Disc Specs

  • Region:
    3
  • Released:
    April 2004
  • Country:
    Korea
  • Running Time:
    95 minutes
  • Screen Format:
    1.78:1 Anamorphic NTSC
  • Discs / Sides / Layers:
    1 / 1 / Dual
  • Soundtracks:
    Korean Dolby Digital 2.0
    Korean Dolby Digital 5.1
  • Subtitles:
    English
    Korean
  • Special Features:
    Theatrical Trailer
    TV-Spot 30
    TV-Spot 60
    Making of
    CD Soundtrack (LE Only)
  • Distributor:
    Starmax

Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    18 (Korea)
  • Released:
    2004
  • Country:
    Korea
  • Director:
    Kim Ki-duk
  • Starring:
    Lee Uhl
    Ji-min Kwak
    Min-jeong Seo
    Eol Lee
    Min-jung Seo
    Kwon Hyun-Min
    Oh Young
    Im Gyun-Ho
    Lee-Jong Gil
    Shin Taek-Ki
    Jung-gi Park
    Gul-seon Kim
    Seung-won Seo
  • Genre(s):

Samaria (Samaritan Girl)

13-05-2004 15:00 | 18641 views  |  Noel Megahey  |  Show Backlinks

After the deceptive surface beauty of Kim Ki-duk’s Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ...and Spring, a simple story with a darker undercurrent – the lurid subject matter and bleak outlook of the director’s earlier work returns in his latest film, Samaria, the winner of the Silver Bear at the 54th Berlin International Film Festival in February 2004.


There are no shades of grey in Kim Ki-duk’s world, it’s a black and white world of good and evil, although the two extremes are often difficult to separate. As embodied in the child Buddhist monk in Spring..., for the director even innocence holds innate the seeds of corruption. In Samaria (also known as Samaritan Girl), the innocence is that of two young schoolgirls, Yeo-jin and Jae-young, who in order to save money to escape to Europe, sell themselves into prostitution, luring clients on the internet who are in no doubt about their underage status. Yeo-jin (Ji-min Kwak) does all the work, procuring the clients and keeping look-out for police while Jae-young (Min-jeong Seo) has sex with the men in downtown motels. Inevitably, being mixed-up in such a dangerous business can have serious implications and it is Jae-young who suffers the consequences. To make-up for what has happened to her friend, Yeo-jin finds a way to undo the harm that has been done and tries to make amends. She goes back through each one of the clients, sleeping with them and paying them back the money they had been saving. The magnanimity of her gesture moves these men to reconsider the evil of their actions. (No really – this is Kim Ki-duks’s bizarre vision of the world...) However, Yeo-jin’s father (Lee Uhl), a police detective, is shocked to discover what his daughter appears to be doing and he finds another way of paying back dues that is a little bit more Old Testament.


The overall point of Samaria – like the earlier rather baffling Spring... – is hard to grasp. It’s not that the director’s themes and ideas are not clearly put forward. No-one can be more explicit than Kim Ki-duk, who characteristically lays out as clearly as possible his premise in the first lines of the film. Jae-young identifies with an Indian holy prostitute, Vasumistra, who brings men closer to God by having sex with them. Yeo-jin on the other hand likes to hear her father’s stories of saints and miracles and comes to believe that her actions by sleeping with the men will redeem the wrongs that have been done. Again, Kim Ki-duk tries to overlap Buddhist teaching with Catholic dogma and two completely fail to blend, giving out contradictory messages. There are few directors who so vigorously cling to certain themes and explore them through different situations as Kim Ki-duk does in his films, but he seems to be no closer to making his point any clearer and his methods of putting it across are far from convincing. Is he telling us that evil is innate? That it is the flipside of innocence? That we can be drawn to evil and violence through love? That we need to face up to the violence and corruption within in order to achieve redemption? These are all very Catholic notions pertaining to guilt and original sin (the director is a Catholic himself), none of them very original and none of the preposterous situations posited by Kim Ki-duk, either in Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ...and Spring or Samaria make them any more relevant or meaningful.



DVD
The now OOP Korean Region 3 Limited Edition of Samaria is presented in an amaray case slip-cased in a sturdy box. A soundtrack CD and a booklet are also included. The standard edition is presented in a standard amaray case and foregoes the inclusion of soundtrack CD and booklet.


Video
The 1.78:1 anamorphic picture looks great and without closer inspection it could pass for a very fine transfer indeed. The image is crystal clear, sharp and even black tones are slightly more detailed than you usually find in a Korean release – however the encoding throws up some characteristic Korean NTSC transfer artefacts, namely an unstable jittery image that makes movements judder ever so slightly, causing backgrounds to shift and shimmer in and out of focus. I wouldn’t mark the image down too much because of this – it’s entirely possible that these problems will pass unnoticed for some viewers – in the same way that not everyone notices edge-enhancement. But if you have a larger display, I think these problems will be more evident. There are few dust spots, but the only other notable fault is a bar of shadow that runs down the centre-left of the frame during the last 15 minutes or so of the film.

