“A Little Pond,” the movie about No Gun Ri that I thought was finished like four years ago, will be released on April 15.
Just what you were looking for to mark the 60th anniversary of the Korean War.
And yes, your Uncle Marmot has the trailer — Canadian accents and all — for your viewing enjoyment:
Remember, children, as director Lee Sang-woo said in 2006, it’s not anti-American, it’s just anti-war!
The press release calls it a film that “conveys the cruel realities of war, as was seen through the perspective of the minjung, through an actual incident.” Great! I just hope the Yanks are wearing top hats, smoking cigars and clutching bags of money while they mow down little kids. Anything less would be a bitter disappointment.
PS: I guess it’s kind of fitting that “Kill Them All” features so prominently on the poster. After all, it was supposedly said by Edward Daily, who it turned out wasn’t even at No Gun Ri.
UPDATE: I suppose the poster could be referring to a quote by 7th Cav vet Joe Jackman in the BBC. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
UPDATE 2: In the comments, GI Korea writes:
What is so detestable about this movie is that we have known for years that it was coming out and this director intentionally picked the 60th anniversary of the war to release it. During the 50th anniversary of the war veterans from the Korean War were slimed by the lies of the originally AP No Gun Ri story and now 10 years later they are being slimed again by the lies of this No Gun Ri movie.
Well, if it’s any consolation, veterans can at least take comfort in the fact that in large part thanks to their blood and tears, South Korea became a nation wealthy and free enough to allow a film director to take a big cinematic dump on their sacrifices.
UPDATE 3: GI Korea posts on the subject — be absolutely sure to read it. Ironically, he also notes the Korean government is subsidizing travel to Korea this year — the 60th anniversary of the Korean War — for Korean War vets. Maybe they can catch Lee’s film while they’re in town.
BTW, if I might quote myself from a 2006 post on this film:
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.
{ 125 comments… read them below or add one }
In re the Kill Them All movie poster:
Didn’t we see that same poster just a few days ago, under the heading of North Korean propaganda? With friends like South Korea …
Well, this will be interesting. I gave a copy of Bateman’s debunking of the AP story to the director back when work on the movie first commenced. I never heard from him again. I wonder how, if at all, he factored in the facts, as opposed to the AP myths.
Oh man, ROK Drop will not be happy. I’m not American, but this irks me.
Mmm, does it explicitly state that the old gent and lady were at Nogunri when the massacre would have occurred?
Oh, and if he really wanted a movie about war, how about one that would foster a bit of personal introspection in its audience? You know, like one that would make people aware of how Koreans treated one another during the Korean War?
Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc…The aggressors were American because the target audience was American.
Somehow, I don’t think the Bateman account factored very much in Lee Sang-woo’s depiction of events. Besides, it make for much better cinema to depict GIs machine-gunning refugees huddled under a bridge for three days.
The “American soldiers” have Canadian accents? LOL!
I will definitely catch this movie as soon as possible; however, I do wonder whether this film will lead to a few, or more than a few, people protesting at US army bases demanding apologies (while blissfully ignoring former US president Bill Clinton’s statement of regret from 9 years ago, and the establishment of a scholarship fund).
like one that would make people aware of how Koreans treated one another during the Korean War?
To what extent are ROK schoolchildren taught that the ROK military committed atrocities against civilians in occupied DPRK territory as well against its own civilians, these suspected of being communist sympathizers if not outright communists?
And, to what extent do ROK schools teach that years later, ROK troops did to many Vietnamese civilians what US troops did to ROK civilians as per this movie (or what the Korean People’s Army did in the ROK?)?
Pretty much zero, zilch, zippo, nada – except the limited exposure to ROK KW atrocities against civilians in ROK and DPRK territory perpetrated by the teachers’ union during the reign of Suicide Roh – that is the “exposure” that was perpetrated, although might reasonably claim that the teachers’ union version of Korean history generally is something perpetrated.
What is so detestable about this movie is that we have known for years that it was coming out and this director intentionally picked the 60th anniversary of the war to release it. During the 50th anniversary of the war veterans from the Korean War were slimed by the lies of the originally AP No Gun Ri story and now 10 years later they are being slimed again by the lies of this No Gun Ri movie.
If only being locked into a 60-year clusterfuck of economic and military obligations made for a good movie . . .
#9,
All right, although the point I was making is that anti-war movies should challenge their audiences. Based on the trailer, this movie makes no attempt to do so.
I think TaeGuki showed some introspection with regards to attrocities perpetrated by Koreans. And that was a pretty damn popular movie. I think it was the highest grossing Korean movie till The Host, which once again did show Americans in not so great a light.
I learned it at my elementary school. I have my history textbook to prove it.
Did not learn this until later.
I can’t wait till Vietnam comes out with the movie about the ROK army boys skinning folks alive and cutting off testicles. Maybe they can aso use the
catch-phrase “Kill Them All” or “Skin Them All.” We shall see.
I always think it rather disingenous or perhaps simply unfair how critics, usually foreigners, of Korean movies or dramas, lambast depictions of foreigners in those productions as unfair, inaccurate, or unrepresentative, as if entertainment (anywhere in the world) had an obligation to be any of those things.
It does not. Entertainment has only one obligation and that is to be entertaining and in Korea depicting Americans as bad people brings in the crowds just as American movies depicting Russians as bad people did in the 80s. It may not be a classy thing to do, but then again, entertainment doesn’t have to be classy either.
Shame on the western guys who participated in this. I would not want my name mentioned in the credits.
I’m going to agree with justinkraus here, and add, as a rhetorical question, could a Korean movie’s depiction of Yanks really be any worse than the local media’s portrayals of the same?
Will have to see the film to comment on it. However, I remember Dongmakol also had a lot of non-Koreans criticizing for its “anti-American” ness. However, I didn’t really pick up on this, I thought that the American soldier “Smith” was a likeable character, and as for introspection, Dongmakol film had the main South Korean soldier played by 신하균 who was meant to be traumatized for having to blow up the bridge with the civilian refugees still on it.
Canadian accents… hahaha. Sure they couldn’t get a few Aussies and Kiwis in the mix either as extras?
Considering how many atrocities happened in that war, you’d think that they couldn’t produce a movie about North or South Korean atrocities during that war? Oh… well… they did have May 18th.
