Can we understand people who torment others like that? My answer is yes. Understanding and treating wrongdoing as if it never happened are different things.
“Beef” begins with a dispute over a parking space between contractor Danny and businesswoman Amy. Instead of simply parting ways, they decide to disrupt each other’s lives. From the moment they start breaking into each other’s homes and posting malicious reviews, this is no longer just a story about people with a bit of a temper.
The procedure for resolving disputes related to parking involves no visits to the other party’s home. While I found the elaborate display of revenge amusing, I could not support them. However, the drama does not abandon the two people, even after clearly showing the harm they have caused.
Danny’s meager bank account and Amy’s major deal depict vastly different lifestyles. However, the pride of being responsible for a family, and the fact of having achieved success in business, do not give anyone the right to harm others. I appreciate that this drama allows us to fully understand their loneliness. At the same time, it does not demand that we forgive the wrongdoings they committed.
Understanding does not equate to innocence
I do not believe that listening to their loneliness is the same as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing. What “Beef” did well is that it treated these two aspects separately.
Danny enters the home of the person he is arguing with. Amy attacks the person’s business through malicious reviews. This is a choice that escalates a dispute that began in a parking lot to the person’s home and workplace.
There is a significant difference here. While feeling angry can arise spontaneously, the act of seeking out and harassing someone requires a conscious decision. Both individuals repeatedly make this decision.
Therefore, I did not dwell on who started it first. Just because someone was initially insulted does not mean they can shift the responsibility for the subsequent actions onto the other person. This drama assigns responsibility to each individual.
Negative reviews are particularly irritating. Instead of confronting someone directly, they involve other people, potentially those who might have been assigned tasks by the individual being criticized. This personal animosity extends to interfering with the livelihoods of others.
The same applies to Danny’s trespassing. He violates the boundaries of the space where the other person lives in order to vent his anger. He does not gain the right to enter without permission simply because he is upset.
After seeing these actions, it is difficult to choose one of the two as a righteous avenger. I liked that aspect very much. This is because the drama does not rush the viewer to decide who to support.
Instead, I ask this: What on earth is such a person clinging to while trying to ruin someone else’s day? This question, rather than erasing the harm, forces us to examine the perpetrator’s actions more closely.
I understand the concern that knowing the reasons might lessen the criticism. However, if we only call someone a “bad person” without understanding their circumstances, it becomes difficult to accurately identify the choices they are repeatedly making. Here, pity and criticism coexist.
I acknowledge that these two people are suffering. However, I do not accept the way they are passing that suffering on to others. The drama does not hastily gloss over the gap between the two.
It would have been much simpler if the drama had merely kept them at a distance and mocked them. However, that would have only left two people with exceptionally bad tempers. By following them closely, the drama reveals people who cannot let go of their anger.
So, why does this drama, even after sufficiently portraying their wrongdoings, insist on delving into details such as their bank account balances and conversations within their home?
Even with different bank balances, loneliness remains
I like the choice to clearly show the difference in wealth without explaining the two people’s anger solely through money. Danny is not necessarily kinder simply because he is poor, and Amy is not necessarily less lonely simply because she is wealthy.
While Amy discusses a major deal and home repairs, Danny checks the dwindling balance in the account. One is thinking about how to transform what they have; the other is counting the money needed just to get by for now.
When these scenes are placed side by side, it immediately becomes clear how different the lives of the two people are. Even when experiencing the same anger, the underlying worries may not be the same. The drama does not obscure the economic differences simply because of the reason of loneliness.
For Danny, money is intrinsically linked to the sense of pride he derives from being the one responsible for his family. When things don’t go well financially, it’s not just the daily living that becomes difficult; it also shakes his confidence in whether he is truly the person his family needs.
I feel sorry for his anxiety. However, the desire to take responsibility for his family and the desire to be recognized by his family are different things. Danny fails to distinguish between the two and clings to the position of caregiver.
Amy expects to be happy after selling her business. It is natural to desire to receive money after all the hard work. The problem lies in the belief that the transaction will also end the feelings that are troubling her.
Whether the sale price includes peace of mind must be determined by examining the contract.
It is amusing, but it is difficult to dismiss Amy’s expectations as simply unrealistic. The feeling that one will only find peace after completing the necessary tasks is familiar. However, if new tasks continue to arise, the day one can finally find peace keeps getting postponed.
Danny finds solace in the thought of supporting his family, while Amy looks forward to life after the deal is concluded. Neither of them can openly express the suffering they are currently enduring. However, when they attack each other, their intentions become surprisingly clear.
It is not to say that the two people’s situations are the same. The pressure caused by a lack of money is real, and Amy’s loneliness does not negate that difference. However, even a sufficient balance cannot replace being understood by someone.