Audio
Two audio mixes are provided – a Dolby Digital 2.0 and a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Both function quite well, though neither with any great body. The 5.1 soundtrack is well mixed, mostly centre based, with a fuller sound for the piano theme that drifts through the film. The sound also opens up within the enclosed spaces of bars and restaurants. Quite good but unexceptional.

Subtitles
English subtitles read well, bar one or two very minor grammatical mistakes and are optional.

Extras
Extras are not extensive for a Korean Special Edition, which often have a tendency to often go over the top. None of the extra features contain subtitles. A Theatrical trailer (2:07) is included, presented at 1.85:1 letterbox and two TV Spots (0:32)/(1:02). The Making Film is divided into three sections, the first part (13:55) showing the director at work, talking through shots with the actors, doing ad hoc storyboarding, and answering interview questions; the second part (8:04) focuses on the two young actresses; the third part (6:39) on the lead actor, Lee Uhl. The Limited Edition of the DVD comes with a soundtrack CD that, once you skip past the Korean piano power-ballads, contains variations of the theme, which are nice, but get a little repetitive.


Overall
Kim Ki-duk is an interesting director, tackling difficult subjects in quite original and distinctive ways, but in Samaria he seems to offer no coherent themes or conclusions. Despite the lurid subject matter however, the treatment is not as graphically depicted as you might think from the director of The Isle and Bad Guy. It's looking like, in an attempt to appeal to a more lucrative European and American market - an attempt that is certainly succeeding - we are perhaps losing the rougher edges that made the Ki-duk's work more interesting and original. But although there may be evidence of a maturity in his film and storytelling techniques, there are no signs in Samaria of a maturing of the director's rather confused and disturbing themes.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Film:
    6
    6 out of 10
  • Video: 
    8
    8 out of 10
  • Audio: 
    8
    8 out of 10
  • Extras: 
    4
    4 out of 10
  • Overall: 
    6
    6 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Film 
    8
  • Video 
    0
  • Audio 
    0
  • Extras 
    0
  • Overall 
    7.7

Comments

#1 Posted: 13-05-2004 16:54
K
das contributor
Posts: 919

Report this post
Nice review Noel. I'd have to say I agree with you. This is his most dissapointing film in my opinion, both visually and storywise. You've pretty much mentioned everything I would have.
------

www.koreancinemahouse.co.uk

Quote this post
#2 Posted: 13-05-2004 17:23
Ono
I LEIK JEON JI-HYUN!!!111
Posts: 19

Report this post
Nice one Noel.

I'm not a fan of KKD and his films but bought this one purely because of the provocative poster. :D
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 14-05-2004 00:14
James Martin
Member
Posts: 40

Report this post
Well I strongly disagree with the review.
I consider Samaria one of Kim Ki-Deok best works so far. I think criticising this film for lacking a resolution is rather a cheap shot. Kim Ki-Deok isn't trying to give us answers because he's raising questions which don't really have an answer. He's putting forth a blanket of complete moral ambiguity. Despite all the wrongs of each character, none of them are easy targets to hate. The mood is exceptionally powerful particularly in the final 3rd of the movie and I certainly consider Samaria to be far more of an accomplishment than this review suggests.:)
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 14-05-2004 07:11
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
I didn't criticise the lack of resolution anywhere in the review (so much for the cheap shot), rather the actual premise of the film. If you like, I criticised Samaria for raising meaningless questions from spurious situations that there can be no answer to. What do you see as the moral questions being raised? That paedophilia can lead to moral redemption? This for me is the level of Kim Ki-duk's "moral ambiguity" here, unless you see some other message in the film...
------


DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews

Quote this post
#5 Posted: 14-05-2004 07:30
K
das contributor
Posts: 919

Report this post
It doesn't help the fact that the film is predictable by the last 30 minutes. It's not that the characters are ones you hate but you can't really like them either. It's not an emotionally involving film in my opinion.
------

www.koreancinemahouse.co.uk

Quote this post
#6 Posted: 16-05-2004 03:52
James Martin
Member
Posts: 40

Report this post
What do you see as the moral questions being raised? That paedophilia can lead to moral redemption? This for me is the level of Kim Ki-duk's "moral ambiguity" here

--------------------------------

I don't accept that anyone in the film is a paedophile - A paedophile is someone who specifically wants to have sex with children. I never once felt that any of the clients held that sentiment. They wanted the company of a young women, nothing more nothing less. By what definition do you consider these men paedophiles? I'm pretty sure that the age of sexual consent in Korea is lower than what it is here. If legislation is the deciding factor as to whether someone fits such a catorgory then how serious can it be taken when it changes so radically from one border to another?