In a perfectly functional democracy (and all “democratic” governments and societies still have their warts) proper and balanced perspective is important. Hopefully, this movie won’t put undue attention to American “atrocities” during that war, which in the grand scale of things, was pretty mild.
Well… I can guarantee that KJI has another South Korean movie he will add to his collection…
‘I can’t wait till Vietnam comes out with the movie about the ROK army boys skinning folks alive and cutting off testicles. Maybe they can aso use the catch-phrase “Kill Them All” or “Skin Them All.” We shall see. ‘
i’m sure the vietnamese would be more interested in making a film about my lai.
‘ With friends like South Korea …’
you get five thousand of them dead in vietnam. japan do that?
Having read above I am curious as to the extent of the intended distribution of this film. That’s to say, is it an art-house project or is it going to be on the cinematically (at least) scale of “태국기휘날리며” ?
If it’s the former its impact on the local mood is one thing, but if it’s the latter, who knows…
Pretty much zero, zilch, zippo, nada – except the limited exposure to ROK KW atrocities against civilians in ROK and DPRK territory perpetrated by the teachers’ union during the reign of Suicide Roh – that is the “exposure” that was perpetrated, although might reasonably claim that the teachers’ union version of Korean history generally is something perpetrated.
I do wonder why most Korean expatriates and Korean immigrants I’ve come across are so ignorant about this whereas they tend to know quite well what Japan did (which was undeniably cruel and destructive) as well as what America has done in other countries. And then when I tell them, the reactions range from shock to anger to disbelief to accusations of hating my own ancestral nation.
Bateman certainly did not debunk either the No Gun Ri story or Hanley’s reporting of it. What he did expose was that Edward Daily is a liar and, now, a criminal. But I’ve read both books and Hanley’s is by far the better written and the more credible of the two. The real dispute is less what happened that how many people actually died. But there’s no dispute that Korean civilians died at the hands of American soldiers at the bridge outside No Gun Ri.
As for the movie, I’ll wait to comment until it’s released. But these kind of films don’t really concern me. The truth will out. The Korea-U.S. relationship will endure. Korean undergrads will still go to Starbucks. And American expats will still have thin skin in defending the U.S. against all comers.
Meh.
DLB
Excellent perspective DLB.
Well, in defense of Korean filmmakers and to counter the view that Koreans don’t look at their own history, 화려한 휴가 does show the brutality of the ROK Army towards its own in quite a graphic manner.
I think the difference, however, between a production like 화려한 휴가 and a film such as 작은 연못, and any reactions to these films by the public, is that whereas the former occurred under the rule of an autocratic general who was later despised by many and which is seen by many as an extremely unjust incident, the latter pertains to the deaths of locals at the hands of a foreign army whose mission was ostensibly to defend those very locals. Calculate in the victim mentality many Koreans still have today, and it’s a no-brainer that Koreans will feel more strongly about the 노근리사건, since they will identify it as another case of helpless and innocent Koreans getting cornholed by ruthless and cruel outsiders. 전두환 may have had the blood of many Koreans on his hand, but he was one of “us.” That was not and will never be the case for the US Army.
I’m sure most people writing negative comments here about the movie (which is still NOT out by the way), and exerting their critical views on it, on what happened at the time and about Korea in general are far less critical of Hollywood movies that use stereotypes about 99% of the time when depicting things that are not American. For sure Koreans are delighted when watching “M*a*s*h” or Japanese with “memoirs of a Geisha”, and countless others?
As for being thankful for America to come and defend the Korean peninsule, we all know that if both Americans AND Societs had not been there, fighting for power in the Far-East, the Korean War would not have happened. For decency please compare the number of Korean deads and Americans. It numbers millions for one (some figures mention 1.3 million for South Korea and 1.5 million for the North (total 2.8 millions) and less than 40,000 for the American troops (which is still of course dramatic). I think the figures speak for themselves. If someone is not able to understand why, these days, antiamericanism in Korea is quite alive and well, it might have something to do witht the fact that the population was kept under strict control (ie. access to information) until recently and that people have started to realize things that they just couldn’t even fathom in the past, when living under authoritarian regimes (Korean democracy is VERY young).
Let’s say I build a Korean military base in the center of New York, say Manhattan, do you think New Yorkers and the American people will like it or find it normal? But that’s just what there is here at Yongsan, in the very center of Seoul, and most Americans (which I am not, and neither Korean thank you very much sir) probably find it pretty much OK, don’t they? Just because that’s how it’s been for the last 100 years or so (with the occupation of the Japanese army during Japan’s occupation on the same spot).
People will say it’s not the same. Of course it’s not. Not two situations are identical. But just for once, take a step back, put yourself in the shoes of a Korean, and take a hard look at America and Americans, trying not to think you’re the savior of the universe. Of course you will see great things that The US has done here, but you will also see things you don’t really want to look at, because it questions so many things about what it means to be American or even Westerner, taking for granted that the US is a force for good in this world. I’m sure Americans are, I’m not too sure that’s the case of the US government and of its agenda and paranoid attitude towards everything and anything that might challenge American hegemony on the planet.
What I mean is, for those who go in the direction of insulting Korea and Koreans here, I’m sure you can tell yourself the same thing and you will realize it will probably apply to you just as fine (obviously if someone is pissed off at reading this, it definitely applies).
No, I disagree with American Kim. Koreans are much more in tune with the brutality of their own dictatorship, than things like 노근리.
I think it’s less to do with the Korean depiction of such incidents, than the actual loss of innocence of American GIs, which, to me, started with that famous picture of the Vietnamese girl running out naked during the napalm bombing. Prior to that I still think most people Korean and otherwise think of the UN soldiers as our saviours and heros, and majority acted thus.
One of main cast is Moon Sung-Keun, son of Moon Ik-hwan well known dear leader KJI follower, & Moon Sung-Keun is an active leader in lefty cultural action org. (문화연대).
Uhh… no. Aside from few pro-Chun people (who, let’s face it, are fucking assholes who probably got some scraps off Chun’s table), nobody thinks of 전두환 as ‘one of us’. Unless ‘one of us’ actually means ‘KILL THAT MOTHERFUCKER!’