Therefore, the more I learned about their lives, instead of feeling that revenge was justified, I felt more sorry for them. This is because the help they need and the actions they actually take are constantly misaligned. Steven Yeun and Ali Wong are the ones who make us believe this misalignment, not through explanation, but through the portrayal of the characters.
The two actors do not atone for their wrongdoings through pity
Steven Yeun and Ali Wong portray characters who reveal the exhaustion within those who harass others. However, they do not demand that the audience condone the actions of those individuals.
The strength of Steven Yeun, who played the contractor Danny, is evident when he cries in the church. Someone who had been holding back with a loud voice can no longer contain it. I stopped laughing here.
It is difficult to simply dismiss Danny as a troublemaker in the face of his crying. However, tears do not negate the prior wrongdoing. Yeon does not separate the crying Danny from the Danny who was tormenting others, treating them as distinct individuals.
Danny’s assumption of a protective role in front of his younger brother Paul, is also significant. While his words express affection and a sense of responsibility towards his family, there is also an underlying desire to keep his younger sibling close. Yeon reveals both the love he feels for his younger sibling and the possessiveness he harbors. Therefore, even though I feel sorry for Danny, I cannot fully believe the sacrifices he claims to be making.
The character of businesswoman Amy, played by Ali Wong, reveals her loneliness through how she behaves in different situations. There is a significant difference in her demeanor when she is talking to her husband, George, compared to when she is confiding in Paul. Although she is the same person, even the burden of speaking up is different.
In front of George, Even when Amy talks about her pain, she is not understood. Maintaining a calm facade takes precedence over engaging in conversation. In front of Paul, however, that tension eases, and the person behind the successful businesswoman persona emerges.
I believe this difference more accurately describes Amy than simple anger. While there may be someone to direct anger towards, there is no one to confide in about the difficulties. Wong does not simply dismiss this helplessness as the complaining of a wealthy person.
This does not mean that Amy’s choice should be supported simply because she appears more comfortable in front of Paul. Moments of ease and actions that cause pain to others can coexist. The actor does not try to show one aspect while hiding the other.
Playing the role of Paul, Young Majin shares his feelings with Amy, revealing a sincerity that goes beyond the initial impression of being an irresponsible younger sibling.
Joseph Lee, who plays George, creates a dialogue that gently encourages positivity while failing to listen to his wife’s distress.
Mr. George, you should not end the conversation by simply telling someone to think positively.
Amy’s frustration is amplified by George’s seemingly harmless attitude. However, the fact that her husband is not listening does not justify her retaliatory actions.
A work that was sufficiently persuasive with just subtle nuances and facial expressions, why was it necessary to amplify the event so significantly in the latter half?
The latter part is understandable, but the exaggeration remains
I agree with the criticism that the focus on criminal events overshadows the psychological aspects of everyday life. However, the fact that an event is sensational does not necessarily negate the force that made us understand these people.
Even just the moments when communication breaks down are enough to be frustrating. When George doesn’t listen to Amy, or when Danny tries to act as a protector, the relationship is already damaged. You can tell something is wrong, even if no one is yelling.
However, during the hostage situation in the latter half of the story, coincidences and misunderstandings overlap. The audience’s attention, which had been following the characters’ choices, now becomes focused on trying to understand the unfolding events. I found myself worrying more about the next incident than about the characters’ feelings.
A full-blown crime drama is being mobilized over a single dispute about a parking space. The allocation of resources for this case is excessive.
The issue is not a major event in itself. It demonstrates the destruction that was already evident through small words and actions, and attempts to further prove it in a more dangerous situation. It is like repeating words that have already been understood, but at a louder volume.
In my opinion, this decision is intended to emphasize the fact that anger does not end between the parties involved. Actions that begin with the intention of punishing each other end up encroaching on the lives of family members and others. The direction is clear, but the process of taking people that far is rough.
Therefore, even in tense scenes, I missed the sharpness of the previous conversations. In the moment of ignoring a single word, I saw the people I knew. As the event escalated, that sense of immediate danger seemed to recede.
However, the latter part does not provide an escape route for the two individuals. This is because any attempts to excuse the previous actions by claiming that they were unavoidable due to the escalation of the situation cannot erase the responsibility for the initial decisions. The responsibility for having decided to harass the other party from the beginning remains unchanged.
However, I disagree that the latter half being excessive made the feelings of the two people lose their persuasiveness as well. Just because we understand Danny and Amy’s loneliness, it doesn’t mean that the hurt experienced by those around them is lessened. The drama does not abandon that discomfort until the very end.
If the event had not been escalated, the feelings of the two individuals might have been clearer. While that regret remains, listening to their suffering did not become an act of taking their side.
Once the escalated incident is stripped away, can the two individuals create a space to listen to each other, instead of focusing on trying to defeat each other?
