WARNING: If you have anything around you that might damage your computer screen if thrown at it, I suggest you remove it before reading on.
Anyway, Yonhap reports that Lee Sang-woo has completed work on his film on the Nogeun-ri incident. Want to learn more? OK:
After many news reports and documentaries about Nogeun-ri came out, director Lee Sang-woo felt obliged to make a fictional film to tell the story. He wanted to ask the U.S. government whether there was no other way than war, a question still relevant today.
“Writing the scenario, I asked myself what story I have to tell. This is not going to be about the incident, not the event, but it’s going to be about the people. It is going to tell the relationships that people had in the small community and how intimate and beautiful they were, and ask them (the U.S. military) if they knew what they were doing. They were destroying these beautiful human beings,” Lee said after shooting the film’s last scene in Sunchang, South Jeolla Province, early this week.
I don’t want to use one independent filmmaker’s take on history to be indicative of attitudes as a whole, but after the success of “Welcome to Dongmakgol,” one has to ask whether Koreans and Americans view their shared history in remotely the same way. This is particularly the case with younger Koreans whose collective memory of the Korean War and the role the United States played in it is being shaped by films like this and “Dongmakgol.”
This question is worth exploring, because this shared history is supposedly part of the reason we keep the Korea-U.S. alliance going. If U.S. intervention in Korea is increasingly viewed as a tragedy that destroyed families and communities and kept a nation divided, what reason does Washington have for maintaining the child of that intervention—the Korea-U.S. alliance—especially at a time when the two sides view their national interests in increasingly disparate ways?
BTW, I’m not arguing that topics such as Nogeun-ri or U.S. misdeeds should not be explored by filmmakers. As artists in a democratic society, Korean filmmakers have a duty to explore all aspects of Korea’s past and present. But as Lee clearly points out and as anyone who watched “Dongmakgol” could tell, the films do more than just examine painful incidents pertaining to U.S. history in Korea—they seek to deny any positive role the United States may have played in post-Liberation Korea by constructing fantasy worlds of happy villagers playing in the fields until they were brutally interrupted by the evil Americans and their warlike ways and exploitive capitalism. Even relatively even-handed “Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War” does little more than depict North and South as moral equivalents (with U.S. and UN contributions ignored completely)—there was no “good side” or “bad side,” and the question is never addressed whether the men chewed up on screen died for anything at all. With “Dongmakgol” drawing over 8 million viewers (5 million in its first four weeks), its historical viewpoint obviously resonates with a large segment of the general population. And it goes without saying that it does not bode well for the future of the alliance when the peoples involved no longer share a common memory of even the “foundation myth” of the alliance itself.
P.S.: I would also like to make clear that in no way, shape or form am I suggesting that Koreans emulate the disturbing levels of hero-worship and moral/patriotic simplicity of American war films. My favorite U.S. war film, for example, is Terrence Malick’s “A Thin Red Line,” which is morally ambiguous about the U.S. campaign in the Pacific, to say the least. But what we’re seeing here with “Dongmakgol,” the upcoming Nogeun-ri film and, to a lesser extent, “Tae Guk Gi” is equally simplistic stories that simply substitute ethnic nationalism for the flag-waving of American films. And that’s not a good thing.
91 Comments
Ask the average “political” South Korean college student to talk about ROK history, and you get nothing but vague moralistic mumblings. They don’t know it was founded in 1948, they don’t know how the uprisings in 1960 started or when Park Chung Hee came to power, they don’t know squat. And we’re talking absolutely basic knowledge here. So there’s no point even trying to discuss their history with them.
I completely agree with your PS — anything remotely resembling the Michael Bay cheesefest “Pearl Harbor” should be avoided. But these recent Korean movies you mentioned are even more simplistic than Hollywood dreck. They’re one-dimensional. As for “Dongmakgol,” even though I couldn’t sit through it apparently it did fairly well overseas and some reviewers interpreted it as a general antiwar allegory, whereas we (in Korea) see it as a pretty good example of willful historical manipulation.
That “happy villagers playing in the fields, rudely interrupted by history” theme this movie apparently shares with “Dongmakgol” just backfires on itself — if Koreans were so utterly naive and hapless (which of course they weren’t) then it’s hard to muster too much sympathy for them. If they are ever portrayed as they really were, friends, families divided by ideologies they are willing to kill for, reluctant players in an international conflict, opportunists, patriots, etc., it would make for vastly better movies.
” But as Lee clearly points out and as anyone who watched “Dongmakgol” could tell, the films do more than just examine painful incidents pertaining to U.S. history in Korea—they seek to deny any positive role the United States may have played in post-Liberation Korea by constructing fantasy worlds of happy villagers playing in the fields until they were brutally interrupted by the evil Americans and their warlike ways and exploitive capitalism.”
Rather simplistic view of history, that’s for sure. I was a nice little fantasy movie, North and South Korean soldiers find peace among the villagers who hadn’t been touched by war. But, then it took a turn for the worse when they had the North and South Koreans unite (along with a blonde-haired blue-eyed 6 foot tall white guy, or all things) against the evil Americans who were threatening the village, symbolically Korea, and killed the retarded girl, Korean innocence and purity. I mean, come on.
I never understood why film business is filled with Liberals. Unfortunately, this seems to be true everywhere. Whether it’s Korea, Paris, London…etc, Hollywood.
I have to believe there are Conservative voices here and there, but, they are often drowned out by these numbskulls. In light of this it’s easy to faith, but, I’ve no doubt America will win this Cold War in the East in the long run, but I’m not too sure if I’ll be around to see it.
Even if it takes another 50 years, it will have been worth it. Of course no Liberal ever thought that that the Berlin Wall would ever crumble and we have seen pictures of those Socialist numbskulls in Germany decrying the instillation of Pershing missiles
only to celebrate the the fall of the “dreaded wall” and just as easily forget just who was responsible for it’s demise.
Unfortunately this seems to typify the idiotic and ungrateful nature of liberals in general. Now, I understand when people say Liberalism is a disease. It really is a disease of the mind and heart as well. They are like little children. It’s simply the way they operate, but, one has to take heart, most conservatives use to be a liberal, so for most of us, the lightbulb does go on at some point.
I’m a huge fan of Mallick’s film, too. The soundtrack is great, as is the compilation Melanesian Choirs: The Blessed Islands, some of the best religious music this side of Palestrina.