I think it has more to do with what yuna said… American GI used to be this ‘holy crusader’ (… the popular image of a crusader, not the historical rape-everyone-who’s-not-christian-well-maybe-some-christians-as-well crusade deal) in the eyes of the Koreans, and part of the reaction we’re seeing (not just no gun ri, but 2002 accident, etc.) is basically shocks from disillusionment. At least that’s what I think.
So in other words, bumfromKorea and yuna… the ROK public held a view of the US Army as benefactors and allies until a few things changed that perception, such as the 2002 tank accident?
Because I’d be skeptical to think that the various demonstrations of anti-US sentiment which were witnessed in Korea then, with “AMERICANS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE” signs, profanity-laced anti-US songs, a song which denounced General Douglas MacArthur as a genocidal maniac who told his men Seoul had women and children (in an allusion of a wave of rape and murder), the tearing and burning of US flags, and physical assault against US GIs in Korea, including the throwing of stones at US Army bases, didn’t just happen because one days Koreans woke up and realized, “wow, the US Army isn’t a bunch of good guys after all!”
I agree with yuna’s “Koreans are much more in tune with the brutality of their own dictatorship”.
A central theme of the South Korean left, abetted directly and indirectly by the DPRK, has always been claiming that the ROK is not legitimate for a range of reasons: use of Japanese collaborators, close ties to the US, capitalistic, military dictatorship….
While this festered mainly during the darker days of the ROK’s history and when rather little was known about conditions in the DPRK, these sentiments surprisingly persist despite the accurate picture of the DPRK now widely available.
Well, Slim, however mendacious and laughable the products of the Workers’ Party Department of Agitation and Propaganda, it was indeed factually correct that the early officer corps of the ROK military included many one-time members of the Japanese Army. There is indubitably no better example of this than President Park Chung-Hee.
Indeed. Propaganda works best when wrapped around a truth or a half-truth, as we may soon see with this Nogunri film
I don’t think it’s so straightforward as that, it’s a combination of factors.
While it’s not accurate to say that anti-US sentiment never existed prior to the 2002 or even the left-wing government era, it certainly wasn’t much of a factor as most Koreans under the dictators, and after the war took it as part of everyday life. Also because we are so indebted to the Americans as the rich civilized people who came and gave us our freedom (along with Wrigley’s chewing gum). I think the anti-US feelings came more to do with the growing resentment of a presence of military force on a foreign soil, than Koreans waking up and realizing anything, though it might have been sparked by those incidents and the particular political scene at the time.
I don’t think it’s so straightforward as that, it’s a combination of factors. While it’s not accurate to say that anti-US sentiment never existed prior to the 2002 or even the left-wing government era, it certainly wasn’t much of a factor as most Koreans under the dictators, and after the war took it as part of everyday life. Also because we are so indebted to the Americans as the rich civilized people who came and gave us our freedom (along with Wrigley’s chewing gum). I think the anti-US feelings came more to do with the growing resentment of a presence of military force on a foreign soil, than Koreans waking up and realizing anything, though it might have been sparked by those incidents and the particular political scene at the time.
But you mentioned US troops losing their innocence, in Korean eyes I assume. If it began w/ Vietnam, where did it end?
And are you then saying that the anti-US demonstrations of 2002 were simply an explosion of long-simmering anti-Americanism?
Roh administration started filming this movie 8 years ago, a propaganda to create anti american sentiment, unfortunately the movie could not came out during the presidential election. The actors in those films such as moon sung geun is roh’s lap dog, his father leftwing bastard(좌빨), even visited north korea and met kim il sung. Moon sung geun was one of key supporter of Roh and the Uri party. This movie is going to fail badly, since the victory of lee myung bak, i wonder how many theaters would allow this film to be shown. Koreans are no longer sympathizing with North korea anymore, the anti american sentiment is dead for good.
In response to #26 here is how Hanley’s so called “credible” reporting turned out: The AP said they had 6 witnesses that participated and 6 witnessed the events in their original No Gun Ri article. Here is what Hanley’s scorecard is when the witness testimony was fact checked:
1. Patterson: misquoted
2. Kerns: misquoted
3. Tinkler: suspect testimony
4. Hesselman: not there
5. Carroll: says no massacre occurred
6. Daily: not there
7. Flint: not there
8. Louis: not there
9. Steward: misquote
10. Lippincott: says no massacre occurred
11. Huff: heard civilians killed during the war not at NGR
12. George Preece: misquoted
In addition the only three veterans that fully corroborated Hanley’s version of events were later proven not to be there. Some credible reporting for you. Anyway it has long been known what happened at No Gun Ri by people who were actually there.
Left wing Korean nut job…
All the older Koreans are probably saying… “there was a lot of indiscriminate killing done by both sides… this isn’t anything new.”
The communists went after my maternal grandfather and would have killed him if they had found him. He ended up hiding in the woods.
I’m sure the Viets would rather make a film about the events below and Korean merc’s brutality in Vietnam and the crimes they commited in general. This is for everyone including those gyopo draft dodgers that deserve such a title. Makes what the US did in the RVN look like a picnic. Unlike the bs about Americans in the NGR movie, the following is NOT fiction.
Here ya go…
It is frequently insisted that the Vietnamese War was a war without a front. The Viet Cong were everywhere and nowhere. Some villages were under the control of Viet Cong during night time, but were under the governmental control during daytime. This strongly predicted a sort of massacre of civilians. The Korean headquarters openly claimed that fish without water must die, therefore, kill, burn, and destroy clearly. This means that the soldiers’ guns were aimed at civilians too.
The Vietnamese government claims that the number of civilians butchered by the Korean army is around 5,000. But this represents only the numbers surveyed in the 1980s. There were about 80 massacres of civilians in the five southern provinces where the Korean army had stayed. Thus, it is strongly estimated that the number is not 5,000 but around 9,000. This number is only the result of investigations of massacres, so the number is likely to increase as the investigation progresses.
http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/10676
There’s a lot more out there. Do a search and see how Koreans really behaved in the RVN. I’m sure most people wouldn’t be surprised, except maybe Koreans. Just look at the way the majority of Koreans allow biracial Koreans to be treated, that’ll tell you everything.
And yes Koreans, I know all about the history of American barbarism. Of course, they never apply that label to Koreans who are American.
