Squid Game Season 3 Review - Political Metaphor, Ethical Trials, Systemic Brutality

Squid Game Season 3 Overview

Squid Game Season 3 serves as a culmination of the entire series while being the most philosophically heavy season. Despite the awe-inspiring direction and thematic consciousness, audiences are left with discomfort and questions after viewing the work. This piece leaves behind a fluctuating emotional state that swings between fascination and anxiety, admiration and skepticism. This essay aims to analyze the reasons for that discomfort from political, ethical, and structural perspectives.

The metaphor of the political system: Who is voting a tool for?

Season 3 repeatedly uses the devices of 'voting' and 'discussion.' Participants directly decide who will die and who will survive through voting. At first glance, it seems like a democratic and fair decision-making process, but in reality, it is a structure that allows power and systems to evade responsibility and makes participants punish each other. This way, the burden of guilt and violence is shifted onto individuals. Philosopher Michael Sandel points out the limitations of procedural justice in his book What Is Justice, arguing that a fair process does not guarantee a just outcome. Season 3 directly addresses this issue. Individuals who are sacrificed under the name of majority rule, such as Minsu, Jun, and Geumja, are closer to being scapegoats for the system's avoidance of responsibility than sacrifices for the public good. Ultimately, the voting in this work is merely a cruel design disguised as democracy.

Analysis of Narrative Structure: The Collapse of Expansion, Dispersion, and Concentration

This season progresses with three main narratives running concurrently. There is the game narrative centered on Seong Gi-hun, the rebellion narrative led by insider Noh Eul, and the external investigation narrative of Detective Hwang. Each of these plots can be interesting on its own, but they create an imbalance in density and tempo within the overall narrative. In particular, the story developments of Detective Hwang and Noh Eul have symbolic and critical functions, but they contribute little to the plot. Detective Hwang appears as a symbol of an outsider who can destroy the system, but ultimately achieves nothing and disappears. This structure disperses the tension of the narrative, disrupting the audience's emotional engagement. It stands in stark contrast to the synergy created by Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk' through its cross-cutting of time and space.

Game Design Analysis: Chasing Meaning, Losing Fun

In seasons 1 and 2, the clash between traditional games and brutal rules provided a strong immersive element through genre-based excitement. However, in season 3, the games are increasingly designed around philosophical symbols and ethical messages. Games like watermelon tag and jump rope have decreased in tempo and tension compared to previous seasons. The most iconic game is the final squid game. This game, comprised of three pillars, progresses in the order of square → triangle → circle, symbolizing politics, chaos, and ethics, respectively. In the first pillar, Minsu is sacrificed by majority vote, the second pillar maximizes the violence of the game, and in the third pillar, through Seong Gi-hun's sacrifice, ethical decision-making is emphasized. While some genre-based fun is sacrificed, this game becomes a scene that encapsulates the philosophy of the entire season.

System Critique: Manipulation Disguised as Choice

Season 3 repeatedly emphasizes individual moral choices but leaves the question of whether those choices were truly free. The system appears to offer participants options, but in reality, it is designed to operate within limited choices. In other words, the selections are made only within the boundaries permitted by the structure, reducing participants to mere subjects in a moral experiment. Seong Gi-hun's final sacrifice is merely the last remaining escape route within this framework. This reveals that although the structure seems to demand ethical decisions from humans, it is actually designed to impose and mock ethics. Sandel argues that true ethical choices are made within the context of community relationships, requiring autonomy and context. However, the games in Season 3 isolate participants completely, leaving only relationships with the system, rather than with a community. This aligns with the criticism of systems seen in genres like "The Platform" or "Cube."

Character Analysis ① Seong Gi-hun: The Imperfect Narrative of an Idealized Savior

Sung Gi-hoon was a pathetic and selfish character in Season 1, but he also had human compassion and a sense of justice. In Season 3, he transforms into a moral martyr. He sacrifices himself to save a child and makes a decision for humanity. However, this change is not sufficiently built narratively. The process of his inner transformation is omitted or leaps in a way that lacks persuasiveness. In particular, the scene where he executes Da-hoo is a moment that fractures his ethical identity and ultimately leaves room for interpretation as 'emotional revenge' rather than 'justice.' This scene, which reduces justice to personal emotions, can be critiqued from both John Rawls' theory of justice and Sandel's communal ethics.

Character Analysis ② Hwang In-ho: The Face of the Most Humanistic System

Hwang In-ho is the core operator of the system as the Front Man and establishes himself as an antagonist to Gi-hun in Season 3. He is a character that tests human nature, observing what the game system leaves behind concerning human morality. However, he is not a simple villain. He reveals a complex inner world, oscillating between guilt and anger, cynicism and compassion. His final question to Gi-hun—"Do you still believe in people?"—is both a taunt and a confession. He wants to believe but could not, ultimately being a character who had no choice but to remain within the system.

Supporting Character Analysis: People Written Like Words

Supporting characters exist to reinforce the message of Season 3, but some individuals lack narrative vitality beyond that. Nam-kyu, Hyun-joo, and Choi's doctor maintain coherence and emotional depth, injecting life into the drama, while characters like Joon, Geum-ja, and Yong-sik are consumed functionally. In particular, the scene of Geum-ja stabbing her son or Joon's repeated sacrifices seem like scapegoats to emphasize themes, undermining the complexity of the characters. The line "We are not words" serves as the ethical message of the entire series, yet some characters are used merely like words within the narrative. The dilemma of instrumentalizing characters for structural critique represents another contradiction in this work.

Philosophical Question: Procedure or Community?

The most fundamental question posed by Season 3 is "How is justice constituted?" Rawls viewed justice as a choice made within rules that everyone can agree on, known as procedural justice. However, Season 3 demonstrates that the procedure itself can be unfair or distorted. Sandel argues that justice arises from the virtues of citizens living within a community, emphasizing the importance of publicness and practice over mere procedures. Interpreting Season 3 from Sandel's perspective is the most convincing. Ultimately, this work asserts that justice is constructed not through procedure, but through practical ethics and communal responsibility.

Conclusion: The sincerity has reached, but the path was rough.

Squid Game Season 3 is director Hwang Dong-hyuk's most philosophical attempt and his most structurally unbalanced work. He certainly conveyed a strong sense of social and human issues, which deeply resonates with the audience. However, he sacrificed too much to deliver that sincerity. The persuasiveness of the characters, the enjoyment of the genre, and the accumulation of emotional lines—these are all elements that cannot be ignored. This work questions why we want to believe in justice while simultaneously revealing how fragile that belief is. Squid Game Season 3 held a sincere message that made sense, but to fully follow that sincerity, we had to endure too much skepticism.