The film treats the modern themes of job insecurity and human violence as a black comedy.
It drew strong reactions at Venice, Busan, and Toronto film festivals, but it did not clear the BAFTA hurdle.
This controversy exposes a sharp split between artistic evaluation and audience discomfort.
Park Chan-wook's black comedy: what does BAFTA's choice ask of us?
Setting the scene.
It was in competition at Venice, opened the Busan International Film Festival (a major Asian festival), and won the audience award at Toronto — signs of international interest.
However, it was not named among BAFTA's final nominees for the foreign-language category in 2026.
The film It Can't Be Helped opened theatrically on September 24, 2025.
It is adapted from the novel The Ax by Donald E. Westlake, and Park Chan-wook served as co-writer and director.
The protagonist, Man-su Yoo (played by Lee Byung-hun), has spent 25 years at a paper company. After being fired, he fails to find new work and moves toward an extreme choice.
The story is reconstructed through the logic of black comedy, producing both laughter and unease.
The film uses job insecurity, technological change, and social isolation as its backdrop.
Man-su loses his job, endures repeated interviews, and feels the gaps in the social safety net.
Meanwhile, his decision to eliminate competitors becomes a blend of self-justification and despair.
The film's precise direction and intense performances reveal that fracture on screen.
Invitations to Venice, opening Busan, and the Toronto audience award show the film resonated on the international stage.
However, its omission from BAFTA's final list suggests reception is not uniform.
This raises questions about differences in judging criteria, cultural context, and what viewers can tolerate.
Ultimately, the debate expands into a discussion about the boundary between artistic judgment and audience sensitivity.
Two views — praise and objection collide
Looking at the supporters.
The Toronto audience award is evidence of public sympathy.
Direction, acting, and adaptation work together as a new achievement for Park Chan-wook.
Park Chan-wook's signature directorial density and Lee Byung-hun's performance lift the film to a clear artistic achievement.
Supporters center their defense on that point.
Time Out's five-out-of-five rating is not a superficial compliment; it reflects directorial consistency, psychological analysis of characters, and the genre-bending power of black comedy.
The Guardian's review similarly recognizes the film as a new territory compared with Park's previous work.
By using the universal theme of job insecurity, the film builds empathy and redraws the border between comedy and cruelty.
More broadly, the Toronto audience award proves a level of popular acceptance different from critics' praise.
An audience award measures direct response: the film moved viewers in the theater.
Because job insecurity is a global issue, the film's message found resonance beyond Korea.
Hitting the break-even point on a production budget estimated at 17 billion Korean won (about 13 million USD) also shows commercial performance.
Considering the critics.
Depictions of a wife's hypocrisy and acts of murder can undermine audience sympathy.
The fusion of cruelty and comedy may feel excessive to some viewers.
For some viewers, violence wrapped in laughter provokes real disgust rather than amusement.
Critics on this side start from that point.
Man-su's killings are framed by black comedy, but in reality they are brutal crimes.
The film risks erasing the moral weight of family hypocrisy and social injustice by treating them as comic devices.
In particular, reducing an affair or a family's destruction to a narrative device can intensify moral unease.
That concern raises questions about the film's ethical responsibility.
We must also acknowledge audiences who cannot maintain psychological distance.
For people actually facing job loss and financial crisis, Man-su's extreme response could risk imitation or inadvertent justification.
Whether intentional or not, turning violence into entertainment can hurt some viewers.
For these reasons, it is plausible that BAFTA judges declined to shortlist the film.
Interpreting BAFTA's omission
Asking what it means.
Judging criteria, cultural sensitivity, and political and social context all play a role.
There is no simple conclusion.
BAFTA did not publish a reason for the omission.
Still, several plausible explanations exist.
First, differing judging criteria. Film festivals and awards prioritize different elements: artistry, technical proficiency, social message, or the personal taste of jurors.
A film praised at Venice or Toronto may not meet the priorities of BAFTA voters.
Second, cultural sensitivity varies. British viewers and jurors may accept the film's violent black comedy less readily than other audiences.
Third, timing and international mood matter. When public debate is tense, works that emphasize violent elements face extra resistance.
Another factor is marketing and awards campaigning.
Recognition at international awards depends not only on quality but also on promotional reach and campaign strategy.
That invites scrutiny of how South Korea's film industry and its overseas networks performed at BAFTA.
Finally, the film's own limits of acceptability are a factor.
Just as critical praise and audience love do not always match, how a work is read in each cultural context is hard to predict.
These elements likely combined to leave the film off BAFTA's final list.
However, that exclusion is not proof the film lacks value.
If anything, the disagreement over the film shows the strength of its provocation.
What remains is how each viewer chooses to interpret and use the film.
Conclusion and what remains unanswered
Drawing a conclusion.
In short, It Can't Be Helped is a provocative black comedy about job insecurity and the violent impulses inside people.
Achievements at Venice, Busan, and Toronto show the film can travel internationally.
Yet BAFTA's decision to omit the film highlights differences in judging and cultural sensitivity.
This episode raises questions about the international positioning and receptiveness to Korean cinema.
One film produces debate regardless of awards.
Supporters and critics both reveal the film's layered meanings.
Supporters cite direction, acting, and social resonance.
Critics point to ethical issues and audience discomfort.
Their views are not strictly opposed but represent multiple ways to interpret the same work.
Looking ahead, three predictions follow.
First, the film will remain a subject of discussion and carve out a place in film history.
Second, calls will grow for stronger overseas campaigning and cultural diplomacy for Korean films.
Third, viewers' direct experience and judgment of films will become even more important.
We invite readers to consider: do you see the BAFTA omission as a failure of the film's merit, or as an outcome of cultural context and selection processes?