There were anti-US sentiments long, long before ’02. Sometimes before and after ’02, I’d pretend to be Canadian just to hear what Koreans had to say, most times it was anti-US bs. Seriously, sometime when you’re out and about, just tell them you’re Canadian and then start spouting off anti-US bs, most Koreans will join in with you. If they do join in, mention how you don’t like Korean-Americans and see what happens. 95% of the time they disagreed with me, but not when it came to “white” or “black” Americans. It’s quite entertaining.
Americans: Stop taking crap from these people and others like them. Start fighting back and stop putting up with their bullshit. Don’t turn the other cheek anymore.
Stop looking at “Korea” or “ROK public” as a monolith, because that’s completely unrealistic for any society, much less a society of 45 million people. Like any society, Korea has many different layers.
Throughout Korean history since the division, there has been some element of anti-Americanism. The proper question is at what point did not anti-Americanism began to claim a legitimate, considerable chunk of Korean society.
And the answer to that question is — as yuna and bum pointed out — 2002. It coincides with the rise of the nationalist progressives (born in late 1960s – early 1970s) who are younger and have a more jaded view of American influence in Korea. That jaded view is very much colored by the fact that their parents practically worshiped Americans as angels who walk amongst men. That did not match up with the reality they were seeing, including Vietnam War.
Armored car incident in 2002 served as the fuse that lit the powder keg. (Which is why I deplore USFK’s bumbling response so badly.) It became the emotional core that enabled anti-Americanism to be a significant force in Korean politics.
And that’s where we are now. We have an older generation who still consider Americans as angels amongst men. We have a younger (in their 40s) generation who have a more divided view of Americans. (Because they are pretty evenly divided between pro- and anti-American sentiment.) And we have even younger generation who is forming their opinion about America right now. It is up to America to win them over.
I usually don’t understand JohnT’s rants. At least GBever’s was coherent (but a little dry).
Good Point, the Korean, as everybody knows there were Anti-American movement during 70′s, 80′s but the progressive or lefty org. and college students didn’t able to get much wide public supports during the era as the general public was more focused on economy or “잘 살아보세” and the public well believed the Gov’s right-wing propaganda.
The public’s perception had started to change in 90’s with the KTU (Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union, 전교조) and other civic groups ,like the cultural action org. (문화연대), well prepared long-term “brain wash” strategies on Anti-Americanism from the elementary schools to the large plants. Obviously, their strategy got the Victory by 2002 US Army Tank incident and they ruled the Korean public with the “Beef” issue.
As in the Mad Cow meltdown, the mainstream Korean media played a huge role in fanning the flames of 2002 — reporting for example that the vehicle’s drivers were seen laughing at the scene of the carnage and then repeatedly telling the nation that the US refused to apologize (or that the apologies were, you guessed it, “not sincere”) even after we were on about our 10th official US apology from command level on up. Also, critical and easily looked up information on the SOFA (at that time just revised by both countries) was omitted from the reports or distorted for added emotional impact. One didn’t have to be an American or a fan of the USFK to think the Americans were getting shafted on that one. Candlelit vigils got a distinctly bad name that November 8 years ago.
There’s a PhD dissertation to be written about that episode of minjung manipulation, which took place suspiciously close to the 2002 presidential election. When North Korea collapses, if there is anything like the USSR archives that survives, it will be fascinating to see whether and (most likely) how much the DPRK or their front groups were involved in that.
JohnT, you do realize that you’re quoting from an Korean extreme leftist organization, People’s Party, right? It’s the same party that accuses of Americans of atrocities in Korea.
There’s no proof that Koreans were any more murderous toward civilians than say the South Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, or the Americans.
There have been many Korean movies that depict Korean on Korean atrocities during Korean War and Gwangju 1980. So the charges that this is strictly anti American movie without anyone seeing the movie yet, is jumping to conclusions.
As an American born in the mid-60s, I have only the faintest memories of any awareness that the war was going on, so I doubt the Vietnam War would have jaded Korean children and young teenagers. I have long agreed with Yuna’s observation that
If Canada, for example, were to build and occupy a large military base in Arlington, right across the Potomac from DC, I don’t think visible foreign military presence in the area around our nation’s capital would sit well with Americans, even though Canada is a friendly neighbor and even if Canada’s military support was viewed as needed by our government. The party not in the White House would definitely exploit the issue to weaken popular support for the president and his party. A long-term foreign military presence is at best a necessary evil.
I don’t think there are many Koreans who are pro-US with a mostly positive view of our country and its relations with Korea. The Koreans you consider as pro-US I would describe as having mixed views with no strong overall positive or negative leaning. I do not think America needs to win over younger Koreans or anybody else. I think we need to mind ourselves and our national interests and not worry about whether other countries like us or not.
Other than the one restaurant that put that particular sign made famous by the media, were there any other businesses that actually put up similar signs?
The composition of the movie poster bears a few similarities to one of the Nork propaganda posters blogged about recently:
1. Crying child in the foreground
2. Dead bodies in the background
3. 2 US soldiers albeit their images are blurred in the movie poster
There are some well known actors in that trailer, including 송강호. Methinks Kimchiwood has an axe to grind ever since this:
http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?mot120
Isolationism got us into WWII… maybe it will get us into WWIII.
Sorry, wrong link:
http://www.korea-is-one.org/spip.php?article2336
Sonagi,
That statement reminds me of a scene from the movie “Charile Wilson’s War.” You know the part where after the withdraw of the Soviet Union Congress acted too quickly to end all funding sent to Afghanistan. Charlie Wilson suggested that the Congressional committee approve $4M to build schools so that the next generation would not forget America’s role to oust the Soviets. He was flatly denied by fellow Congressmen who thougth that the “mission” was accomplished. At the end, America did not participate in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Pakistani intelligence filled in the vacuum by helping to insert the Taliban. The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda safe haven to train and raise funds and the rest is history from there.
America is too big, too rich, too dependent on resources from outside its borders (oil from the Middle East, rare metals from Africa, capital and cheap goods from Asia) to be isolationist. Independence is nice and it’s sometimes more comfortable to stick your head in the sand, but that has a cost. I’d rather solve small problems while they are small than big problems when they cost a mountain of resources. America goes through bouts of islolationism because it becomes intellectually lazy. I don’t think we can afford to be in this day and age.
Isolationism is in conflict with our national interests.
Nogunri was certainly a sad event, even if (though?) it was not a deliberate, simple-minded massacre that this movie seems to be.
