhat possible that the two may have been in love, when Gong-gil gives the puppet show while he slits his wrist, and in the closing sequence of them performing. It was pleasing that this relationship was not overstated even at the end- it was treated very subtly and respectfully. The viewer understands their relationship and bond in this closing sequence without them having to overtly show an act of romance and love.
The King’s character is not that of a tyrant, as suggested in the film, but actually of a child. Throughout the film, he is seen to be guided by emotions, allowing his heart to rule his head, in turn presiding over his court with these erratic emotions governing his actions. Overcome by the grief of losing his mother, he is simply not able to think rationally when her name comes into the scene. His character is fickle minded and childish. Like a child, he quickly grows attached to having his jesters perform and cannot be without it. He is then overcome by unchecked greed and longing in his desire for Gong-gil. With each subsequent performance at his court as well as interaction with Gong-gil, he descends further down the ladder of sanity. The mindless and unnecessary killing increases, as he falls lower and lower in the eyes of the viewer. By the end of the film, the King has seemingly gone mad and lost all sense of purpose and justice. There is next to no feelings of pity or empathy left for him at this time. Although his journey into the lakebed of depravity is very much like that of Macbeth, one difference I found is that, at the end of Macbeth, Shakespeare reserves a small amount of empathy in the reader for the slain tyrant King, which is absent here. There is dramatic irony in the role of the King- at first the jesters tried very hard to make the King laugh so they could walk away with their lives, but in the end, it was that same sickeningly broad grin that stuck a thorn of misfortune in their lives and changed everything. This grin is even shown one last time to remove every remaining shred of empathy.
The King saw in Gong-gil the life that he wanted to have. Gong-gil unknowingly introduced him to a new way of expressing himself artistically, which the King was so drawn to because of the stone cold life that he has led in royalty. This is used to hint at the age old idea that those at the top have only material possession and always long for more because of their inward loneliness. However, even with all of these layers of emotion added, the King’s character still seems plausible and real. Perhaps this has something to do with the way emotions speak to audience- it creates empathy and relatability.
One thing that remains unclear to me is Gong-gil’s feelings towards the King. Throughout the film, it seemed a little ambiguous to me whether or not Gong-gil disliked the King- he felt sorry for the King’s past, but did not want to help him too much, he disapproved of the King’s cruel ways in killing ministers, but did not want to leave the palace with the others. It sometimes felt like his actions were kept ambiguous for the sake of convenience in developing narrative and drama.
Towards the last half hour of the film, it seemed like there was a little bit too much melodrama, some of which was unnecessary. The premise of saving Jang-seng’s character, though essential to the narrative, seemed a little shabby to me.
I remembered, somewhere along the middle of the film, that the role of the Fool in a King’s court is to mock. He basically tells things the way it is, but with a slight of humour, so as not to directly offend. I remembered this as it is what Touchstone does in As You Like It. The fool cuts tension by telling nonsensical jokes. This made me wonder, why then is it so wrong to have court jesters in this King’s palace? They technically aren’t doing anything wrong in mocking those in the palace once they have been appointed official jesters, but that may be a thing of culture.
Finally, to give attention to the portrayal of the culture of the time. The culture was portrayed with sublime finesse- the traditional arts of jesters and country minstrels and the kind of things that appealed to people of the time revealed their mindset and level of sophistication and advancement. More than anything else, what caught my attention was the attire, especially since the story is set in a King’s court and palace. The film gives the viewer a vivid feel of the rich vibrancy of the traditional attire, as well as the goings on inside the King’s court and palace. It was also interesting to note that there were no lead female characters of significance. The 16th century Korea can be assumed to be much more of a masculine world, and not just a man’s world.
This film for me was one about emotion and fate. It told the story of a group of (ill) fated people who bit off more than they could chew before things quickly got out of hand and they were all at the mercy of another’s emotions. The resultant story is one that is guided by emotions and sins of the heart. Each of the characters get tangled in a web of greed, envy, longing and anger, and these effect each one in a different way, resulting in a beautiful, heart-bending and honest story.