To dismiss Kim Ki-duk's work as little more than redemption for paedophiles seems like a cheap shot to me.
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 16-05-2004 10:37
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
They wanted the company of a young women, nothing more nothing less.
That is clearly untrue and a pretty distasteful twisting of the facts. The point of the film is that these men are paying underage girls for sex - nothing more and nothing less - and through this all parties achieve some kind of moral redemption. I can't even begin understand why you would want to deny that. :confused:

By what definition do you consider these men paedophiles?
By the fact that they have sex with schoolgirls? The whole point of the "moral ambiguity" lies in the fact that the girls are underage - it's the charge that Jae-young's father challenges the men with - "Do you know what age she is?". If they were just "young women", the film would have no point or ambiguity in the situation.

I'm pretty sure that the age of sexual consent in Korea is lower than what it is here.
Another very strange comment. Why do the police carry out raids in that case? Or did those points very conveniently escape your notice?

You seem to be keen on dismissing my views of what Kim Ki-duk has to say, but are offering no views of your own - which is far more of a cheap shot in my opinion. According to you, it's just about men "wanting the company" of "young women"? Pretty thin argument for a film and not much "moral ambiguity" there. I find your thoughts about underage sex more disturbing than what the film is trying to say. At least the film is trying (incompetently) to make a case for it, you seem to want to deny there is any such thing as underage sex.

I'm not saying the theme should not be explored. I'm sure Gaspar Noe could make something of the subject, but Kim Ki-duk is way out of his depth with the subject matter here.
------


DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews

Quote this post
#8 Posted: 16-05-2004 20:52
James Martin
Member
Posts: 40

Report this post
The point of the film is that these men are paying underage girls for sex - nothing more and nothing less

No I don't agree. The film doesn't delve into the clients personal life's deeply enough to automatically assume that this is the case. You've come to this conclusion off your own back I feel. We only get to see whom the female protagonists sleep with, we don't see who else each client might be involved with - That is to say we don't know just how important the age of Yeo-jin is too each client or if they even know her age at all. At no point throughout the movie does Kim Ki-duk even hint that any of the clients are specifically wanting to have sex with 'children' - 'school girls' maybe. Of course it's debatable whether they are both one and the same but this is typical Kim Ki-duk grey area territory. Which leads me nicely to the next point -

By the fact that they have sex with schoolgirls?

Having sex with a school girl doesn't technically make someone a paedophile by default though does it considering it's quite possible to be over the age of consent and still in school? I think the age of consent in Korea is 13 (don't quote me on that) which would mean that none of the men in the film are paedophile's legally speaking. That's not to say what is taking place is acceptable either. But I don't think it was ever Kim Ki-duk's intention for Samaria to be seen as something quite so linear as a paedo reformed piece.

Why do the police carry out raids in that case? Or did those points very conveniently escape your notice?

Because prostitution is illegal or did that very obvious point escape your notice? ;)

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one mate. All I can say is the issue of paedophiles didn't even enter my head when watching the film because I don't think that was a road Kim Ki-duk was specifically looking to explore. I also think that labelling characters with something as easily condemnable as "child sex abuser" goes against everything he believes - That human beings are far too complex to merely tag and put into boxes.

As a side note - hinting that I'm some kind of paedophile sympathiser just because I didn't reach the same conclusions you obviously have when watching the film was completely unnecessary and actually quite offensive.
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 16-05-2004 23:26
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
Sorry, James – I think you are missing an essential element of the film. You deny that these men are having sex with underage girls when the very first scene of the film – the internet chat-room pick-up – points to the fact and every subsequent scene bears this out. Why choose to make the characters schoolgirls unless there is a point to it? Is the shame the men feel merely because the girls are prostitutes? And why should her father be so angry with the men to the extent of quite serious retribution, if they are just men looking for “the company of a young woman” (to use your term)? It seems like a slight overreaction and makes the film’s situation even less credible. By the same token, why would the police be interested in their actions since there is nothing to prove they are prostitutes? They are young girls in the company of older men. Who can say any different?

You have stated several times that you disagree with my opinion, without being able to disprove any of the points I make – merely that you see them differently. I certainly know what you think the film isn't but, despite several requests, I’ve yet to see you offer an alternative interpretation of what the film is about. I would be more inclined to “agree to disagree” if you would offer something more concrete than “He's putting forth a blanket of complete moral ambiguity” as a reading of the film.