Am I the only one eager to read Brian Myers analysis of this movie? As he likes to say “The childlike Koreans can never be guilty”. Reading about Nogunri through a NK propaganda perspective should be very enlightening.
Sonagi,
I respect you but that last statement:
Is difficult for me to take. Democracies in powerful countries must weigh what other countries (or a concensus of countries) think of them otherwise it can complicate their international dealings and security. The biggest leason for America is the leason that Athens of Greece can give us with their Delian League. It’s an almost perfect analogy with what’s going on today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League
Athens was the most powerful state in Greece in the 5th century B.C., but it was also a (relatively) democratic state (with only “eligible” land holding males who could vote). Despite being a democracy and supposedly more socially advanced, it leveraged it’s alliances for mostly its own short term gain and listened less and less to the concerns of its allies. Athens too started to not care about how other states perceived it and alienated most of the other Greek city states. When Athens lost most of her army it the disasterous Syracusan expedition, no other Greek city state rallied to her cause or offered her help as the major powers in Greek declared war against her.
Most historical examples are not perfect fits with present day scenarios but the key leason here is that democracies, no matter how powerful they seem to think they are, should not act arrogantly or inconsiderately to their allies.
Arguably, Vietnam War was a more salient event Korean people’s mind. It replicated Korea’s own war a mere generation ago, and was used extensively as a propaganda tool for the dictatorship.
But I also agree with Yuna’s analysis as well. That is also correct.
Try speaking with anyone over 60.
Winning over the hearts of minds of the world is our national interests.
My dad who’s a mere 53 years of age and who immigrated about 20 years ago thinks America is far superior to Korea. Goodness, in every email he sends me about political goings on in korea, he bemoans how shitty and unfortunate things are over there compared to America.
I think there is a danger in over-simplifying international relationships. Countries do not have “friends,” they have interests. When their interests are congruent, they are allies. When they are not congruent, they are not allies. There is something annoyingly child-like (there’s that meme again) in the way Koreans see the US, as if the US were an actual person whose character could be judged as such: “Gee, they guarantee our security in a world where none of our neighbors seem to like us very much . . . but look! They were involved in a traffic accident! Throw them all out!” This is not the way educated people play the game (and yes, plenty of Americans do the same thing).
But on the whole, America’s goals, both 60 years ago and today, are very much in Korea’s interests: we maintain a troop presence to deter the undemocratic, highly militarized powers in this region (China, N. Korea, Russia) from encroaching on the democratic powers in the region (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan), our “allies.” There are obvious benefits to both the US, and to the US allies. The US is not doing this because they’re nice guys. But likewise, if Koreans believe that the only reason to allow US troops on Korean soil is because they’ve had some kind of national man-crush on America that they’re just now getting over, they’re in very serious trouble.
Your dad probably remembers being sustained by aid wheat from America just after the inept Syngman Rhee years. My parents remember that.
That’s the only sign I remember actually being posted, but I was refused service by several establishments around then. I would have argued at the time that I’m not American, but why give them the chance to hock the lung butter into my (an “American’s”) food?
Granfalloon,
I think many expats in Korea overemphasize the anti-American elements in Korea and underemphasize the pro-American elements. We currently have a pro-American adminstration in the Blue House but about 10 years beforehand it’s been anti or at least ambivalent adminstrations. I don’t know if the 2MB adminstration will spawn increasing pro-American sentiment in the future. With an expanding China perhaps America isn’t doing enough to countermand or balance out the equation? Who are America’s allies in Asia any ways? India? Not really. Japan? Yes, but not a great one lately. Korea? Yes, and lately an even better one than in the recent past.
The problem with just cutting things off and pissing people off is that you don’t follow the principle of hedging your bets. We don’t know what the future will bring. If it took you decades to build a relationship, it can only take a few years to ruin it. A severed relationship is much harder to leverage than an active one. Keep allies on the Asian mainland in a rapidly changing world. It’s just the simple principle of hedging your bets.
It helps to read comments like #29:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/03/19/no-gun-ri-movie-finally-comes-out/#comment-366249
Not necessarily because the arguments advanced are good ones, but it does give you some insight into the mindset that leads to films like this getting made.
It’s up to a lot more than America, my friend. And America’s competing against parties with a lot more direct access to young minds.
Credible?
As GI Korea notes, ALL the purported GI eye-witness testimony adduced by Hanley was – as demonstrated by Bateman – fraudulent. So much for your reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities. What university and law school did you attend? I’d like to make sure my children don’t end up there.
Nonsense. As you say, there is no dispute that some – probably a relatively small number of – civilians were killed by American fire there. But the issue IS precisely one of responsibility and culpability and how that is used for political purposes. Hanley’s thesis was that the incident was one of premeditated, indiscriminate and wanton killing directly ordered by superior officers without any conceivable, let alone reasonable, justification. From that perspective, it really doesn’t matter if the victims were many or few – which is precisely why this film was made: to promote and exploit the symbolic depiction of US involvement in the Korean War as an unmitigated crime. One needn’t be thin-skinned to object, just allergic to bullshit.
Well-said, Mr. Koehler at #64.
Just to repeat what I quoted in my post (from an earlier post):
#17,
I was also going to suggest this movie is similar in that respect to the 80′s Hollywood action movies you mention…But, in those movies the protagonist (usually an American veteran) is responsible for the massive body county. Except for the facts the story doesn’t take place at a summer camp, the victims are not American high school students, and the killer isn’t escaped mental patient, this movie is more akin to an 80′s slasher movie.
…based on the trailer, of course. I hope the movie is better than the trailer.
Yes, that’s a stipulative tautaology. What amazing powers of reason you possess!.. Of course, your powers of discernment fail to see what even Bruce Cumings could: that without the US and the Russians, there still would have been a civil war of massive proportions – one that the North much more than likely would have won in relatively short order before proceeding to exterminate a large % of the population under the auspices of ideological cleansing.
“America is too big, too rich, too dependent on resources from outside its borders (oil from the Middle East, rare metals from Africa, capital and cheap goods from Asia)”
Actually, it’s oil and rare metals from Canada. I guess Canada isn’t scary enough in the eyes of those who try to plug protectionism to American voters.
All the more reason to make it the 51st goddamn state!
#72,
Real cute. I’ve never heard that one before. Fact is, you’re economy is so dependent on our natural resources, you’d be bankrupt before the war was over.