“My favorite U.S. war film, for example, is Terrence Malick’s A Thin Red Line,”…
Agreed. Now back to the topic…
SomeguyinKorea—My point exactly. And the worst part about it was that I thought “Welcome to Dongmakgol” was an outstanding film, especially the first half. It was very well shot and liked the way in which it incorporated anime. And truth be told, I didn’t mind so much the whole “evil Americans (and their South Korean militarist allies) coming to the village and roughing people up” scene—I’m used to those and was kind of expecting it. What really set me off was the last scene with the North and South Koreans uniting to shoot down American warplanes—there were many ways the director could have chosen to resolve the ending, and the fact that he chose to do so by having the two Koreas unite to kill American airmen—and jumping up-and-down in celebration when they tagged a Yank plane—was, well, I’ll just say as a citizen of a nation that sacrificed 37,000 men during that conflict, I wasn’t sure how to take it.
“Badlands” is the only good movie TM ever made. He’s been living off that crap forever.
The glorification of country villages is getting out of hand in Korean film. No one wants to live in these villages, and Koreans don’t even like to visit them except on Chuseok and New Year - though now they’re increasingly choosing to fly to Thailand or Guam instead - but they love to weep at movies of naive villagers and their “sobak-han” life.
Like the way they love weepy movies about retarded people, but refuse to let anyone build a home for the handicapped in their neighborhood.
The thing is that neither the makers of these movies nor the people who lap the movies up want to be held to any coherent statement of what they believe. They want to be treated like the innocent hapless children on the world stage who are just harmlessly acting out their “peelings” through F*cking USA badges and anti-American movies.
Ask the Dongmakkol fan: “Do you think the US should have stayed out of the Korean War? Because that sure looks like the movie’s message.”
I guarantee the average response will be: “For a long time we were told the North Koreans were monsters. The movie is just saying we are one. It’s not anti-American at all. You must understand how we peel.” Ask about the scene of shooting down American planes, and they’ll laugh and say it’s just pantasy. Try to have a logical discussion with them and they’ll drive you nuts.
“The glorification of country villages…” Montclaire, you even see that in TV commercials here, along with Korean couples who are always dressed in white tennis outfits — what’s up with that? The media/movie industry’s fantasy of Korea maybe just seems unsubtle compared to the way class imagery is handled in other countries.
These recent films though seem to consistently be saying that Koreans are not responsible in any way for what happens to them, that they’re always pawns, which is a boatload of crap.
“I’ll just say as a citizen of a nation that sacrificed 37,000 men during that conflict, I wasn’t sure how to take it.”
See Robert, there is your problem right there. You are limiting yourself by your ethnocentric identification with your countrymen. If you were as unbiased as a Korean, you would be able to see why the Koreans would unite to overthrow their white oppressors.
IMHO, best war Movie: Sam Pekinpah’s “Cross of Iron” with James Coburn and Maximilian Schell.
Seems to me that there is plenty of anti-Americanism in films made in Hollywood, perhaps even as much as in the latest Korean examples. But this latest South Korean film is just icing on a twice-baked cake as far as the future of South Korean / American relations are concerned. America, after the debacle in Iraq has come to a close, is probably going to turn inward, as it has in the past, and withdraw from the world somewhat. Anti-Americanism simply pushes that along.
The growth of international capitalism is the great wave that works against this development - one can hate America, and capitalism for that matter, and still want to trade. Perversely enough, this often makes anti-Americanism worse among the chattering and artistic classes.
Some commenters have hit the nail squarely - that this anti-Americanism represents a mental weakness, a childishness that bodes ill.
This statement cannot be overstated, but, I know most Korean-Americans except for Bluejives who’s been brainwashed by the Uri Clams have a better perspective rooted in reality than typical Left-Wing Socialist nutbags in Korea, but notice how predictable nationalist like Bluejives doesn’t even live there anymore.
Look, these days, I’m of the mind that believes there is some sort of Faustian crap soulstealing at work here. These guys must sell haft their brain and soul in Hell before they come back rising from the very depths of Hell to spew their crap.
I mean, I’m mostly glad Koreans are rising up to it and giving the Country back to the GNP so all is not lost here, but, there simply is no other way of dealing with this crap other than make fun of these idiots on support groups like this.
let it never be said that these filmmakers don’t know their audience.
self-pitying victims love nothing more than to be constantly reminded of who is responsible for their pain and suffering.
Except BlueBalls, they don’t want to be reminded that Koreans who opted to side with China and the Soviet Union and kill other Koreans are responsible for Korea’s suffering. It will be a frosty day in hell when Kimchiwood makes a movie that spells that out.
As for war movies what about all those great epics like “Tora! Tora! Tora!” and “The Dirty Dozen” and all the other ones on TV in the States at 2 a.m.? Those were class.
montclaire,
i swear those are the same conversations i’ve had with koreans. “it’s not anti-american…” and “it’s only pantasy…”
“…The No Gun Ri Tragedy, or No Gun Ri Massacre took place when a group of Koreans were killed by elements of the Second Battalion, U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment between July 26 to July 29, 1950. The incident (or massacre) took place near No Gun Ri (Korean: 노근리 pron. Noh gool li), a Korean village, located in Hwanggan-myeon, Yeongdong County, Chungcheongbuk-do, during the early days of the Korean War.”
From the lengthy wikipedia article, which seemed to make every effort to be even-handed but which has a prominent note at the top saying that its neutrality is disputed; I didn’t look to see whom was disputing it and why.
I cite this quote because the exact NGR dates are provided. For the official US Army history of what was going on in ground combat of the overall theater during this approx time period, one can find an on-line link at the US Army Center for Military History (one of their volumes on the Korean war).
It’s in Ch 12 of “South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu”:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/boo.....1/sn12.htm
Lengthy and with the normal details of units and locations that make it hard to follow, nonetheless if you have some imagination a quick skim may at least raise a portion of the hair on your scalp. US units had been committed piecemeal to the peninsula in an attempt to stem the tide of the NorK advance until units from CONUS could arrive; the issue was very much in doubt as to whether the NorK advance could be stopped.
Nothing specific on No-gun ri, though some units of the 7th Cavalry are mentioned (the direct ancestor of Custer’s 7the Cav and thus a particular unit designation familiar enough to even non-military historians, one which I suspect accounts for much of the overwhelming media interest in this story when it surfaced in a major way in the US press a few years ago).
There are only scattered allusions to the NorK tactic of using refugees as “screen” for their advance, or disguising themselves as refugees; however after some intial success in the use of this tactic by NorK, I’m sure word of it would have spread like wildfire amongst the other US units, and I think it undoubtedly accounts for the various assertions that “orders” came down from higher US HQ to use deadly force to stop the movement of refugees through US front lines.
