This movie, adapted from Donald Westlake’s novel The Ax, was completed after 17 years of preparation.
It follows an ordinary office worker, Mansu, who is fired and then tries to find a new job to protect his family.
Mixing black comedy and thriller, the film is a social satire scheduled for release in South Korea in September 2025.
Is “Cannot Help It” a Portrait of Our Time?
Overview
Mansu’s story is at the center.“‘Cannot help it’ becomes society’s repeated reply.”
The film had its first public screening at the Venice Film Festival ahead of a planned September 2025 release in Korea.
The source is American crime novelist Donald Westlake’s book The Ax (Westlake is known for sharp, darkly comic crime fiction), and Park Chan-wook has been shaping the screenplay for 17 years.
The protagonist, Mansu, is a typical salaried worker who, after being laid off, tries to secure re-employment to keep his family afloat.
Along the way, competition, betrayal, and suspicion tangle together and drive the plot forward.
Tonally, the film flips between black comedy and thriller to expose the contradictions of late capitalism.
Since Venice, critics in the United States and the United Kingdom have praised the film, while reactions at home mix anticipation with concern.
Park’s trademark mise-en-scène (the careful arrangement of visual elements), his dark humor, and sudden acts of brutality unsettle viewers in a sustained way.
Moreover, the movie aims beyond a simple revenge tale or genre exercise: it raises ethical questions about the social order.
Key Issues
The core theme is survival.First, the film’s depiction of firing and the job-hunt closely mirrors real-life workplaces.
Mansu loses a sense of what work and employment mean (work here means not only a paycheck but identity and routine), and he carries the weight of family responsibilities as he drifts.
However, while viewers might expect rational choices, the system narrows those options.
Second, the black-comic elements draw laughs, but those laughs often cover a sharp critique.
Meanwhile, humor becomes a tool that forces audiences to confront uncomfortable social truths.
Third, a major debate surrounds how the novel’s cruelty is reshaped on screen.
The director uses violent situations as narrative devices that test human ethical limits—on the other hand, viewers must ask whether such depictions are justified dramatizations or gratuitous shock.
Fourth, rather than reducing layoffs to an individual moral failure, the film highlights structural causes.
Consequently, the controversies orbit the film’s artistic success, its potential social effects, and how viewers emotionally respond.
In Favor
A social indictment, supporters say.“This film forces us to face the realities of labor.”
Supporters first point to the film’s reflection of social realities.
Under capitalism, layoffs and corporate restructuring can no longer be read only as personal failure (personal fault); the film uses Mansu’s suffering to reveal labor precarity and power relations inside workplaces.
Park amplifies everyday absurdities through precise direction so ordinary people’s frustrations read as large social problems.
Second, fans cite artistic achievement.
Mise-en-scène, camera work, and nuanced performances combine so black comedy and thriller elements resonate together.
As a result, audiences slide between laughter and discomfort, and that oscillation prompts self-examination.
Moreover, the fact that this film has been a long-term passion project for Park heightens expectations about its craft.
Third, supporters highlight the film’s public value as a conversation starter.
On the one hand, it may push debates about labor policy, job security, and social safety nets—ideas that could trigger institutional responses.
Finally, audiences are invited to test their own moral boundaries through Mansu’s choices, which can lead to reflection about personal compromise and ethical limits.
Criticisms and Concerns
An argument against the film is that it leans toward pessimism.Critics argue the film’s grim narrative risks instilling despair.
In particular, people who have lost jobs may feel the film reproduces a cycle of helplessness rather than offering hope.
This emotional burden becomes a problem when a film causes fatigue instead of empathy.
Second, there is the risk of inflaming social tensions.
Narratives that sharpen conflict between workers and managers could deepen real-world divisions if extreme portrayals spill into public debate.
Third, the film’s mix of black comedy and brutality may be hard to digest for some audiences.
Fourth, the cinematic translation of the novel’s cruel details could overstimulate viewers’ senses.
That raises a tension between artistic necessity and ethical responsibility.
Lastly, some critics say that while the film raises important questions, it stops short of suggesting realistic remedies.
Contrasting Views
Appreciation varies by perspective.“Artistic truth collides with social responsibility.”
Those on the film’s side praise its social insight and aesthetic accomplishment.
They claim the director illuminates anxiety and economic pressure with depth and that the black-comic sensibility turns real humiliation into a kind of dark theater.
By contrast, opponents warn the same devices can magnify despair and encourage social polarization.
Comparative examples help both arguments.
Abroad, documentary-style films or works pushing institutional reform have sometimes sparked public debate and policy changes.
Meanwhile, other provocative fictions have led to polarized or even radical reactions.
From an artistic stance, defenders note Park rarely forces moral answers; instead, he asks questions and leaves audiences to judge.
Ultimately, viewers bring their own workplace experiences, labor conditions, and family pressures to the theater—so interpretations diverge and cannot be reduced to a single verdict.
Deep Analysis: Causes and Reactions
The problem is structural.The film’s “cannot help it” moment is not just individual fate.
Restructuring and job insecurity are products of managerial decisions and global capital logic (how global businesses prioritize profit).
Mansu’s arc stands for the psychological collapse and ethical dilemmas individuals face inside such systems.
Through that lens, the director critiques “blame the individual” narratives and hints at the need to reassess institutions.
Fan and online reactions are polarized.
Some applaud Park’s new direction and the actors’ performances—particularly the married couple played by Lee Byung-hun (an internationally known Korean actor) and Son Ye-jin (a leading Korean actress familiar to global audiences from popular dramas)—whose chemistry captures internal pressure and quiet rupture.
Others worry that the film’s bleak tone and depiction of cruelty will alienate viewers.
Critics praise its craft while noting potential side effects of its message.
Online, voices warn the film might be used to politically consume labor struggles rather than build solidarity.
Some viewers hoped the film would gesture toward realistic alternatives or offer scenes of collective support, and felt disappointed when the story remained focused on individual choices.
In short, reactions reflect the complex product of aesthetics and message.
Conclusion and Questions
The film asks hard questions.Behind the laughter, this work exposes the harsh structures that shape everyday survival.
Park Chan-wook uses the film to point both at individual powerlessness and institutional responsibility.
The debate between supporters and detractors proves the film’s power: it forces viewers to look again at their jobs, families, and the conditions of work.
In that sense, the movie is likely to spark social conversation beyond mere entertainment.
At the same time, care for the audience’s emotional burden matters.
The film indicts problems but leaves the practical work—what audiences and society should do next—open.
How do you read Mansu’s choices: personal failure, systemic collapse, or something between? Please share your thoughts.