Not trying to bash Americans, because it is undeniable that South Korea owes much to American efforts in the Korean War…but…it kind of was their fault in the first place. To be honest, they were just cleaning up the mess they started. Yalta Conference anyone?
I’ve never heard that either…
Any ways, in the spirit of this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z76T6u80-1I
Actually, without the US and the Russians, we’d be having this conversation in Japanese. But same difference, really.
And another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_hv0INlw84&NR=1
Well, there’s THAT too, but I wouldn’t give the Russians any credit for defeating Imperial Japan; The Japanese armies in NE Asia would have been withdrawn after the atomic bombings even without Russian intervention; and the US wouldn’t have permitted the Japanese to retain any authority in Korea (or anywhere else in NE Asia).
Let me be the second person to bring B R Myers into this conversation (good point, Mxlplyx):
In his latest book (“The Cleanest Race”) on pp 31-33 Myers explains that North Korea used Japanese collaborators just as the south did. Some quotes:
Unfortunately, there is something to this.
Shooting Park Wang-ja in the back did not help North Korea’s image in the minds of South Koreans either. It will take more than defamation from a poor movie to sway Koreans; they are too savvy to media manipulation, as it is.
Let’s not get carried away. The only thing that happened at Yalta pertaining to the Pacific Theatre was Stalin’s agreement to enter the Pacific War within 3? months of the defeat of Germany – something that Stalin no doubt intended to do anyway. Trying to pin responsibility on the US ofr the Korean War as having eventuated from its efforts to secure such an agreement from Stalin is like blaming the guy who asked you to go to the store to buy a six pack for your being robbed by the perp who just escaped from the neighboring jail while you were there. Get real.
A mess the US started? Doesn’t Russia get any credit for its machinations or are all acts by players on the Korean peninsula the fault of the US?
I’m not blaming the Korean War on Yalta. I’m just saying asking the Soviets to join in turned out to be a bad idea. Sure, they might have done it anyway, but at least we could have let them do it without giving them our seal of approval.
20/20 hindsight
Once again, let me reiterate that I’m not trying to paint America as the villain. As a Korean-American I am proud of my country. Doesn’t mean it’s not without its faults. A lot of the messes its gotten into abroad didn’t happen magically. We created a lot of these situations for ourselves and it is down right arrogant to expect another country to praise us profusely for taking care of a problem we had a hand in creating. I see a lot of comments here trying to shut down other people by simply saying that Koreans should be thanking America more for what we sacrificed. To a degree, that is true – but it is immature to think that Koreans should form opinions based on what Americans think is “grateful enough”. Also, can anyone show me proof that the Soviets would have entered the Pacific had FDR not asked?
icopter: good question, that last one. It is probably hard to prove, absent actual invasion plans, but I think that Stalin had his eyes on Sakhalin and the Kurile islands anyway. And we know that Russia has long been interested in influence in Korea.
With apologies to Sonagi et al., Wikipedia does give a hint of this:
Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up their invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly defended island of Hokkaidō by the end of August, which would have put pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November. On August 15, the Japanese agreed to surrender, rendering the whole question of invasion moot.[39](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)
Oh and there is also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_(1945)#Background_and_buildup which gives more evidence of a probably invasion even without Teheran and Yalta.
And I think you make a good point above too, icopter. there are really a number of issues here in this thread:
1) the credibility of witnesses to the Nogunri incident
2) the credibility of the story in this film
3) the political angle of this film and the points that it is trying to make
4) the broader issue of US-Korea relations
5) the principle of national interest as a motivator in foreign intervention
6) how grateful Korean people are/should be to the USA (and her allies).
There’s emotion in all of the issues, especially 3, 4 and 6, so it is no wonder people try to shoot each other down.
Spot the difference:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lxap4y0S1as/StadxC06G3I/AAAAAAAAFS4/fOcPEhjg1xw/s1600-h/0+NK+ROK+comparison.jpg
That’s an easy one — the 미제야수 are carrying submachine guns in the first one, but M1 Garands in the second!
You do? Which comments are those? I just scanned the thread, and the debate is largely on topic, discussing the accuracy of Hanley’s book and the positive versus negative depictions of US participation in the Korean War and sometimes going off onto tangents about ROK and DPRK military atrocities in the Koreas and Vietnam, US-Korea relations, and changes in Korean attitudes towards the US. I did not read every comment word for word, but in scanning, I did not see a single remark that Koreans should be more thankful.
Sperwer, Sonagi, and Hamel are correct.
Robert and Icopter are wrong.
Of course the USSR had territorial designs in its Far East. Had it not been for the A-bomb, and had the invasion of the Home Islands been necessary, Korea would’ve ended up firmly within the Communist bloc, and the world would’ve seen a (Soviet) North and (U.S.) South Japan.
The only interesting questions are what would’ve happened after that, and what this part of the world would look like today.
I’m not a fan of MacArthur — quite the opposite — but one of the good things he did (besides Incheon) was firmly reject a Soviet demand that they be allowed to administer the northern half of Japan after VJ Day.
Oh yeah, and P.S.
The only responsibility the U.S. bears for starting the Korean War lies in the infamous State Dept. briefing months earlier where Korea was NOT included with the line of U.S. interests as drawn (literally) on a map.
Oops.
The U.S. gave every indication it would not go to war over Korea; and needless to say had it been put to a vote, the American people wouldn’t have chosen to do so. As has been discussed previously on the blog, the decision to oppose the North’s invasion was made spontaneously when the precarious position into which U.S.-occupied Japan would have been placed by a Communist Red Korea was suddenly realized by MacArthur and his superiors.
And while no one else has said it, I’ll say it: Koreans (or at least those below the age of about 65) are obscenely ungrateful.
I agree that it is hardly a task for America alone. But America must do its part, given we know that America is indeed competing against parties that are better positioned than her.
Okay, TK, I’ll bite. What specifically do you think each country should do to improve relations with the other?
Sonagi asks: “What specifically do you think each country should do to improve relations with the other?”
Oh, I know! How about preventing pedantry from individuals like Sonagi.
Do not get too excited. Koreans have changed ever since LMB became the president.
As I have predicted prior to Lee’s presidency, the national mood has shifted drastically and at this point of time it is over-whelmingly pro-American.
There was no mention of this movie in any of the major newspapers.