Incidentally, I hinted at nothing of the sort about your sympathies. You stated that in your view the age of consent is arbitrary and meaningless since it is varies according to legislation of different countries (“If legislation is the deciding factor as to whether someone fits such a catorgory then how serious can it be taken when it changes so radically from one border to another?”). I commented that I find this opinion distasteful, since it is both facile and evasive about a serious issue. I make no apologies for that.
------


DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews

Quote this post
#10 Posted: 18-05-2004 20:16
James Martin
Member
Posts: 40

Report this post
Sorry, James – I think you are missing an essential element of the film. You deny that these men are having sex with underage girls when the very first scene of the film – the internet chat-room pick-up – points to the fact and every subsequent scene bears this out.

I've rechecked the scene and there's nothing which states either girl is under age. Are you saying that because the internet is used as the device to arrange a meeting time this proves the clients are paedophiles? I'm not strictly saying that the girls are over the age of consent, I'm saying I don't think such a technicality was that important to Kim Ki-duk. The girls are young and the men they sleep with should be old enough to know better but again, whether or not these men are specifically child sex offenders in the legal definition of the word is open to debate and it's not a point I personally got hung up on.

Why choose to make the characters schoolgirls unless there is a point to it?

And why should her father be so angry with the men to the extent of quite serious retribution


I think the justification for the characters being school girls is so that the retribution scene is believable. I disagree that the reaction from her father is only rational if she's under the age of consent. The guy has just found out his only daughter is selling herself. She's still young, she's still in school, and in his eyes she's still an innocent child. This is made worse by the fact that it appears he has had to raise her single handily and blames himself for her actions considering himself a failure as a parent.


why would the police be interested in their actions since there is nothing to prove they are prostitutes? They are young girls in the company of older men. Who can say any different?

Well there's a whole list of reasons for that. Maybe the vice squad are tailing them or maybe the block of flats used are known hot-spots. The police carry out raids all the time against prostitution all over the world. I don't really see why you're adamant police involvement proves an act of paedophilia is taking place.

What's my interpretation of the film ?
Well it's difficult to really elaborate as much as I'd like without going into spoiler territory. But briefly put I feel that Yeo-jin's reason for sleeping with clients and returning their money is in part her penance to alleviate her guilt rather than a bizarre act to specifically show her clients the error of their ways. Unlike yourself I don't feel that this act is what moves these men to reconsider the evil of their actions, but rather the news of Jae-young's death as pillow talk combined with Yeo-jin's self sacrifices and mental state. I agree that the film is hard to decipher and even contradictory but I don't think anyone watches a Kim Ki-duk movie expecting straight answers. I see him as a social observer rather than commentator. I also have to admire the fact that he got this movie done and dusted in just 11 days!, that's one heck of an achievement.


I commented that I find this opinion distasteful, since it is both facile and evasive about a serious issue. I make no apologies for that.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant though isn't it. Unless you consider that the entire population of say... Japan are social degenerates because their sexual consent laws are far more lax than our own? The French too generally have a rather different attitude towards young girls than us Brits - I have no right to consider either facile and evasive about this issue though. We can only define the level of acceptability within our own cultural society, that doesn't necessarily make someone else's wrong by automatic default.
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 18-05-2004 20:54
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
Fair enough James. Thanks for taking the time to add another viewpoint on the film. Your view raises lots of questions, but I'll let them stand. Partly, like yourself to try to avoid spoilers and partly because the film's purpose isn't at all clear. My interpretation could be valid, your interpretation could be valid. I think it is a serious flaw to leave the film so open. I didn't see any social observations in Samaria, just a thin revenge plot wrapped up in religious and spiritual mysticism.

Your last comment however misses the point. I intended no moral judgement about the laws of another country. It was YOUR dismissal of any laws relating to the age of consent ("how serious can it be taken when it changes so radically from one border to another?") that I was challenging as facile. Every democratic country and people have the right to judge what is socially acceptable for them and enshrine that in their law. You seem to be wanting to deny them that right - not I.
------


DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews

Quote this post
#12 Posted: 21-05-2004 02:36
James Martin
Member
Posts: 40

Report this post
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate your opinions. I can understand that just writing a review can be a job in itself, especially as in this case you didn't appear to particularly like the movie. Maybe one of the reasons our opinions are so different is because I really don't mind the ambiguous style of Kim Ki-duk and the open nature of Samaria wasn't something I found to be a hindrance.

I can remember coming away from watching Samaria for the first time thinking is was loosely crossed between Take Care of my Cat, Memento Mori, and Sympathy for Mr Vengeance - all of which are films I greatly admire.

I think I've pretty much agreed word for word with virtually every review I've read of yours here at dvdtimes which was partly why I found your adverse reaction to it quite surprising tbh.
Quote this post

Do you have a Times Network ID or DVD Times account? Sign in now!



Username:
Password:
Remember:


If not, why not register for one now and experience all the benefits of being a Times Network Member.