It’d be “fair” of the Korean filmmaker to document this particular Nork tactic, with at least equal relish to that which I suspect he will bring to bear in depicting brutal American machinegunners and mortar crews. Youse guys in Korea that get to see the movie can look to see if this happens; I won’t be holding my breath.
Maybe the chap cited below will make it into the film, since the Korean view of events will be emphasized; especially given the almost exact confluence of the date with NGR (for the cite scroll down to pg 186). A filmmaker could use this as a contrast to show the “humanitarian” side of the US Army, hey maybe there really is such a side after all:
“…At this time the KMAG [US Korean Military Advisory Group]) advisers had serious trouble with “Tiger” Kim, the commander of the ROK 23d Regiment. He was extremely brutal in his disciplinary methods. In the presence of several advisers he had his personal bodyguard shoot a young 1st lieutenant of his regiment whose unit had been surrounded for several days. This incident took place on 26 July. The next day Kim used the butt of an M1 rifle on some of the enlisted men of this unit. The KMAG advisers remonstrated at this action, and in order to avoid possible personal trouble with Kim they asked for his removal. “Tiger” Kim was removed from command of the regiment and the commander of the 1st Separate Battalion, Colonel Kim, replaced him.
ROK troops regrouped for another desperate counterattack, to be supported by all available U.N. sea, air, and ground weapons, in an effort to hurl the North Koreans back to the north of Yongdok. At this time General Walker required hourly reports sent to his headquarters….”
Well, the following are irresponsible (and long) thoughts, and I am not sure whether I should write it, but I am afraid that the sorry fate of the US reputation in Korea is the unavoidable price to be paid for mingling in other countries’ affairs. Unlike the majority of Seoul US-bashers crowd, I know only too well what would happen to Korea without US intervention in 1950, and this makes me somewhat angry or annoyed about such movies. However, it would be naïve to believe that Koreans would remain thankful forever. No nation would. The current backlash is based on lies, myths and often used to hide the ugly truth, which is so inconvenient to the Korean nationalists. But this backlash is probably unavoidable…
In this regard I remember an on-line discussion I had with a Russian colleague about a year ago (it is available, but alas in Russian). We discussed the 1956 events and earlier development in Pyongyang, and also highly hypothetical chances of the “Soviet faction” winning the internal power struggle in the North of the 1950s. We had to construct a rather improbable chain of events to make it happen, but it is possible to imagine that with a really great amount of luck in 1953 or so people like Ho Ka-i or Pak Ch’ang-ok would take over in the North.
The outcome of such a victory of the Soviet puppets (sincere and opportunistic) over the nationalists (sincere and opportunistic) would be the emergence of North Korea as a country of “dependent socialism”, somewhat akin to Bulgaria or Poland or even Mongolia. The result would be a far less ruinous, far less brutal regime. Inmates in prison camps would be numbered in hundreds or, sometimes, thousands, not in tens and hundreds of thousands, executions would be unheard of or very rare, some independent culture would exist (and perhaps, like East Germany demonstrated, would be of serious interest). Increasingly generous Soviet subsidies would pay for steady increase in living standards, like it was the case in Eastern Europe, even though the gap with the South would still emerge eventually. Being less repressive and less willing to kill people in huge numbers, such a system would happily collapse around 1990, producing a relatively smooth and painless unification. To some extent, this turn of events might have even influenced the South, softening up the Seoul regimes of the 1960s and 1970s.
In other words, million or so people who died of hunger in the 1990s would be alive and enjoying normal lives. Half million people who have been prison inmates would be spared the terrible experience and would live much longer. The average North Korean would enjoy more fruitful and rewarding and normal existence. A lot of disasters, including the disasters which have not happened yet (as of October 2006), would be avoided.
A better outcome? For the North Koreans, yes. For the Soviets, no. Since such a regime would be still repressive and increasingly unpopular, and since Moscow would be clearly behind it, the Russians would be eventually hated by everybody! After the collapse, the Russians would unavoidably become major “baddies”, held responsible for everything which went wrong in Korea, and thus playing the role which now safely belongs to Japan and US. Again, we have seen it in Eastern Europe. In Rumania and Albania, two countries of the “independent Stalinism” Russia does not evoke much negative feelings nowadays, since blame is so clearly on their home-grown idiots. In other countries of East Europe, Russia is the object of the nearly universal hatred, even though in the 1950s it did enforce some liberal reforms, sometimes against the will of the local leaders (admittedly, installed in power by the Russians on an earlier stage). Hence, Moscow’s perceived “success” in reforming North Korea in the late 1950s would save countless Korean lives, but would perhaps bring few if any actual dividends to Russia itself. The results would be a drain of resources in 1955-1985 and then a great deal of hatred and bad feelings in decades to follow (plus demands for compensation, apology etc).
Lessons? If one mingles in other countries’ problem, one should also be ready for bad feelings even if things go very well and the countries in question are saved from much worse fates. Of course, there are exceptions, like West Europe, but there US presence was directed against clear and present Soviet threat, and this helped to cement relations and overlook unavoidable problems. But generally, such things happen, and will ever happen. A price for imperial ambitions and imperial reach, I’d say. So, IMHO, it’s better not to mingle unless absolutely necessary…
Paul H., it’s well know to everyone but Korean film directors, the Uri Party and everyone under 40 in Korea that there were atrocities involving Koreans indiscriminately killing other Koreans in the war, even “massacres.”
Mr. Lankov, interesting “what if” scenario. A Soviet-backed N.K. would have been less brutal because China had less control over Kim Il-sung than the Soviets would have had over their puppet leader?
It doesn’t seem neccessary for the U.S. to “mingle” in S. Korea any longer.
Lankov:
“Of course, there are exceptions, like West Europe, but there US presence was directed against clear and present Soviet threat, and this helped to cement relations and overlook unavoidable problems.”
—————————————————————–
I really don’t understand what you’re saying here? I seriously doubt anti-American crap and revisionist history going on in Western Europe is any better but they’ll all be wearing burqas pretty soon so we’ll be having our last laugh soon enough.
Problem that I have is just how utterly predictable human behavior is in general, especially when it’s practiced by the Left. Of course, American Imperialistic policy certainly haven’t been entirely altruistic, but why not have a frank discussion then, pertaining to that, rather than these types of silly lies that anyone third grader can point out?
God forbid, America would just pack up and leave.
American Empire is not going to last forever, but, fact of the matter is, the World is going to fall into another Dark Age when that happens, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
“….Lessons? If one mingles in other countries’ problem, one should also be ready for bad feelings even if things go very well and the countries in question are saved from much worse fates. Of course, there are exceptions, like West Europe….”