I wouldn’t get too carried away about Yalta either … if I had to assign blame for the Korean War, my hit list would go in this order:
1. Workers’ Party of Korea. (originally the The Korean Communist Party KCP)
It goes without saying that without these guys, there would have been no divided Korea, no war, no soviets, no PLA, etc etc.
2. Stalin.
For a few reasons: a) he nurtured and then installed Kim Il Sung (though in fairness, another cadre may have proved as bad or worse), and he bankrolled the Worker’s Party. Later he would supply the Norks with weapons, pilots and training.
But even worse than all this, he created the monster of Mao Tse Tung.
3. Mao.
A lot of people don’t realize this, but it was Kim Il Sung who went cap in hand to Stalin to plead his case for starting the Korean War (another reason why the Koreans occupy rank 1). Stalin got cold feet, so Kim went to Mao, who was much more helpful. Mao saw the war as an opportunity on a number of fronts. He hoped that a wider conflict would encourage the soviets to give him the miltary technology he had been craving for so long. And he saw it as an opportunity to kill his own Chinese nationalist troops (whom he hated for previously opposing him), and US troops.
After the war turned against the North Koreans, Kim Il Sung wanted to talk peace — it was Mao who opposed the peace talks. That’s why they dragged out for so long, and why so many Koreans and Americans died needlessly — Mao wanted to kill as many Americans and Chinese as possible (he never balked at butchering his own people), and he is on the record as having stated this explicitly.
4. The US.
A distant 4th. The Yalta Conference, Taft-Katsura, the installation of hated Japanese police and administrators in “liberated” South Korea (compared to the soviet management of the north, which was much more effective), general mismanagement of the south prior to the outbreak of the war — each one of these on their own are no significant, but combined amounted to abetting and inflaming the Korean far-left.
Of course, Koreans shouldn’t forget that without the US, as Robert noted, Korea may never have escaped Japanese rule. And notwithstanding some bad decisions leading up to the conflict, the US redeemed itself by sacrificing 40,000 soldiers and an untold amount of cash to the ROK during and after the war.
At the end of the day I don’t think Korea has ever had a better friend than the US. It’s a shame so many people in the ROK choose to ignore the top 3 bad guys (Norks, Stalin, Mao), whilst attacking the states. I’m not even American and it annoys me.
no war, no soviets, no PLA, in Korea…
Don’t forget Japan.
Had Japan not started (and then lost) WWII in Asia, the Americans and Russians would not have needed to enter southern and northern Korea in order to disarm the Japanese forces in that country after V-J Day.
The Soviets promptly set up a communist regime in the north, and the U.S. had little choice but to set up an independent state in the south. Call me jingo, but that’s the history I learned.
Stalin did not “create” Mao. Kim Il-Sung, yes. Mao, no.
I blame God!
I haven’t seen No Gun Ri yet obviously but I have seen Taegukki and Dongmakgol. Complaints of anti-Americanism, whether real or imagined, in these movies miss the point.
I fail to see why a Korean-made historical war film is expected to be “America-friendly”. Is a Korean film maker, especially one of a younger generation, supposed to tell the story from America’s point of view or from the Korean people’s point of view? These movies attempt to portray the war from the ground level view of ordinary common Korean people…brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, friends, neighbors, etc who were caught up in uncontrollable tragic forces.
I personally believe that all wars fought by America after WW2 are deeply controversial. Before and including WW2, America’s wars were fought with the moral high ground intact. After that, America regularly got her ass kicked by shit-hole Third World countries, Vietnam being the supreme example. Korea was the turning point.
BTW, “Kill them all” is a truncated version of the famous line “Kill them all and let God sort em out”.
@Charles Tilly # 95
Hear, hear! That kind of passive aggressive, quasi-Socratic pedantry gets old pretty quickly.
Anyone that wants to know what the USA thinks it should be doing to improve relations with its ally SK needs only to look at the blog by current Ambassador Kathleen Stephens (or her schedule or even her biography, for that matter), or the US embassy website, or the Good Friends program run by USFK, or the other activities by the PAO, or annual news stories like this.
No, I don’t suppose you would.
Yeah, OK.
Yeah, OK.
You were attempting a bit of satire here, right?
“Isolationism got us into WWII… maybe it will get us into WWIII.”
Strange, I understood that Japan attacked because of US indirect interventionist policies constraining resources, not because they left well alone?
(Sarcasm on.)
Fellow Americans like NetKim and Pawi make me so proud.
(Sarcasm off.)
Boo hoo, the Koreans are angry with the Americans. Who are they NOT angry at? It’s been that way a lot longer than 2002. And the main gripe wasn’t US troops, it was about US pressure to open the Korean market. It’s all about the economy.
Simplemindedly the Koreans often spoke of the relationship as older/younger brother. The American older brother is supposed protect and nurture the Korean little brother – typical Korean sibling behavior. Back in the day you’d seen quotes from SK gov’t officials and academics stating so – ah the platitudes. The thing they forgot is that the younger brother is supposed to obey his elder brother.
Love the stupid analogy of foreign troops on the Potomac or in Central Park, NYC. Firstly, the Koreans wanted them there. The US ain’t occupying anything; they were invited. Secondly, when Carter proposed withdrawing the Koreans went bonkers. Lastly, the US repeatedly agreed (for about 2 decades now) to leave Yongsan when the Koreans pay the relocation costs. Agreements were made. And then the Koreans would flub it.
Anyway, where’s the movie playing?
One thing I miss about Korean movies is dried squid. Love the stuff. Being a rather charming lad I chat up the air hostesses and get all kinds of freebies. I always bring a tube of inflight gochojang because the theaters don’t have it. And a couple of beers.
WeikuBoy,
If you get the chance, read The Unknown Story by — it’s widely regarded as one of the best biographies on Mao. One of the central tenets of the book is how much Stalin nurtured Mao — from as early as 1928. There are literally dozens of instances where Mao came close to being outmaneuvered, purged, assassinated or demoted on his rise to power, but was saved by Stalin. In Stalin’s eyes Mao was a winner – ruthless, shrewd, brutal. The CCP knew that they were finished without the patronage of Moscow, so they almost always deferred to Stalin’s wishes, which meant kowtowing to Mao. It was only later, when he had come into his full power, and when he began to compete with the USSR for leaderships of the world socialist community, that Mao turned against Moscow.
