Review of JSA
By: Eric Martin
Park Chan-wook’s latest piece Joint Security Area is an entertaining film that pairs fear with bravery, division with unity, hatred with friendship, and tragedy with hope. The plot centers on the investigation of a recent military confrontation between South and North Korean troops along the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) in which two North Korean soldiers were killed at a border house. Naturally, the two sides have differing and biased views of the event, and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission must launch an investigation to uncover the truth and avert a civil war between the two nations. Major Sophie E. Jean (Lee Young Ae), a Swiss born Korean, conducts the investigation and discovers not only truth, but also the brotherhood the once existed between the two Koreas. The strength of this movie does not lie in the action scenes, but in its ability to remain neutral and present the truth in a forceful manner.
Even though this film is entertaining and can reach audience of different nations, I believe it would be a mistake to categorize this film as a national cinema. For example, the movie persistently downplays the roles of non-Korean actors. The investigation is being led a Swiss who happens to be of Korean descent. Her Swedish partner, supposedly her equal, never contributes anything meaningful to the case. Her superior officer informs her that she must remain perfectly neutral and not upset the two opposing Koreas, which is an order that she derides as being impossible. Even though the presence of foreign nations in diplomatic issues cannot entirely be overlooked, the movie suggests that foreign powers tend to destabilize. For example, there is a constant fear that the U.S. when blow up Korea, or that the Korean War was just a playground for the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. The main message of the movie is that the DMZ is Korea’s problem and that the North and the South are still brothers. This message is given palpable meaning in one of the first images of the movie in the Joint Security Area where two apparently identical men can be seen facing off with only a small intangible line between them. This film is meant to educate foreigners while emotionally affect Korean audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the designation that this seems to be meant as a film to educate foreighners while emotionaly effecting the native korean audience is a very good point. I agree with that conclusion but would also argue that in film emotionaly effecting an audience in many cases is the best way to educate them. Perhaps the writers and directors of this film were attempting to do more to show the problems with having a DMZ through the middle of a country. This appeal must have been made to tug at the heartsrings of foreigners becuse if it was as big a deal as it is made out to be in the movie it every Korean citizen would already be acutely aware. Overall it was a quite good movie that brings the pain of having a DMZ to an international audience.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great review of the film. You pointed out that the film downplays all non-Korean actors. I had not even noticed that and it is an excellent point. Though there are hints of globalization in the film, they are very small. I definitely agree with you that this is more local cinema than global.
ReplyDeletei agree that this movie brought in opposing elements (i.e. fear with bravery, division with unity, etc.) the balance between these very different ideas was perfectly depicted throughout the film.
ReplyDeletethis film was quite emotionally charged and i agree that although there were international elements within the movie, i also would not categorize this film as "global cinema" because the film emphasized Korean nationalities and characters rather than the many international characters. mise en scene was present but obviously not intended for a global effect.
blair kim
I disagree that it can't be considered national cinema. All throughout the movie, I couldn't help but notice that from the way the frames were cut abruptly, to how time skipped around without reference save that of night and day, and then to the compiling of the actual confrontation, piece by piece, was not American. I'm not sure the message hit me as well as it would a native Korean, either, simply because I do not have such an ingrained awareness that an entire half of my country is militarily, politically, and culturally separate from the other. I do agree, however, with your interpretation of the message - that, although they are separate, they are still brothers. There is still humanity within men who have only ever been told to hate the other side.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this review. A few interesting points, especially the comment about the strength of the film being in its ability to stay neural. That definitely added a different element to the meeting. As others have said, there are no winners, and you have brought to light that the movie is able to portray this even more dramatically by not taking any sides on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI see your point on the film not being national cinema. I would argue that the film in itself can be categorized as national cinema, while the story line seems to indeed be more focused on Korea.