Doc! Have you been spending too much time in the Asian studies ivory tower? You need to take a sabbatical among your W European academic peers; once there, I dare you to try making that assertion to them!
After their pipes drop from their open mouths, they will crowd around you furiously: “How dare you imply that our anti-Americanism is inferior to that of the Koreans! etc etc…”
Take along plenty of good Russian vodka; only the application of liberal amounts in their interiors will suffice to get you back in their good graces.
I think this film will fail miserably. Every movie has been harping on the same theme, the Korean brotherhood and evil Yankees.
It is about time that moviegoers get annoyed by this “formula”. I mean they have seen enough. Every f***ing movie is about evil Yankees.
Things get old.
Moviegoers now want to see a Yankee saving a blind girl to be raped by North Korean soldiers. It is about time for a change.
I mean the “Shiri” was provocative at the time of its making. A revolutionary theme about the love between the South Korean agent and the North Korean agent. It was new and fresh.
But, since then, every f***ing Korean movie, starting from GSA, Ddongmakgol, Tagugi and even Monster, was about evil Yankees separating the North and the South. I mean enough is f***ing enough.
South Korean audiences now want to see something different. Maybe a love story between a South Korean soldier and the British nurse. Or, about a Yankee who saved South Korean orphans and fed and educated them.
Anything.
People are just too tired to watch another Commie propaganda.
I meant a British nurse.
Anything with a lots of English conversation in it. High school and college students want to pass English exams especially conversation exams.
After paying 7,000 won ($8) for a movie, they want to get some English vocabulary words out of it.
The best movie from Korea about village life and the Korean War was Taebak Mountains and IMO that movie is one of the best movies to ever come out of Korea. It is really dissapointing to watch crap like Dongmakgol after seeing such a quality movie like Taebak Mountains.
I have no doubt this Nogun-ri movie will just be as equally as crappy as Dongmakgol. There was definitely a tragedy that happened at Nogun-ri however the number of people killed and the motivations and the circumstances behind what happened are not what the leftists want you to believe. I did a whole series of postings on what happened at Nogun-ri and what really happened is actually quite clear once you get around all the lies and propaganda put out there by both the Korean and US media. I encourage everyone to interested in what really happened at Nogun-ri to check out my postings at the link below.
http://www.gikorea.net/id22.html
It’s hard for most directors to make movies as good as Im Kwon-taek.
I finally took a look at the link and the picture; it looks like he used white actors to portray the GI’s herding the Korean villagers down the forest path (?) M, if you happen across any more still pictures from the film I’d be interested in the links.
The uniformed troops in the picture at the link are much too clean and unwrinkled for being even a few days in an intense combat zone (of course outdoor characters being “too clean” is typical for most movies). The reasonably well-fitted fatigues look like the permanent press kind that came in during the late 1970’s, not the baggy OD’s that had to be starched to look “good” in an earlier era (of course such starching didn’t happen in combat). Also I think we were a smooth leather “brown-boot” army back then (not black).
M1 carbine on the left is basically correct, can’t tell if that’s an M1 Garand slung on the shoulder on the right. If the actual US troops at the time who evacuated the village were reasonably properly equipped, they should be depicted at least as having metal canteens w/covers and the small M1 ammo clips on their pistol belts.
Is he wearing an armband or is that just a unit shoulder patch? I’m pretty sure the average unit US GI in July 1950 would not have been wearing an armband (with Korean characters?)
Be interesting to know if all this is deliberate on the part of the filmmaker, as it immediately evokes the image of how US troops stationed in Korea looked in a later era (1970’s & early 80’s, one presumably more familiar to the vast majority of the potential Korean audience).
I suppose though it’s probably just another unconscious assumption on the part of the filmmakerm, not to mention that the use of the more readily available & more current uniforms is probably necessitated by a limited budget.
GI Korea, I remember your series on No Gun Ri, and I’m re-reading some of it now, thanks.
In the yonhap story it says the director is using the AP account for his film, so right off the bat it’s going to be skewed because as you said, “Other veterans that made key claims about Nogun-ri were later found to have not even been there.” But then the director didn’t claim this was a documentary–it’s a fiction based on a fiction.
I was going to mention “The Taebaek Mountains.” Now, Jo Jung-rae might be a flaming lefty nationalist, but at least he doesn’t try to pull the wool over our eyes in regards to the state of affairs after Liberation and prior to the Korean War. That’s what makes “The Taebaek Mountains” so good. Well, that and Im Kwon-taek. And Ahn Sung-ki.
I await news of the white actors deportations.
“He wanted to ask the U.S. government whether there was no other way than war…..”
No way! One guy tried, he was like, “Hey, let’s not have a war”, but it didn’t work.
did anybody notice one of the good guys in ‘dongmakgol’ was a white guy?
just asking.
This is very true. The willingness to believe anything and everything in order to feel good about one’s self is to live in a state of delusion.
This sort of delusion is the same poison that affects people that are willing to kill for what they believe. Koreans need to understand that this delusion is a universal problem of humanity’s and that Koreans do not know to what evil fate such delusion may lead to their country and society to. They may think “we are different from everyone else” but Koreans are *still* human and prey to the same vices that curse the rest of mankind.
The sort of Korean nationalism that I would like to see would be the sort of willingness to help one another and to be decent people. Such may sound mundane and simple-minded but it is the glue that holds together a society and allows any worthy culture to thrive.
How dare they make this?
The Koreans should try to emulate unbiased well made movies like this one instead:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497329/
“When a team of U.S. Navy SEALs is assigned to destroy a North Korean missile site and avert a possible nuclear strike, failure is not an option. But the mission is abruptly aborted, stranding four soldiers in enemy territory. Now, in order to survive, they must defeat the rebel forces that threaten their lives, their allies and the entire free world!”
…and this one looks like it is fictional propaganda that even Kim Jong-Il would be proud of.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/new.....77,00.html
“He has eluded US special forces, elite French paratroopers and Britain’s finest, the SAS. But Radovan Karadzic, genocide suspect and regarded by Serbs as a Scarlet Pimpernel-style figure, has finally met his match in Richard Gere.
In a film being shot yesterday on the forested hillsides of northern Zagreb, the Hollywood heartthrob succeeds where Nato, the CIA and the SAS have failed. The good guy gets the bad guy.
“Unlike in real life, they get their man in the end,” said an assistant director of the new film, Spring Break in Bosnia, before biting his lip and refusing to reveal more of the plot.”
