By Andrew Salmon
Some locals, according to recent articles in this newspaper, are dissatisfied with the high-profile tvN drama "Mr. Sunshine."
The series, starring Lee Byung-hun, arguably Korea's most famous thespian, is fictitious. However, it is set in a real historical period: The twilight of the "Hermit Kingdom," during which a reluctant Joseon was leveraged into the wider world and eventually devoured by Imperial Japan.
The criticisms are multiple.
Some are unhappy with the depiction of Joseon as a politically weak and technologically backward kingdom, reliant upon foreigners to introduce modern innovations (as, indeed, was the case). Others complain that a pro-Japanese character is given credible reason for his actions (as if all Koreans who eased Japan's takeover were simply evil and/or lacking rational motivations).
Most remarkably, 20,000 people are petitioning the Blue House to introduce historical censorship.
"Mr. Sunshine" does not claim to be historically accurate (if it were, the lead character could not exist). It is entertainment. And the critiques are ridiculous from a historical standpoint. So what is going on?
I sense a double standard. Many dramas and films set during the 1910-45 colonial period are out-and-out fiction, but because they take a nationalistic stance, they are tolerated ― or lauded.
Last year's hit thriller "The Battleship Island," depicted a heroic revolt among Korean laborers and miners at a Japanese island. No revolt actually took place at the island (which is a real place). Elderly Japanese who had been there were bewildered by the film, telling journalists that relations with Koreans at the location had been amicable.
No Korean critics demanded this ahistorical film be censored. And fair enough. The filmmakers never claimed their film was historically accurate (whether viewers got that message is another issue, but entertainers are not required to be educators).
I suggest critics of "Mr Sunshine" are not demanding historical accuracy. What they are demanding is one-sided, nationalistic portrayals of historical events.
Even if "historical accuracy" were to be enforced over dramas ― who would do it? What would the standard be? History ― in a democracy, at least ― is not a "right/wrong" science: it is open to analysis.
Given that Korea was, in the recent past, ruled by authoritarian leaders who controlled information flows, I am dismayed by these calls for censorship. Censorship over art is, speaking generally, a loss to art.
If costume dramas were required to be historically accurate, we would lose some of the great films of all time: "Gladiator," "Braveheart," "The Sound of Music," "Gone with the Wind," etc.
And let us not suggest that Korean auteurs cannot make very intelligent historical dramas. They can.
"The Fortress," a thoughtful film about the Manchu invasion of Korea, appeared in the same year as the melodramatic "Battleship Island," and I cannot speak of its historical accuracy ― it was based on a novel ― but the film sensitively addresses the human condition.
"The Fortress" contrasts the privileges of the rulers with the degradations of the ruled, and its central theme is universal: Is it the duty of a leader to resist an enemy ― or to spare his people by bowing to that enemy? Both sides of the debate, and related repercussions, are treated sympathetically and powerfully. It is a nuanced film, not a simplistic one.
But the Manchu invasions took place in the 17th century; Japanese colonialism ended in 1945.
Could such an even-handed and intelligent filmic treatment of the Japanese colonial period be produced in Korea today? Or must all Korean art dealing with the Japanese colonial period be restricted to simplistic, flag-waving victimhood?
Andrew Salmon (andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk) is a Seoul-based reporter and author.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
The series, starring Lee Byung-hun, arguably Korea's most famous thespian, is fictitious. However, it is set in a real historical period: The twilight of the "Hermit Kingdom," during which a reluctant Joseon was leveraged into the wider world and eventually devoured by Imperial Japan.
The criticisms are multiple.
Some are unhappy with the depiction of Joseon as a politically weak and technologically backward kingdom, reliant upon foreigners to introduce modern innovations (as, indeed, was the case). Others complain that a pro-Japanese character is given credible reason for his actions (as if all Koreans who eased Japan's takeover were simply evil and/or lacking rational motivations).
Most remarkably, 20,000 people are petitioning the Blue House to introduce historical censorship.
"Mr. Sunshine" does not claim to be historically accurate (if it were, the lead character could not exist). It is entertainment. And the critiques are ridiculous from a historical standpoint. So what is going on?
I sense a double standard. Many dramas and films set during the 1910-45 colonial period are out-and-out fiction, but because they take a nationalistic stance, they are tolerated ― or lauded.
Last year's hit thriller "The Battleship Island," depicted a heroic revolt among Korean laborers and miners at a Japanese island. No revolt actually took place at the island (which is a real place). Elderly Japanese who had been there were bewildered by the film, telling journalists that relations with Koreans at the location had been amicable.
No Korean critics demanded this ahistorical film be censored. And fair enough. The filmmakers never claimed their film was historically accurate (whether viewers got that message is another issue, but entertainers are not required to be educators).
I suggest critics of "Mr Sunshine" are not demanding historical accuracy. What they are demanding is one-sided, nationalistic portrayals of historical events.
Even if "historical accuracy" were to be enforced over dramas ― who would do it? What would the standard be? History ― in a democracy, at least ― is not a "right/wrong" science: it is open to analysis.
Given that Korea was, in the recent past, ruled by authoritarian leaders who controlled information flows, I am dismayed by these calls for censorship. Censorship over art is, speaking generally, a loss to art.
If costume dramas were required to be historically accurate, we would lose some of the great films of all time: "Gladiator," "Braveheart," "The Sound of Music," "Gone with the Wind," etc.
And let us not suggest that Korean auteurs cannot make very intelligent historical dramas. They can.
"The Fortress," a thoughtful film about the Manchu invasion of Korea, appeared in the same year as the melodramatic "Battleship Island," and I cannot speak of its historical accuracy ― it was based on a novel ― but the film sensitively addresses the human condition.
"The Fortress" contrasts the privileges of the rulers with the degradations of the ruled, and its central theme is universal: Is it the duty of a leader to resist an enemy ― or to spare his people by bowing to that enemy? Both sides of the debate, and related repercussions, are treated sympathetically and powerfully. It is a nuanced film, not a simplistic one.
But the Manchu invasions took place in the 17th century; Japanese colonialism ended in 1945.
Could such an even-handed and intelligent filmic treatment of the Japanese colonial period be produced in Korea today? Or must all Korean art dealing with the Japanese colonial period be restricted to simplistic, flag-waving victimhood?
Andrew Salmon (andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk) is a Seoul-based reporter and author.
![[INTERVIEW] Putin uses summit with NK leader to stop Seoul from helping Ukraine: expert](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/a943fc209add47cf8ea82d3a78faf9b3.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
