Knives Out and Parasite: Two Films, One Message
While recovering from surgery in Xi'an, China, I had the rare luxury of tackling my movie backlog. Among the movies I wanted to watch were Bong Joon-ho's Parasite and Rian Johnson's Knives Out. Watching them back-to-back made them all the more interesting, as both films comment on modern social issues; namely, meritocracy and social mobility. Parasite shows the dark side of Korea's working class, while Knives Out presents a satirical take on American ultra-wealthy families. But even with their differences in culture and cinematic style, both arrive at the same conclusion: the systems that govern our lives favor privilege more than fairness and opportunity.
Parasite is quick to criticize that meritocracy is fundamentally illusory. Ki-woo lands a high-paying English tutoring gig with the wealthy Park family with nothing more than a photoshopped university degree. The fact that this deception succeeds so quickly then raises the question: what do degrees and certifications measure? If fake and real diplomas are effective at unlocking economic opportunities, then how are credentials related to competence? Notably, Ki-woo doesn’t teach or speak English, and he spends time flirting with his student instead.
What’s even more heartbreaking is the circular structure. All four members of the Kim family were employed by the Parks at one point, but they ended up in their basement home. They return each night just as they had in the opening scene. The system exploits their ability and talents, but offers no true mobility.
Knives Out has a different take, satirizing the wealthy's view of meritocracy. The Thrombey family were quick to descend into total chaos and desperation upon learning that the entire will would be handed to Marta, the family nurse. From the beginning, Johnson portrays the potential heirs as entitled and lazy, and with each passing scene, they appear increasingly undeserving. When each character gives their opening statement after Harlan’s passing, they are pompous but defensive, boastful but insecure, and all of this foreshadows the collapse of their carefully maintained images.
Linda’s character development particularly embodies the hypocrisy of self-made success. She insists that she built her empire from the ground up. However, Ransom's revelation that she received a million-dollar loan from Harlan exposes her alleged self-sufficiency. Her transformation from smugness to desperation demonstrates that her confidence came from her expectation of inheritance, not her actual skills and business prowess.
Both films argue that hard work, intelligence, and moral character cannot guarantee success, but they reach this conclusion through different means. Parasite depicts social mobility as a complete illusion. No matter how hard the Kims work, lie, cheat, and steal, they fall back to the same place. The film's ending, with Ki-woo narrating about earning enough money to buy the Park house and free his father from the basement, should be interpreted as tragic and hopeless, a pipe dream that will never come to pass.
Knives Out has a more nuanced exposition to prove the same point. Johnson creates a character that should thrive in a meritocratic society: Marta. She is so hardworking that even Harlan acknowledges her dedication, morally pure to the extent that she cannot lie (lest she vomits uncontrollably), and intellectually capable enough to beat Harlan at Go. But even with these traits, she was not rewarded by the broader economic system; rather, she was just in the right place at the right time. Had she been anywhere else, she would not have received $60M, a mansion, and a publishing business.
What struck me most was how both films told stories that shouldn't be remarkable in a fair society. In a meritocracy, the hardworking Kims would climb the social ladder, and moral people like Marta would be rewarded by the system itself. The fact that these stories are so extraordinary says how far we truly are from that ideal.