Robert:
I haven’t seen the film but I’ve read the book. (Krhm krhm.) I understand that Im Kwon-taek made some changes for example for the character played by Ahn Sung-ki (Kim Pôm-u), who in the book starts as a bourgeois nationalist in the Kim Ku mold but joins the communist cause after realizing that it’s not possible to remain impartial, as the war is not one between North and South Koreans but between Koreans and Americans. Not sure how that comes out in the film. In the book, Kim Pôm-u is captured in Geoje-do camp, disguises himself as an anti-communist POW, and is released to wait for future orders. Not having seen any of the films discussed here it’s difficult to say, but I have the feeling that Jo’s book has been very influential in growing the ideas that “Dongmakkol” reflected. But perhaps Im Kwon-taek’s humanism got better of Jo’s ideologies.
Baduk:
In the Korean movie she’d be a Brutish nurse.
yeolchae - you need to read Robert’s post before commenting.
“Koreans need to understand that this delusion is a universal problem of humanity’s and that Koreans do not know to what evil fate such delusion may lead to their country and society to. They may think “we are different from everyone else” but Koreans are *still* human and prey to the same vices that curse the rest of mankind.”
haha, How do you define a Korean? You write as if Koreans are a different species. “Koreans need to understand”…that’s hilarious.
I did read it before commenting thanks slim. My main point is that creating irresponsible fantasy worlds is definitely not exclusively a Korean film trait.
It could be worse however. How long will it be before this one is made into a film?
http://yeolchae.wordpress.com/.....s-in-wwii/
Yeolchae, “creating fantasy worlds” is fine when one is not operating under delusions or fails to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Attempting to pass off one’s beliefs as truth is delusion and in this case, with political intent.
To quote this film maker:
Implying that his fictional story about the “people” is somehow more important and real than the actual event itself. Correct me if I’m wrong but this fellow did not know the people who were killed and did not interview survivors, nor did he experience the incident himself, no? Have I possibly missed something that might redeem this hack agitator?
Creating movies to fuel an imperialistic superiority complex also has political intent.
I am not endorsing or criticising the movie because I haven’t seen it yet. I am just simply wondering why people are holding Korea to different standards than our own countries. We are responsible for some deplorable artistic license and mispresentation (See Rambo III as an example).
I also don’t accept the idea that the Korean movie industry reflects or forms public opinion more than our own.
Maybe we should postpone the lynch mob until the film is released.
I guess the idea here is that people always take what they see on TV and in the movies as truth.
Which could explain all them people running around the desert chasing them tricky roadrunners…
Why are all Korean entertainers whether they be athletes, actors or (ahem) singers so easy to dislike?
Hate to quibble here, but when the Marmot wote: “I would also like to make clear that in no way, shape or form am I suggesting that Koreans emulate the disturbing levels of hero-worship and moral/patriotic simplicity of American war films,” it was to preempt the kind of remarks we’re getting from yeolchae and others.
Iheartblueballs nailed it and I would be surprised if a Korean film on these subjects wasn’t onesidedly nationalistic.
seouldout,
That is an idea. A horror movie. A “Texas Chainsaw Murder” type of horror show. The French couple set the tone.
A innocent (somewhat stupid) Korean man falls prey to a foreign nurse who administers drugs and makes him her toy. Make him do ugly things. This is a sort of combination of “Old Boy” and “Lady Vengeance” with all the evil things done by a foreign woman.
The final scene is where this guy is so drugged and mentally conditioned that he cannot eat Kimchi and rice any more. He can only eat sandwitches. So, he cries while eating egg sandwitches, realizing he is no longer a Korean.
This woman ( a good looking blonde with blue eyes) makes him suck her toes and lick her ass. Then she beats him up with a whip.
An erotic anti-American shocker.
A shocker!
Koreans will flock to theaters. Azummas will talk nothing but this movie. So scared and aroused at the same time. A sort of “Rocky Horror Picture show” for Koreans.
#45 William G: “….I guess the idea here is that people always take what they see on TV and in the movies as truth.”
I would say rather that in the absence of direct personal experience (to include military service of their own), what people (of all nationalities) see on TV and the movies gives them (over time) their basis for unconscious assumptions about the nature of subjects in which they have no personal experience.
And especially if those subjects are unpleasant ones, but ones which they are suddenly forced to confront without a chance for further reflection. Thus the basis for M’s concern seems quite justified to me.
In relatively recent times prior to movies and TV (ie early 1900’s) people took their assumptions about the nature of war from what they read in newspapers and magazines, until their young men experienced the trench warfare of WWI for themselves. Best war movie ever made? My vote is for the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front (starring Lew Ayres); made so close in time to the events it depicts and with expert technical advice about the actualities of WWI trench warfare.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/
Made by a US filmmaker but showing events from the German side (based of course on the original novel by a German author). Created great difficulties for the subsequent career of the lead American actor (Lew Ayres) who I think as a result of this film became a leading advocate of pacifism in the later 1930’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Ayres
Director was Lewis Milestone; turns out he was a refugee from Russian revolution in 1917, and he also directed famous early film versions of Steinbeck novels (1939 Of Mice and Men, 1949 Red Pony). Did a 1943 movie about the German invasion of Russia which I wonder if Dr. Lankov has seen (”Armored Attack”, more recently retitled as “The North Star”; I saw it in the theater in my childhood, in its redone 1956 US cold war propaganda version).
And he directed 1959’s “Pork Chop Hill” (Korean war but no Koreans, just US troops and the Chinese, I’m very fond of the sinister Chinese officer who makes the nighttime loudspeaker broadcast to the US troops in the front lines; hey, I’m ready to drop my rifle and cross over and I’m not even in the movie).
And he did the 1962 version of Mutiny on the Bounty (with “the Marlon”, ’nuff said).
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0587277/
I wonder if this Korean filmmaker saw and discussed “All Quiet…” in his film classes? I would commend it to him as an example of one filmmaker transcending his personal nationality in order to get the “truth” depicted to his fellow nationals on the big screen.
It’s the nature of filmmaking that movie makers get to stamp their own outlook on their films. In turn, it’s the nature of those who remember the actual facts of history to take the time to point out discrepancies from what “actually” happened, assuming of course that anyone is willing to listen. “First impressions are lasting impressions” as they say.
The best war movies are “the Longest Day”, “Appoclypse now” and “Deerhunter”. Just ask Robert De Niro. He is still working after all these years.
“Deerhunter” : A man has to be a monster when fighting a war. But, when he comes home he has to listen to his woman and play house. What a change! Most men have problem doing this.
