Shuri - a reply to Sujan Paik

[Don Brown]

Let me begin by apologising for once again talking about a film that isn't 
Japanese on this list.  To make up for it in a cursory fashion, I'd like to 
say that "Mamotte Agetai!" is the worst film I have seen this year so far.  
Now, on to what I really wanted to say.
  Sujan, thanks for offering your opinions on Shuri.  Sorry, seems like this 
dialogue is really suffering from jet lag as I've also taken my time in 
responding.  I'd like to explain myself further if I may.
  "Well, this is how I watched it without English subtitles."  Actually, 
we're together on this one, since the one I saw was a Japanese subtitled 
print.  I wish I had access to a version subtitled in English, as it 
probably would have enhanced my understanding of the film.  Perhaps this 
affected my perception of Shiri and the issues you say it was trying to 
address, but personally I don't think I missed that much.
  I'm no film scholar or critic.  I'm no expert on Korean history or the 
schism between North and South, and most of Shiri's international audience 
will no doubt be the same.  I can see many people taking the sentiments 
towards the North expressed in Shiri at face value, which is sad but 
inevitable.  To a certain degree I have a general understanding of the 
events of the Korean War and the present day situation.  I am aware of the 
restrictive censorship that exists in both countries.  Having seen only a 
few Korean films, I also have no reference point with which to judge how 
"progressive" Shuri was in its treatment of North-South relations.  I do 
realise that South Korea is a fledgling democracy, and that the government 
still has a lot of control over the media, which supposedly fuelled the 
film's bias.  I do not believe however that this should be used an excuse, 
and I don't believe you should just pass it off and ignore its politics.  So 
I guess that I approached Shiri from a more objective standpoint, or an 
uneducated one, depending on your point of view.  That's not for me to say.
  You say that this film has "come a long way to reveal the emotional scars 
between the people of North and South".  Perhaps in the context of past 
films on the subject it has, I can't comment on that.  However, I failed to 
see the complexity of "the character's emotional developments and 
conflicts", nor the "deeper approach" that you saw in the film.  Nor did I 
see much about "rapid developmental problems" in the South.  What I saw was 
a fairly straightforward action movie, albeit a well-made one, which 
borrowed liberally from other examples of the genre and did not stop to 
consider the issues too seriously.  Despite the speech by the North Korean 
terrorist leader about the hardships faced by his people while the South 
profited from American protection (his words, not mine), I saw little real 
examination of the North/South schism, nor did I encounter much enlightening 
discourse about it.  I did see a lot of killing done by ruthless North 
Korean government-sanctioned killers..  Did you not see that?  With 
reference to the Korean people as a divided whole, you say that "their 
division is getting further and further as time goes on, but people don't 
change.  Their heart loves each other."  If there are indeed still such 
close emotional bonds between North and South Koreans, why didn't the North 
Korean characters show any remorse in slaughtering Southerners?  More to the 
point, why did the (South Korean) makers of Shiri seemingly have no problem 
with portraying North Koreans in this singular homicidal fashion?  It's 
hardly an approach which speaks much of reconciliation.  I found it 
difficult to see the connection between the South Koreans portrayed in the 
film striving peacefully for unification, and the makers of a film which 
would portray their neighbours in such an unfavourable light.  That bitter 
irony spoke more to me about the emotional and psychological divide between 
North and South than anything in the actual movie.
  As for my "Rambo" comparison, that was made to illustrate the simplicity 
of the "us against them", "good vs. evil" approach that the film took.  The 
female assassin was humanised simply by her love for the hero, rather than 
by exposition of her political or ideological motives.  The other North 
Korean characters weren't so lucky - they were there to kill South Koreans, 
and eventually be killed by their quarry.  The "Rambo" type movies I was 
referring to take a similar one-dimensional view of the "enemy", in that 
they are typically unquestioning and unwavering in their devotion to their 
mission and ideology.  In these Reagan-era action films, Russians were 
rarely portrayed in any light other than the potential destroyers and/or 
conquerors of the United States.  I saw parallels between this and the 
treatment of North Koreans in Shuri.  If, as you say, "there are so many 
North descendants in South Korea, and all they think about is unification", 
this was certainly not reflected anywhere in the film.  Yes, "its core story 
is not about who is better" -  Shiri is a love story/action movie after all 
- but I can't see how its real focus was "the division Koreans have to live 
with every day".  If this was truly what that makers were wanting to 
address, why did they choose to portray fictional terrorists from the North 
attempting to kill a large number of innocent South Koreans?  Besides, it's 
hardly common practice for this kind of film to spend a lot of time looking 
in depth at societal and political issues, and especially considering the 
high-octane pace of it you could hardly expect it to be able to accomplish 
that anyway.
  You cannot ignore the influence of Hollywood on Shuri.  Many of its scenes 
borrowed liberally from several prominent American action films.  To make an 
action film of the magnitude of Shiri, you cannot help but be influenced by 
Hollywood, as big-budget actioners are that industry's stock and trade.  
Making a movie of the magnitude of Shiri has a lot to do with box office and 
overseas sales, and I would venture, less to do with a reasoned account or 
statement on the relationship between North and South Korea.   But that is 
beside the point.  I do not judge Shiri by whether it has measured up to the 
Hollywood standard, but I was looking at it as a film that endeavours to 
emulate that style.  Is Shiri really a typical example of indigenous Korean 
cinema?  By the way, I did not mention awards or "best this and best that".  
I agree with you - that's irrelevant.  But to look at Shuri solely in 
context with Korean cultural, political and historical background is to 
ignore the stylistic influences.
  In my eyes, Shiri is a blockbuster, not an insightful social commentary.  
And I actually liked a lot about it, despite what I have written  But in my 
opinion it's not right to ignore its bias just because it may or may not be 
an improvement on the past, nor to deny the debt it owes other examples of 
the genre.  If there was some vital dialogue that I missed due to a glitch 
in my kanji comprehension (reading Japanese subtitles gives me no pleasure) 
that would help me to see Shiri in a different light, then please set me 
straight.  I look forward to hearing what other people derived from the 
film.
  To anyone who hasn't seen it, Shiri is definitely no "Rambo" - but don't 
expect it to have very sophisticated politics either.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com