Without Stalin’s help, there there probably wouldn’t have been a CCP, and Mao certainly wouldn’t have risen to power.
I agree re Japan.
NetKim,
Because Korean history is America-friendly?
Pretty simple, really.
One wonders if the number of westerners complaining about or actually going out and protesting this film will top the number who did the same in Korea over Korea’s depiction in that 2002 James Bond movie.
Halle Berry in an updated version of Ursula Andress’ bikini more than made up for any plot elements or scenes offensive to Koreans.
Sonagi, I thought you were a woman. Are you gay?
Hmm….years back we had an imposter who pretended to be a gay Republican. Sonagi, are you real?
No, I am not gay or lesbian, and yes, I am a real person whose real name is known to Robert and a few other K-bloggers and commenters. One need not be homosexual to acknowledge the attractiveness of a member of the same sex. A heterosexual male looks at Halle and thinks, “I want to have sex with her” while a heterosexual female thinks, “I want to look as good as her.” Sadly, I’m no Halle Berry, and if I emerged out of the water in an orange bikini, fellow swimmers would evacuate faster than if a shark’s fin appeared on the horizon.
I tend to agree with you, but hoo boy, minorities in the U.S. complaining about “underrepresentation” and “unfair depiction” in Hollywood is a frickin’ cottage industry. And just try telling one of them that “it’s only entertainment”! You wouldn’t believe the pseudo-academic b.s. they’ll throw at ya to try and show otherwise.
Funny you think that, because, au contraire, it’s ill-advised military adventurism that is drawing us into WWIII.
Man, these Americans whining about “biased, inaccurate media portrayals” is always hilarious to read.
The same ones who didn’t give a rat’s ass about the same inaccuracies that have been happening in Hollywood for how long?
If an American ever complains about this stuff to me in person, I’d pimp slap him on the side of his head.
American conflicts prior to WWII were definitely not exclusively moral. Media reporting during the Spanish-American War was steeped in yellow journalism, and the goal was colonial expansion, not “emancipation” for oppressed Spanish colonies. Even the Union’s cause during the Civil War was not so righteous. The Emancipation Proclamation was not declared until over a year after the war started (up to this point, the only goal was to bring the South back into the Union, not end slavery), and it was declared because it was politically convenient: the Union now had the support of the Brits and French, and these two countries would not intervene for the C.S.A. And most importantly, the most damning evidence that the Union was not on a moral high ground was the fact that slaves in Union-controlled border states were not freed by the E.P. (slavery was not entirely abolished in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment was passed after the war ended).
Incidents such as the real No Gun Ri (whatever it is) and My Lai are present in every war that is fought, so I try to refrain from positive extremes such as “moral” when speaking of armed conflicts. Even a noble cause such as the Union during the American Civil War isn’t without controversy.
Arghaeri@105
” “Isolationism got us into WWII… maybe it will get us into WWIII.”
Strange, I understood that Japan attacked because of US indirect interventionist policies constraining resources, not because they left well alone?”
Thanks for bringing that point of view out. I don’t remember much discussion about the U.S. “goading” Japan into war prior to the 1960′s when Vietnam made people question a whole raft of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
What little debate the issue of US meddling in pre-Pearl Harbor East Asia did get then was key because the Greatest Generation was still very much around. It would get as much traction as folks who believe GWB blew up the World Trade Center get now.
Vietnam was worthy enough to protest in it’s own right.
“was key” should have been “was low key”
Not trying to bash Americans, because it is undeniable that South Korea owes much to American efforts in the Korean War…but…it kind of was their fault in the first place. To be honest, they were just cleaning up the mess they started. Yalta Conference anyone?
You DO realize that the United States could not have prevented the Soviet 25th Army from rampaging from the Amrok and Tumen Rivers all the way to Kwangju and Pusan, do you not?
And finally you DO realize that Korea’s postwar future was spoken about in Cairo rather than at Yalta?
You also DO realize that the southern half of the peninsula fell under US occupation/jurisdiction because the Soviet Union AGREED to the 38th Parallel partition, do you not?
The only responsibility the U.S. bears for starting the Korean War lies in the infamous State Dept. briefing months earlier where Korea was NOT included with the line of U.S. interests as drawn (literally) on a map.
I can agree with this.
And while no one else has said it, I’ll say it: Koreans (or at least those below the age of about 65) are obscenely ungrateful.
My parents are old enough to remember seeing the Korean People’s Army marching down the streets and they are ferociously anti-communist to this day. It disgusts them whenever anti-US protests appear in Korean news (whenever that is) and a common comment of theirs is, “they have no idea what it was like back then. Spoiled brats.”
I fail to see why a Korean-made historical war film is expected to be “America-friendly”. Is a Korean film maker, especially one of a younger generation, supposed to tell the story from America’s point of view or from the Korean people’s point of view? These movies attempt to portray the war from the ground level view of ordinary common Korean people…brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, friends, neighbors, etc who were caught up in uncontrollable tragic forces.
His point of view led him to postpone the release of this movie to coincide with 2010, the 60th anniversary of the start of the war, at a time there would be commemorations and observations remembering the fallen and honoring the surviving veterans of both the ROK military and the US/UN forces.
I’m not opposed to a movie showing the POV of what Koreans then endured – but this movie simply rubs me the wrong way, personally speaking. The poster, as another said, is a dead-on match of a DPRK propaganda poster.
I for one look forward to a movie that depicts ROKMC and ROKA atrocities against South Vietnamese civilians if it ever comes out.
Now I understand why the French detest American hubris and this is with the fact that France saved America’s ass during the Revolutionary War despite whatever happened during WWII.
When is that Japanese-girl-in-a-Korean-bamboo-grove movie gonna be made?
NK is channeling Thomas Jefferson. To quote TJ:
France is where it’s at, man. Fucking George Washington.”
CLEARLY, the director collaborated with Oliver Stone…As for the Canadian accent, I am impressed you can pick that out of a 2 second clip. Not Midwest, not nasal enough…but how do you discern the difference between Bellingham, Washington, North Montana, Idaho, Grand Forks, North Dakota, and a “Canadian”? Is that Newfie? Ontario? Saskatchewan? BC? Nunavit? That’s an amazing ear you have…
That your you know the name of the actor and IMDB’d his ass…
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 3 trackbacks }