I've been reading through some Korean reviews on <No Other Choice> and the film critic Oh Dong Jin's article stood out to me. These are some of the article's excerpts that I found particularly interesting:  

​

​​"A lot of people fail to point out that BBC’S 6 part series, <Little Drummer Girl> (2018) and <The Sympathizer> (2024) was directed before and after the romantic - therefore with the most mainstream appeal - <Decision to Leave> (2022). Park built a new body of work through the later trilogy. This late trilogy is rigorous in literary narrative and plot structure. These pieces are completed through the excruciating, painful process of text analysis, which involves dissecting sentences and reconstructing it in sequences. (...) On top of his outstanding literacy skill, Park shows a mastery in text dissection and reconstruction (when it comes to flipping the novel’s chronological plot line and reordering it for multi-layered structure). In that sense, Park really is a text-centric director first and foremost. There are tendencies in few people to consider him as an aestheticist who overemphasizes on Mise-en-scene with fancy symbols, but his real priority is the literature. And the social landscape."​​

​​

I can not agree more on that Park Chan Wook's priority is writing, more than anything. Yes, Mise-en-scene is a big factor in his fan base but I think it'd be nothing without a strong narrative core that he never fails to plant in his work. 

​

"Mansu from <No Other Choice> is also aware of the fact that his victims, Bummo, Shijo and Sunchul - although they might not be ‘good’ per se -  are not ‘death deservingly evil’. The point is that the modern capitalist society transformed the polarization between the capitalists and laborers into a life or death struggle between laborers and laborers. What Park is portraying is the twisted Marxism that resulted from it. Park’s analysis on capitalism is based on Neo Marxism. (...) The reason why Marelene, in Costa Gabras’ <Ax> is unaware of her husband Jose’s murder spree and if she had known she would never conspire with him, but Miri in Park’s <No Other Choice> helps covering her husband’s murder is because that is the reality of capitalist society. If anything, exposing his murder would be unrealistic. The cohabitation of good and evil in Park’s mind is a result of the dilemma between his cynical analysis on capitalism and the reality that there is no other choice than to accept it. <No Other Choice> is a film that should be examined through fusing those two clashing realities for a lack of choice."

​​

This is a perfect description on why the film's title is so compelling to me. In capitalist - free market - society, we are made to believe that "The Choice" exists. Choice to become wealthy, choice to work, choice to earn more or less money, choice to stay employed, choice to have a home, choice to not have one - but the title directly challenges on how these 'choices' aren't really faithful to its definition. If there are no other choice, can it still be called 'choice' at all? 

​

"Park believes, if the world is brutal without mercy, it can be replaced with filmic sublimity, and the world and life’s real beauty can be discovered through the more grotesque filmic and artistic lens. That is where the film’s reception divides. Some people find the attempt at embodying complete philosophical depth in one film arrogant. They do not believe it to be a film's job. And a fair amount of people find the depth creating a higher entry barrier in exploring his filmography(saying such as, ‘Park’s films are not my cup of tea’). Regardless, some people simply find the film somewhat boring and un-entertaining."

 

I personally found the film enjoyable, but I do see why some people would find it uncomfortable. But then again, I don't think pleasing everyone is an option when it comes to film making, or art making in general. So I'm all for Park's aesthetic.