Yeolchae, you are naive to claim “I also don’t accept the idea that the Korean movie industry reflects or forms public opinion more than our own.” You do not acknowledge that such media as books and film may not reflect how a society thinks but they can and do affect societal attitudes. The Russians, the Nazis, the Chinese, the Americans — almost every country world — has used film and books for the sake of propaganda and such usage is well documented. Due to the relatively lateness of democratic reforms in Korea, Korean society is more vulnerable to being played or hacked by certain parties who have political interests, thus concerns such as those expressed in this thread are valid concerns.
This is not an issue of “artistic license and mispresentation” (sic) as you put it but of probably deliberate use of the medium to spread the film maker’s beliefs. Rather, it is a healthy and needed response for people to question such delusion where ever it is encountered for, if not, we end up with well-intentioned people that think that the moon landing in 1969 was faked and bad “vibes” can be rubbed off onto objects and must be cleansed. Sooner or later, delusion leads to suffering, whether in the individual or in the society.
The only other real evil facing most societies is complacency, IMHO, but that is another topic and discussion.
R.Eglin, I think it is also worth pointing out that going to see a film doesn’t suggest agreeing with or accepting it’s message.
8 million people saw Dongmakgol but thats doesn’t mean that they were all happy and in unison with the ending.
More people went to see Rambo than The Thin Red Line in the U.S. Does that mean that Rambo “resonated” with the audience more?
If the age of a democracy suggests that it should be superior in not being deluded by mass media, then why did so many people in the U.S/Britain buy the idea of WMDs in Iraq and the Sadaam Al-Qaeda link without evidence?
It is quite a stretch to bring a schlock entertainment film like Rambo into a discussion about an (expected) tendentious picture on a (at least partially) historical event.
I’d love to hear Haisan’s expert take on this issue. Until that, for me at least, iheartblueballs’ pithy comment is the definitive word on this picture.
Korean government and Hollywood should make new “Incheon” landing movie in the format of the “Longest day”.
There are plenty of stories surrounding Incheon amphibius landing. OSS doing pre-landing intel, SEALs killing beach guards, Koreans helping from the beach, weather, McArthur’s gamble, many sacrifices, heroic Koreans blowing up Commie headquarters, etc..
Young Koreans will start seeing Korean War in totally different light - the correct way.
This is not possible with this Commie government. However, after the election next year, Commies may lose their grip on Korea.
I do not know how “Nogun-ri movie” will be like as I haven’t seen it with my own eyes.
My family and I had enjoyed the movie “Welcome to Dongmakgol”. It couldn’t be in same category as “Ice Age”"Madacascar”"Toy Story” “Superman” “Xman” or “Pirates of the Caribbean” like PG or PG-13 rated movie. I allowed let my two kids, 12 and 7, to watch the “Dongmakgol”. The movie scenes went along just for laughs with villagers, insane girl, and soldiers from all sides. Yes, the movie ends “jumping up-and-down in joyful celebration when they tagged a Yank plane with ” and this naive village “Dongmakgol” is safely saved. The truly sorrowful edge of war will be another world once again to the “Dongmakgol” villages as they are watching blast of bombing far far away.
So, did this movie gave deep “bad” impression of “Evil Americans or Heartlessly Korean soldiers” who treat villagers so roughly to my kids and myself?
Did us gave damn about how NK soldiers, Inmin Goon, treating their wounded soldiers. What is underlying motive of runaway soldiers? No.
My kids just remember how unique and fun was Kangwaon dialect, mindless tension of two side of soldiers, encounter villagers with amercian pilot, boar hunting, etc.. Is it because they are just kids? I don’t think so. It would be, I think, same to most of over 8 million Korean who saw and laughed about it. Were these 8 million just kids? or immature enough to catch the true message of it? The movie centered on eyes of naive Dongmakgol villagers. No Black and White. Nor innocent Korean vs Evil American. It would be the people vs the aspect of War itself. The movie also unleashed forgotten side of Korea, Kangwondo /Kangwon dialect. If you do watch Korean programs You would noticed that the how Kangwon dialect became so popular on so many TV programs and entertainers afterward. That was the big impact of this movie.
Yes, the movie gave bad impression on US soldiers same to Korean soldiers, NK soldiers. It might flamed nationalism. Still I do not think it turned most of 8 million Korean to side the of anti-american campaign. IF so, it would be same logic to say that most of over 10 million Korean became favorable to “Gay” after watching “The King and the Clown, Wan ui Namja”
And If you directed “Dongmakgol”, how would you end it? How would you make Nogun-ri movie, not a documentary film, with your American View?
In response to Paul, it shouldn’t matter what uniform the US soldiers wore to evacuate the village because the vast majority of the evidence shows US soldiers did not evacuate that village. As mentioned above if the filmmaker is basing his movie off the AP article than he is basing it on an article that has been proven to be fraudulent. He is making a movie based on what he wishes Nogun-ri to be instead of the actual reality.
This would be like making the Dr. Hwang movie based off what he people wish him to be, “The Pride of Asia” curing all these paralyzed people and ignoring the facts a few brave journalists uncovered to prove he is a fraud.
JiMong #56: “….And If you directed “Dongmakgol”, how would you end it? How would you make Nogun-ri movie, not a documentary film, with your American View?”
Ah, but it depends upon what you mean by “American View”; there is no one capitalized “American View” way to do it. I think Baduk is a naturalized American of Korean descent, I’m a conservative white American resident in CONUS (not necessarily a Republican, though you may be indifferent to that distinction); while others here are certainly resident Americans of Korean extraction who are younger and far more liberal than I, while yet others are Americans of various ethnicity resident in Korea.
We are all products of our experiences and our times, and myth and reality for each of us are fused together in different ways. Americans are the supreme development (thus far on this planet) of the cult of the individual, whereas most of the rest of the world puts emphasis on the collective good of society (especially in NE Asia).
But everyone on the planet does seems to focus on the Americans –”what will El Diablo do next?” wonders El Presidente Chavez at the rostrum of the UN, while the international audience chuckles but nevertheless watches intently to see the answer.
So, what would this particular minion of El Diablo do about making a film about NGR? My answer is to change the terms of your question and say that I would make a balanced documentary rather than a fictionalized film, but maybe that’s not an acceptable answer for a “real” Korean filmmaker such as Lee SW, if part of his goal is to make money (a perfectly legitimate one as far as I’m concerned).
If he thinks he knows that Korean audiences won’t pay to see such a “balanced” documentary, then we are asking more of him than he is able to give us — at this time (2006), and in this place (ROK).
If you insist on an answer from me for a fictionalized film about the Korean war, the one I would make already exists! Not about NGR, but about American Air Force flyers working with the newly formed ROK air force, as advisors and fellow combatants.
