The master of contemporary Japanese cinema returns with a new film after winning the Palme d’Or with his previous film ‘A Family Affair’. On this occasion, Hirokazu Kore-eda embarks on a road movie where, as only she knows, she combines lightness with depth, and once again focuses on those who are deprived of humanity and empathy from the legacy of the system through the characters they live on the fringes. society and survive as long as they can. On this occasion, he swaps his native Japan for South Korea, although the essence of his cinema remains intact. Controversial is its subject, the baby mailboxes set up by various organizations (some NGOs, others religious) to take care of unwanted newborns, and above all, the protagonists are two thugs who use this system to trade. little ones.
Why did you decide to tell this story in Korea?
I first heard of baby mailboxes in 2012 in Japan. But there was apparently much more to South Korea. It was a system that intrigued me because of the vulnerability of that child inside the box. Anyone can take it, the future is unknown, better, worse … it seems to me that it opened a lot of discussion lines. On the other hand, I wanted to work with actor Song Kang-ho (who is known worldwide for ‘Parasites’ and won the Palme d’Or for best male performance for ‘Broker’) and we thought the idea might fit. to join both.
So while the movie is a comedy, there are a lot of similarities to ‘A Family Affair’, right?
Many consider them a diptych. There is the issue of not having blood ties, but for me family is like a vessel, what interests me is what is inside. Actually, I wrote them at the same time, that deep down, they have a lot of common elements, but I think the problem of poverty in Japan was more specifically addressed in the case of ‘A Family Matter’. This time I wanted to do something a little more active.
Some critics pointed out that this film contained an anti-abortion message. What do you think about that?
The truth is I had no intention of verifying that message, I don’t know why it was interpreted that way. I guess it has to do with the situation we’re in, as the movie’s release in Korea coincided with the law change in the US. I like to think I’ve been misunderstood. I didn’t want to talk about the pros or cons of bringing a child into the world, but rather how he could be happy in the future when he’s here. For me as a man, abortion is a matter of women’s decision, they are the ones who should have that power over their bodies.
Did these criticisms bother you?
There are movie critics who associate movies with one message. And that’s not good for the movie or the director. For me, the baby mailbox was a kind of soundboard where many views came together, and I tried to have them all represented. I was interested in opposing viewpoints because everyone will see things from a different angle and that is hard to change. But if there is at least one discussion, it is encouraged not to have a single thought.
In an increasingly polarized world, do you feel more pressure or self-censorship when speaking about certain topics?
Regardless of the point of view of each subject, you cannot prevent your films from being watched differently in every country. For example, abortion was illegal in South Korea until ten years ago, so these mailboxes multiplied. However, I find it humiliating to have to censor certain views.
He has always been very critical of the situation in his country, although this time the plot was not in Japan.
Japanese society has changed a lot, very different from when I was younger… back then we were like the center of the world, you had a guaranteed job for life, but now everything is turned upside down, there is more and more Poverty, there is no middle class anymore, even a new one. Even the term was coined, ‘working poor’, work to be poor, because you can’t support yourself on the money you earn. Japan is slowly sinking, but there are still many people who don’t realize it or don’t want to understand it.