How the controversy over historical distortion surrounding the film ‘Assassin(s)’ is organized into far-right populism - 경향신문

This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.

As controversy grows over director Hur Jin-ho and his film <Assassin(s)> that deals with the shooting of the late First Lady Yuk Young-soo, on the 28th a citizen walks past a poster for the film displayed at a theater in Seoul. Moon Jae-won

Historical distortion. This is how Jang Dong-hyuk of the People Power Party and many in the conservative political camp are labeling and criticizing the recently released film <Assassin(s)>, even launching a boycott. The part they take issue with in this film, which deals with the attempted assassination of President Park Chung-hee on August 15, 1974, is that it depicts the incident in which First Lady Yuk Young-soo died as if it were a setup by the Park regime. The protagonists, newspaper reporter Kim Jae-hwan (Park Hae-il) and detective Park Cheol-gu (Yoo Hae-jin), pursue the case's suspicious aspects and infer that the arrested culprit had an accomplice and that perhaps the existence of an accomplice and the entire situation may have been planned by the Park regime to shift the political landscape. The film inserts cinematic imagination into the gaps of historical fact on the basis of conspiracy theory. It weaves together major contemporaneous events in modern Korean historythe attempt on Park Chung-hee, the kidnapping of Kim Dae-jung, the opening of Subway Line 1 in the capital area and suspicions of Korea-Japan commissions, and pressure on the advertisers of the Dong-A Ilbointo a narrative that feels quite plausible. The conservative political camp argues that this very plausibility amounts to historical distortion.

Jang Dong-hyuk claimed on Facebook that “when President Park Geun-hye visited the North in 2002, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il personally apologized for the assassination of First Lady Yuk Young-soo,” and argued that the left is distorting what has already been revealed as the North's doing. However, as OhmyNews later reported, what Kim Jong-il apologized for was the 1968 raid on the Blue House by North Korean commandos. By contrast, questions including suspicions of accomplices, the fact that the forces behind Mun Se-gwang were never definitively identified, and even doubt over whether a bullet he fired struck Yuk Young-soo had already been publicly aired in the early to mid-2000s by MBC <Now We Can Speak> and SBS <I Want to Know>. Investigations and trial at the time proceeded at breakneck speed through to the execution of the perpetrator Mun Se-gwang, yet there were many substantial contradictions in evidence and testimony, and the Yushin regime was far too repressive to allow free questioning of them. The stronger the authoritarian control over information and the press, the more opaque the truth of cases closed within it becomes, leaving many doubts. Recall the suspicious death of Jang Jun-ha. It is an environment ideal for the germination of conspiracy theories. And that is the historical truth about South Korea under the Yushin system that <Assassin(s)> reveals. Even if conspiracy theories are not the truth, they express a truth about an era in which one could reach the truth only by way of conspiracy theories.

The most interesting aspect of the present dispute over historical distortion is that while many denounce only the conspiracy theory that the shooting of Yuk Young-soo may have been a setup, they raise no objection to the way the film throughout depicts censorship of the press and the extralegal power of the Presidential Security Service and the KCIA. In other words, those now claiming that <Assassin(s)> distorts history are effectively saying that in a barbaric era that proclaimed Emergency Measures No. 1 and No. 4 infringing popular sovereignty, kidnapped opponents overseas, censored articles line by line, and hauled innocent people to Namsan for torture, only the charges, investigation, and verdict concerning Mun Se-gwang were free of distortion and transparently true. This is not to say they are wrong. Rather, it is to say that if one situates the unsolved mystery of the Yuk shooting within the context of the era, conspiracy theories about the involvement of those in power emerge as far more plausible than the official announcements of the time. The gap and tension between plausible fiction and a reality in which everything was jumbled. This is the narrative truth about the history of state violence that <Assassin(s)> seeks to convey through cinematic imagination with as little distortion as possible. In the film, a KCIA agent stationed at the newspaper browbeats and censors Kim Jae-hwan, demanding to know why he is writing a novel rather than a news article. To reveal the truth of an era that buried questions about truth by forcing them into the realm of the novel, an artist must write a novel about a time when journalism was impossible. As far as plausibility allows.

In the film <Assassin(s)>, Inspector Cheol-gu (Yoo Hae-jin) of Seoul Jungbu Police Station, society desk chief Jae-hwan (Park Hae-il) at a newspaper, and junior reporter Young-il (Lee Min-ho) are having a conversation. Courtesy of Hive Media Corp.