It’s “Battle Hymn”, 1956, starring Rock Hudson; for a 1950’s movie I think it goes beyond the simplicities of “Rambo” style good guys and bad guys, though it certainly has many typical 1950’s cliches (it’s very hard for a filmmaker to transcend his own times).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050171/
However, one distressing scene deals with the conscience of an American flyer who has accidentally strafed and killed a Korean civilian family while delivering an airstrike (this is pictured in the film). Long before Dongmakgol evidently dealt with this issue in its own way (haven’t seen that movie, though I just read all the reviews at the imbd link given above by M).
I suppose from what I read in the Yonhap link that the NGR movie proposes to similarly show Americans bombing innocent civilians. However, in “Battle Hymn” the movie ends with the airfield about to be overrun by the Communists; the American commander (Rock Hudson) arranges for the nearby Korean orphanage to be evacuated by a large US transport aircraft at the last minute, before the Communists overrun them.
You may consider this a “simplistic flag-waving” ending, particularly with the emphasis on Christianity (RH at the end of the movie becomes a Protestant minister if I remember correctly; the movie was based on the life of a real Air Force Colonel named Dean Hess, as portrayed by RH). But then again, perhaps Christianity is really just an “alien” presence amongst the “true” Koreans of the innocent village — just like the Americans.
Even today large US Air force transport jets, the descendants of the large propeller transport aircraft that rescued the children at the end of Battle Hymn, maintain the airlift line of communications between the US, Japan, and the ROK, where a technical state of war still exists between the US and the DPRK. Those of you that live near Osan Air Base can see them coming and going daily.
So that’s my “American View” reality”, JiMong — the US Air Force (and the US military in general) as the bringer of help to the Korean people — not just a bringer of death. And that’s the movie I would make about the Korean War. But– I’m not a moviemaker, and never will be.
#57 GI Korea:
Thanks for the correction, I saw your links about NGR (over a year ago?) but didn’t go back to check them again. For some reason, I can’t comment on your site anymore (I get the windows box that says “function disabled”.
I used the wiki article as basis for my comment and accepted their “assertion” quoted below (the wikipedia article is prominently flagged, I’ll have to go back and look at why):
“The Associated Press version, which won a Pulitzer Prize,[1] contained the damning assertion that US military policy permitted firing on unarmed, peaceful civilians who posed no threat to US forces.
Another version written by a professor of history calls this a twisting of the truth, on the grounds that the US military policy was both indistinct and, in any event, unknown to soldiers on the ground at the time of the events at No Gun Ri.
The two key points on which the versions differ are:
Did US troops open fire on Koreans who stationary, i.e., not moving toward US lines and not posing any apparent threat?
Were North Korean troops (disguised as civilians) among the Koreans who were killed?
Background
On the day before the incident, hundreds of Korean civilians were evacuated in the vicinity, southward from Imgae-ri and Joogok-ri, fleeing a North Korean advance. Some state that they were herded from their houses by elements of an American army unit. (An assertion which has been generally substantiated by all sides)…..”
No doubt Lee SW accepted this assertion too, thus we are fated to see it portrayed in the film as shown in the still picture at the Yonhap link.
I’d be the type of filmmaker to whom little details matter (”get the little things right and the big things will take care of themselves”), but maybe that’s just a convenient aphorism for filmmakers with access to big budgets (as with the attention to exact period detail in “Titanic” and “Saving Private Ryan”).
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Mr. Lee can’t make the film he wants to, just because he doesn’t have a large budget. If I did say that, I’d be “unAmerican”.
Something else, since Yeolchae has been so kind as to link to some American examples of cinematic brilliance. If you look at the villians in American movies, especially action flics, war movies and techno-political dramas, you can get a good idea of who the United States has a beef with. First it was the Nazis, then the Communists, then the Muslims… I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial here. The fact that North Korea will show up as the bad guy in an American film is only natural given the state of relations between the two countries. Likewise, Americans show up as the bad guys in North Korean films. What is interesting here is take a look at recent (and, truth be told, not so recent) South Korean films in which the Americans are featured (”Dongmakgol,” “The Host,” “Typhoon,” just to name the ones at the top of my head), and it’s almost always as the bad guys. If we assume for a moment that Nazis, Communists and Arabs are frequently featured as bad guys in American films, we might be able to assume that Americans—like the Japanese—are frequently featured as bad guys in Korean films for a reason.
And to answer your question, Yeolchae, yeah, I think the fact that more Americans went to see “Rambo II+III” than “A Thin Red Line” probably indicated that blowing away commies probably resonated with the American public (especially at the time) than Malick’s examination of the environment and the cruelty of man in war.
I’m feeling pretty ambivalent about this film. Some random thoughts:
- This No Gun Ri film is being produced by MK Pictures… More specifically by the “M” part of MK, as in Myung Film — the people who brought you JSA. They have been interested in 386 lefty stuff for some time. For example, they have been talking for ages about making a movie based on Nym Wales’ SONG OF ARIRAN, about the Korean communist fighter in China, Kim San.
- WELCOME TO DONGMALGOL was based on a popular stage play by Jang Jin. And Jang Jin has a particular writing style (in particular, his use of language) and has quite a following. So it is not like DONGMAKGOL came out of nowhere. And it resonated with people for far more reasons than just the anti-American nonsense in it.
- There have been plenty of films that made North Korea look “misunderstood” or even nice, or that South Korea is “just as bad” as the North or whatever that have done a big nothing at the box office. NAMNAM BUKNYEO, SECRET AGENT, even Jang Jin’s old film THE SPY. So 386-style new-left silliness is far from a box office guarantee.
- I pretty much agree with Mr. Lankov’s assessment: The USA is the dominant force in the region, so, right or wrong, it tends to get blamed for things that happen.
Look at THE HOST, which was far more like E.T. than RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II. One of the major points of the film is how useless and incompetent the Korean government is, so you could not just turn around and make the Korean government the major threat. But the US military and government has long been used in a generic way by plenty of filmmakers to create an impersonal Macguffin of a bad guy. Clearly, though, this will not apply to NOGUNRI.
- The AP book about NOGUNRI is problematic, but that hardly makes it complete fantasy. The best article about the AP book and NOGUNRI I know if is here:
http://dir.salon.com/story/boo.....index.html
I recommend for those interested about the Nogun-ri tragedy to read Bateman’s book titled Nogun-ri. Bateman used actual army archive evidence which the AP could have easily used as well but didn’t, plus Bateman used testimony from people who were actually there which the AP relied mainly on testimony of people who were not there. Bateman goes line by line and debunks the AP’s book with actual evidence.
