Park Chan-wook’s new film, Can't Help It (Korean title: 어쩔 수가 없다), reimagines the story of a laid-off family provider who removes his job rivals as a black comedy.
The film throws a sharp light on modern job insecurity and the moral traps people face.
Lee Byung-hun's cool, controlled performance and Park Chan-wook's distinctive visual style combine to create a story that is unsettling yet persuasive.
Audiences find themselves laughing and wincing at once, forced to confront how ruthless social systems can be.
“Can't Help It”: A Fired Breadwinner’s Choice and the Everyday Lines We Miss
Where the story begins.
A middle-class breadwinner with 25 years on the job is laid off, and then sets out to eliminate his competitors in the hunt for reemployment.
The film opens by laying out the facts plainly.
The protagonist, Yoo Mansoo, is fired from the job he has held for 25 years.
The dismissal arrives like a short, cold sentence on a specific date, and the audience is immediately pulled into the moment his life unravels.
From this opening, the film chillingly shows how a small crack in everyday life can widen into catastrophe.
Park adapts Donald E. Westlake’s novel The Ax to fit Korean society.
As a result, the story is more than a personal tragedy; it exposes structural problems in the system.
The film calmly analyzes how a single layoff reshapes family life, workplace ties, and social networks.
Framing the core issues.
The central question the film asks is: what pushes an individual toward crime?
The stakes are clear.
Layoffs and reentering the job market cannot be fixed by personal morality alone.
Meanwhile, the competitive structures of work can erode human decency.
Park’s trademark black comedy sharpens these ethical questions.
The film sets unstable employment, workplace culture, and the ripple effects on family and the individual as its main concerns.
Importantly, it does not give neat answers; instead, it leaves space for viewers to interpret.
In doing so, the movie deliberately mixes laughter and dread to confuse the audience’s emotional distance.
Arguments in favor.
The film’s realistic reflection of social realities and its directorial control are key reasons to support it.
The way the film reflects reality is precise.
From the firing scene to the abnormal competition in the job market, the details invite empathy from the audience.
Lee Byung-hun, a well-known Korean actor, plays the role of a family provider and professional in a way that prevents viewers from choosing simple sympathy or outright condemnation.
Also, Park moves fluidly between black comedy and thriller, keeping viewers on edge.
Mise-en-scène, sound design, and camera work amplify the protagonist’s inner changes visually.
These choices act as commentary on social structures rather than mere shock tactics.
The social message is clear.
The film shows despair born from job insecurity and competition and accuses the cold mechanisms behind them.
At this point, the work goes beyond a crime story and asks viewers about the dignity of labor and the need for social safety nets.
In particular, it uses workplace and job stability as metaphors to realistically depict the financial and emotional shock experienced by middle-aged households.
In short, the arguments for the film are these.
First, it realistically depicts employment issues and earns public sympathy.
Second, the actors’ performances and the director’s craft combine to achieve high artistic completion.
Third, its satire of social structures is firm and persuasive.
These elements suggest the film is not violence for its own sake but an attempt at deeper social reflection.
Critical voices explored.
Criticism centers on the potential justification of violence and the risk of distorting reality.
There are many critical perspectives.
The most visible concern is that the film’s extreme plot—removing competitors—could be read as justifying violence.
Some viewers warn that parts of the audience might feel an implicit sympathy for the protagonist’s actions.
Portraying the criminal acts from a sympathetic angle can cause moral confusion.
Even if the film provides social context, using violence as a narrative tool calls for ethical scrutiny.
Questions arise about whether the film adequately considers the wounds and confusion real victims would feel.
There is also a charge of distorting reality.
By depicting layoffs and job searches in extreme terms, the film may neglect realistic policy alternatives or institutional reforms.
In other words, the movie raises awareness of the problem but does not necessarily encourage constructive public debate about solutions.
From a purely cinematic view, some critics note issues too.
Compared with Park’s earlier films, a section of the audience feels the brutality is overemphasized.
The director’s aesthetic choices do not match every viewer’s expectations, and some think style overwhelms substance.
These critiques do not deny the film’s artistic value but they legitimately call out discomfort in the viewing experience.
Ultimately, the criticisms fall into three groups.
First, there is moral confusion and the risk of misunderstanding from depictions of violence.
Second, the extreme portrayal of social problems lacks a discussion of practical solutions.
Third, the director’s style may be burdensome for some viewers.
These critiques recognize the film’s questions while asking for careful reconsideration of how they are expressed and what consequences they might have.
Potential social fallout.
Concerns about misread messages and psychological impacts are real.
The biggest worry is misinterpretation.
Despite the film’s aim to highlight job insecurity, some may take away an unintended message that violence is an acceptable solution.
Such readings could inflame social tensions.
Psychological effects should not be underestimated.
Viewers who have felt job loss or despair could find the narrative triggering.
Therefore, the film is best screened with prior content warnings or followed by moderated discussions for sensitive audiences.
There is also concern about the direction of public debate.
If the film successfully ignites public anger, emotional reactions may take precedence over policy-driven solutions.
On the other hand, if it sparks reasoned conversation, the impact could be constructive—but that outcome remains uncertain.
Deeper context and analysis.
The core causes are a mix of structural instability and desperate individual choice.
The film’s causal analysis rests on three pillars.
First, institutional mechanisms like mass layoffs deeply shock individual lives.
Second, people who have tied their identity to one job for decades may suffer psychological collapse when that role disappears.
Third, weak social safety nets can push individuals toward unethical choices.
The institutional issue is especially important.
Under the argument of corporate efficiency, layoffs are often packaged as rational decisions, but their effects reach families and communities.
The film shows this domino effect rather than reducing the story to a single criminal act.
Online reactions are mixed.
At international film festivals such as Venice and Toronto, many praised the direction and acting, while domestic online forums focused debate on violence and ethics.
Some say the movie created a public stage to discuss employment issues. Meanwhile, others argue it failed to offer realistic policy alternatives.
What matters here is that the debate itself drew attention to the issue.
If raising the question alone can spark public conversation, then the film has partly achieved its aim.
However, the form of expression and the film’s social reach still require careful reflection.
Finally, the film asks viewers to consider.
How should we evaluate jobs and workplaces?
What does job security mean, and how should society protect people’s livelihoods and families?
Concluding briefly.
This film asks questions more than it gives answers; the responses belong to the audience.
Park Chan-wook’s Can't Help It is an uncomfortable but important film.
It frames layoffs and the hunt for work within black comedy and thriller forms, and intentionally unsettles viewers’ emotions.
In this process, some scenes act like a highlighter—they stay with you.
Supporters praise the film’s realism, direction, and social critique.
Detractors point to violent depiction, moral confusion, and the lack of practical solutions.
In the end, the film divides audiences but also sparks conversation.
The key takeaways are threefold.
The film exposes job insecurity and questions the relationship between the individual and institutions.
Its methods are controversial, but it lights a fuse for social discussion.
Which side will you take?