Of course, we can discuss that novelistic approach critically. There is clearly a distance between saying the case is riddled with doubts, saying the case itself was staged, and asserting that even the death of the First Lady could have been the president's intent. If historical truth can be revealed only through fiction, where is the distance at which that fiction does not end up burying the truth. Yet the current furor over historical distortion around <Assassin(s)> is proceeding quite apart from any discussion of what constitutes the total truth of history. What matters here is to seize the signifier ‘historical distortion’ swiftly and appropriate the status of victim in a history war allegedly waged by the progressive camp. Jang Dong-hyuk criticizes, saying, “Say one wrong word about 5·18 and you go to prison. Claims of a Northern invasion theory for the Korean War and of a U.S. submarine collision in the Cheonan case are ‘freedom of expression.’ Touch President Roh Moo-hyun and you are hit with a string of lawsuits,” and, “Insulting President Park Chung-hee is ‘freedom of expression.’ Is freedom of expression the exclusive property of the left.” Rep. Joo Jin-woo of the same party similarly argues, “If a film came out claiming that Kwon Yang-sook instigated the death of former President Roh Moo-hyun, would that also be freedom of expression.” Even independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon, a nemesis of Jang Dong-hyuk, advances the logic that “if a film had been released claiming 5·18 was the work of North Korea, or that the Sewol ferry disaster was the work of the Democratic Party, it would have faced a great deal of criticism.” The logic is that histories favorable to the progressive left5·18, the suicide of Roh Moo-hyun, and the Sewol ferry disasterhave been sacralized and denied freedom of expression,while only their own freedom of expression is enjoyed; in other words, a progressive ‘naeronambul’.

This logic may seem plausible at a glance, but it is flimsier than the conspiracy theory in <Assassin(s)>. Setting aside where exactly the alternate universe is in which, as Jang says, ‘say one wrong word about 5·18 and you go to prison,’ none of the counterexamples of historical distortion they offer is appropriate to criticize <Assassin(s)>. 5·18 was an episode of state violence that suppressed a democratization movement with military force, and until the democratic forces came to power and the historical truth emerged, it was distorted and publicized by those in power as an anti-state riot in Gwangjua representative case of historical distortion by authority. Such distortion even continued into recent years through memes like the Ilbe meme ‘democratization’. By contrast, in the case of the Yuk shooting, in a period of state violence similar to that of the new military regime, related suspicions were buried by power, and only decades later could questions about substantive truth be raised, with many doubts still remaining. Are the two the same or even similar. The question of whether conspiracy theories about the death of Roh Moo-hyun can be raised if conspiracy theories about the death of Yuk Young-soo are possible is likewise misplaced (and they know, as do I, that it is not really a question). As noted, the conspiracy theory in <Assassin(s)> is presented as the most plausible fiction within conflicting circumstances in an era of absolute power when a president could control and conceal everything. By contrast, Roh Moo-hyun lost power, suffered under a relentless prosecutorial investigation, and took his own life. There is nothing especially inconsistent in the sequence of events, and even if, by some chance, some conspiracy did play a role in his death, the historical contextthat the Lee Myung-bak administration drove him to the brinkdoes not change. Are the two the same or even similar. In short, conservative politicians of the Jang Dong-hoon type are bringing in cases that are not even similar as if they were the same and constructing a fake battlefield of progressive-leaning historical distortion.

The reason they are building this fake battlefield soon became clear. Joo Jin-woo simultaneously floated a ‘conspiracy theory’ that Chinese capital was involved in the film and that Chinese comment brigades now dominate Naver ratings, and criticized the Democratic Party for staying silent despite having erupted in anger over the Starbucks and Paejae High School incidents. By forming a web of meanings in which progressive=pro-China=the sanctification of 5·18 and Roh Moo-hyun=criticism of the Park Chung-hee era=monopolizing freedom of expression=‘naeronambul’=historical distortion, every effort to rectify actual historical distortions and hate speech brought about by state violence is cast as progressive historical distortion and a monopoly on privilege. This is far-right populist politics. In this discursive structure, concrete context is erased; concern about the harms of hate speech becomes an exclusive sanctification by progressives, and criticism of fascistic state violence in modern history becomes progressive ‘naeronambul’. This is why they keep trying to reduce the comprehensive issues of state violence that <Assassin(s)> raises to nothing more than a distortion of the personal tragedy of Park Chung-hee, Yuk Young-soo, and their family. To repeat, that point can be addressed critically on its own. However, when they use that alone to erase the problems of dictatorship that the film depicts, such as press suppression and torture, and portray themselves as victims of a history war, the very historical distortion they speak of occurs. In fact, it is occurring right now. It is hard not to feel anger watching this sort of con.

And one more reason to feel anger toward them. I knew that Oh Dal-su appears in this film, but I went in not realizing that Oh Dal-su, Bae Sung-woo, and Uhm Tae-woong all appear together, and I was very displeased. This is more the fault of director Hur Jin-ho and the production company, but if People Power Party politicians had not engaged in such absurd mudslinging, regardless of how well made it is, I would not have gone to see it in a theater. So for now I will count even this anger against them.