Comments on: Actors gettin’ their protest on: Part II

By: Mizar5

Mizar5 — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:09:01 +0000

Robert, I liked it too - not that it was good, but since it didn’t bore me too much or make my eyes roll more than 60% of the time, I judge it successful Korean cinema.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:36:53 +0000

You know, as a film, I actually liked “Welcome to Dongmakgol,” or at least the first two-thirds. Yeah, its historical viewpoint and politics were problematic, to say the least, but I liked the way it was filmed. Very creative, I thought, especially the semi-anime work.

By: R. Elgin

R. Elgin — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:30:06 +0000

Mizar, *her* film is a sign of a certain historical blindness of mythic proportions, as any honest Korean historian could tell one. “????? — as I call it — is modern-day revisionism of the worst kind, where one takes a variety of facts and creates a “mash-up” or collage from such, thus creating a work of realistic fiction.

One person’s art is another persons propaganda.

By: Mizar5

Mizar5 — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:05:12 +0000

Dong Mak Gol sybolized the Shire, ie., Korea, a small of innocence and purity victimized by forces beyond its comprehension and specifically threatened by the prospect of annihilation at the hands of the unfeeling,heartless, clumsy American and their bombers. Her sign indicates that Korea is hopelessly stuck in the past, unwilling or unable to compete on a level field with global excellence.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:09:11 +0000

“Drug use is uncommon”

Friend?

By: jungwyou

jungwyou — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:00:35 +0000

I’m still not completely certain as to the meaning of her sign. I’m assuming she means to say that the screen quota allows Koreans movies to coexist with foreign ones, but when I think of dongmakgol from the movie, I’m thinking first and foremost of people of different backgrounds *freely* coexisting with each other, and the quota is of course anything but a free system. Am I wrong to think that the sign is just stupid in that way?

By: bluejives

bluejives — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:58:22 +0000

baduk ??n
what is the meaning of ?????

By: komtengi

komtengi — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:02:54 +0000

“HongKong movies may stamp out Korean movies”

HK films went through what the Korean industry is going through now 5-10 years ago… if Korea keeps up with their current practices of using the same leading actors, the same crappy stories… the industry will go down the drain like that of HK. Hallryu wont last for much longer…

HK films arent likely to stamp out Korean films, the HK film industry is a catastrophe at the moment… the next big market will probably be China

By: michael

michael — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:51:32 +0000

Baduk, don’t worry about Korean movies–they are well established overseas and typically get great reviews in the L.A. Times and Village Voice and elsewhere. Korea has its own strong directors like Im Kwon-taek and Kim Ki-duk, who are as accomplished as any others.

We all know why Hollywood dominates the box office around the world, and yet there’s always a big audience for good movies from any country. Most non-Koreans I know like the Korean movies that don’t try to copy Hollywood formulas.

By: bulgasari

bulgasari — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:01:38 +0000

No, it’s not an exception. I doubt you’d make it past the first scene of Road Movie (2002), which is compared to The King’s Man here. Broken Branches (1995) was Korea’s first film with an openly gay character, and Memento Mori (1999) was a teen lesbian ghost story. Those are the names I can think of off the top of my head, though gay characters pop up in a few other films.

Drug use is uncommon, though appeared in Tears (2001), but family-oriented thinking? How many movies are about husbands and wives having affairs - going back to 1956 with Madame Freedom.

Many of these Korean values you mention are just as likely to be absent as they are to be present in modern Korean films - they’re reflecting just how much Korea’s value system is changing.