What was needed was not victory, but someone who would listen
This work does not offer a satisfying resolution through revenge. I appreciate that it consistently emphasizes the fact that even those who have done wrong also want to be understood.
Amy bares to Paul the feelings that failed to reach her husband even when she tried to express them. Danny, concealing his identity, approaches George, the other party’s husband. The people who had intended to attack each other’s lives unexpectedly find an opportunity to talk near them.
Of course, having an honest conversation does not automatically make a relationship honest. In a relationship whose reason for approaching was hidden from the start, there remain ulterior motives the other person does not know about. The drama portrays both the comfort and the deception that can be present in such conversations.
Here, I felt the most pain from the loneliness of these two people. They cannot confide in their close family, yet they pour out their feelings to people they know because of revenge. What they need is not other people’s weaknesses, but someone who will listen to them, yet their actions go in the opposite direction.
Therefore, I did not compare the punishments of the two people until the very end. Successfully punishing one’s opponent does not create a place to talk about one’s own suffering. Ultimately, what a work conveys is not about winning or losing, but about the attitude towards one’s opponent.
According to this standard, “Can You Translate Love?” is becoming more relevant. Both works explore whether a lonely person can find temporary respite in the presence of another. However, Beef leaves the harm they themselves inflicted in place before that possibility.
Therefore, even if a sense of closeness develops, the previous wrongdoing cannot be erased. I believe this difference is important. Because it does not reserve being understood for the innocent alone, nor does it demand that anyone forget the harm they suffered.
When viewed in conjunction with “White Lotus,” it is worth considering the intertwined desires for money and recognition. While money can make life more comfortable, being accepted in relationships is different. Both works demonstrate how, when this distinction is ignored, a person can cause distress to those around them.
Therefore, neither Amy’s wealth nor Danny’s difficult circumstances should be the basis for a final judgment. We should listen to each of their individual struggles, but their actions towards others must be evaluated separately. I believe in stories that lose sight of neither their suffering nor the actions they inflicted on others.
The latter half of the film has clear flaws. However, it is a major achievement that, only after understanding the two people, we came to examine their wrongdoing more accurately. My rating is 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Overall: You can listen to them until the very end, even if you do not forgive them
I believe that Beef is worth spending ten hours on. It shows the loneliness of a person who destroys others, and it does not minimize the harm that person causes. Understanding someone does not make them innocent.
Steven Yeun and Ali Wong do not shy away from their responsibilities, even with expressions of sadness. Despite the tears and strained dialogue, the person who had bullied others earlier remains present. I give the two actors the highest marks for holding their ground in this difficult position.
The score reduction is due to the excessive focus on events in the latter half. While the suffering could have been adequately conveyed through subtle dialogue, it was amplified into a criminal event through a series of coincidences and misunderstandings, overshadowing the characters’ feelings. However, the achievement of consistently distinguishing between understanding and forgiveness outweighs this flaw.
If you are curious about why someone you find difficult behaves the way they do, then I recommend watching this. On the other hand, if you are looking for satisfying revenge or a protagonist who is easy to root for, it is better to avoid this. This is a work that requires you to endure uncomfortable laughter, and even violence in the latter half.
When observing, let us not just count who did what wrong first. By following who hides their true feelings from whom, and who relaxes their tension in front of whom, we can hear more. It is also important not to accept supporting one’s family and business success as proof of being a good person.
Next, I would choose “Can You Translate Love?”. It is better for quietly comparing the appearance of a lonely person resting near others. If you are interested in how the desire for money and recognition can ruin relationships, then “The White Lotus” is the right choice.
I do not take their side. However, I will support the drama that made me listen to their words until the end.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
“Beef”: Is it based on a true story?
The starting point is a real-life road rage incident experienced by Lee Sung Jin. However, the drama does not simply retell the story of Danny and Amy’s revenge based on the actual event.
Is there an original novel?
This is an original drama, not an adaptation of an existing novel. You don’t need to read the original work beforehand; you can simply follow the story from the beginning, starting with the conflict between the two main characters in the parking lot.
How many episodes does the 2023 work have, and where can it be viewed?
The first season, starring Steven Yeun and Ali Wong, consists of a total of 10 episodes. It is a Netflix drama, and it is best to watch the episodes in order to see how the characters’ actions affect their relationships.
Is it a funny drama, or a scary drama?
It is closer to black comedy, depicting uncomfortable situations with humor. As the revenge escalates, the proportion of crime and violence increases. It is not recommended for those who want to simply laugh or enjoy a satisfying revenge.
Does Season 2 also tell the story of the same protagonist?
It is not. Season 2 features a different protagonist and storyline, and stars actors such as Oscar Isaac and Carey Mulligan. To enjoy the story of Danny and Amy from Season 1 in 2023, there is no need to watch the next season.