I agree fully with Bateman’s conclusions that a tragedy did happen at Nogun-ri but the numbers, timeline, circumstances, and motivations of the incident are fundamentally different from the “scandalous” tone that the AP successfully created to win a Pulitzer prize before being debunked. What is really scandalous is that Bateman even notified the AP before they released their article about the untrustworthiness of the people they were quoting and the AP writers blew him off. Heck there was Pulitzer Prizes to think about after all.
How come someone can keep a Pulitzer Prize after their article has been proven to be fundamentally flawed?
How can a South Korean president keep a Nobel Prize after it’s proven that he bought it?
Montclaire, good point.
I respectfully suggest to “GI Korea” and others that they might want to watch a one-on-one debate between the main author of the Associated Press story and the subsequent book on No Gun Ri, Charles J. Hanley, and the author of a dissenting book on the subject, Maj. Robert L. Bateman.
The debate is accessible via the website of the Pritzker Military Library in Chicago, where the 92-minute debate took place in July 2004 (http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org). A simple and free online registration is required before accessing the library’s video archives.
I think an open mind with a critical eye will come to the conclusion that the facts as stated in the Associated Press accounts — both the original story and its follow-ups — have been meticulously researched and have been proven to be true.
In the spirit of full disclosure I must say that I am not totally unbiased. The AP special correspondent who broke the story — along with three colleagues — is my brother. But, that afforded me the opportunity to watch the entire process which, ultimately, shined a light on a dark corner of a forgotten war.
I hope anyone who has an interest in what truly happened at No Gun Ri watch the debate. The moderator is John Callaway and it is entitled “What Really Happened at No Gun Ri.”
Paul H.,
So, It is safe to say that “Nogeun-ri” should only be made in “balanced” documentary. Any “fictionalized” Nogenun-ri movie, including this one directed by Lee Sang-woo, would perceive as a biased and a crappy movie to depend on viewers stand point.
Haisan brings up some good points, esp. that the Korean film audience doesn’t automatically embrace every movie that has a pro-N.K. or anti-U.S. theme. The Nogun-ri movie could be problematic in that it will help mold public opinion (which is probably already pretty set, I know) by framing the historic events in a false way. That’s based on knowing the director said he was basing it on the AP account that GI Korea has questioned.
As Mr. Marmot said, “If we assume for a moment that Nazis, Communists and Arabs are frequently featured as bad guys in American films, we might be able to assume that Americans—like the Japanese—are frequently featured as bad guys in Korean films for a reason.” Since the Nogun-ri movie is about a real event, it will be interesting to see just how much the U.S. will be the “bad guys” here, and how much context and verisimilitude will be provided.
#65 I watched the video and it really doesn’t add anything new to the debate. I do have to say Hanley is extremely arrogant and condescending towards Bateman and didn’t fully explain why he tried to stop Bateman’s book from being published or why he was calling Bateman’s boss when journalists are supposed to be all about free speech.
Plus Hanley constantly relies on hitting the audiences emotions by reading heart wrenching witness testimony from Nogun-ri victims instead of focusing on the hard facts and discrepancies Bateman would bring up. Plus Hanley would not identify or release the full witness testimony to Bateman so we are relying on Hanleys word about the authenticity of the testimony. If you are going to accuse someone of war crimes relying on 50 year old memories shouldn’t that testimony be fully opened to be scrutinized so any holes in it like what Bateman found in the GI testimony could be found? The video was from 2004 and maybe Hanley gave the testimony info to Bateman by now.
Another thing that annoyed me about Hanley was he kept trying to make it out that Bateman was trying to deny Nogun-ri ever happened when Bateman has been very clear that Nogun-ri did happen what they don’t agree on is the timeline, body count, and motivations. Hanley believes it was a deliberate war crime commanded by racist US officers that killed hundreds, and was covered up by the government, while Bateman believes only 35 were killed by disorganized, scared soldiers fighting for their lives who were following ambiguous orders from above regarding refugees.
I recommend people read both books but in my opinion the AP claims would not hold up in a court of law because the amount of reasonable doubt brought up by Bateman’s documented evidence and aerial recon photos of the scene after the tragedy, that went on to expose the number of false witnesses and holes in the story is overwhelming IMO. If Hanley is accusing people of war crimes shouldn’t his article be able to hold up in a court of law? Also I highly recommend reading the official US Army report on the tragedy which is a very fair look at what happened.
With so many holes in the AP article I still find it amazing it won a Pulitzer Prize. It would be like Dr. Hwang winning the Nobel Prize and then keeping it after some of the science he had done was exposed as fraudulent.
Plus like Bateman said Nogun-ri isn’t news. Long before 1999 it was common knowledged to those who have studied the Korean War that refugees were gun down and killed by US, UN, South Korean, North Korean, and Chinese militaries. This was no secret yet Hanley makes it out to be that the killing of refugees during the Korean War was some big governmental cover up. Heck the South Koreans blew up a bridge over the Han River filled with civilians. The photo of that bridge with it’s civilians on it is quite famous. Yet the focus is on the US and the $400 million dollar compensation claim is on the US. Which by the way Hanley neve r mentioned the $400 million dollar compensation claim. Why is that? He relies so heavily on witness testimony but yet fails to address if witnesses in SK could be influenced by a $400 million compensation claim. If they are solely after the truth why are they demanding multi-million dollar compensation claims and why is Hanley not disclosing the complete witness testimony?
Well, I suppose they’ve learned from the “comfort women” that it can mean a big payday to seek the “truth,” or perhaps create it if it cannot be found.
I think the idea that Hanley et al’s story must hold up in a court of law is a little misguided. He is not a state prosecuter. He is a journalist, trying to figure out something that happened 50 years ago. Far from being a pack of lefty political hacks dying for the chance to smear the US Military, AP was extremely nervous about running these stories back in 1999, and made the writers put a lot of work into fact checking and re-checking. Still, they made mistakes, but the Pentagon’s official position, from the US Army’s Inspector General report in 2001, has more than a few problems, too.
I also think GI Korea and some others are not recognizing why this story has legs. It is more than about how many people died at No Gun Ri, but about general US policy about how to treat civilians. Some more recent materials that have come to light that generally help the Hanley position and do not make the United States look so good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00485.html
Regardless, I still think the bulk of the evidence points far more toward “tragedy” than “massacre.” But perhaps it was a tragedy made more likely to happen because of policies we would not support today.
I’m curious, have there been any South Korean movies about the Korean War that covered the whole scope of it and showed the actions of all parties involved? Like some of the Hollywood movies Paul H. mentioned. I’d be interested in seeing those if there are any.