The key message of the article in question is that Korean film culture is complex and heterogeneous, but it has yet to receive — at the time of writing — the attention it deserves from the progressive community of viewers. Conventionally, the entire work can be divided into several parts. In the first of these, immediately following a short introduction, the author discusses the key terms that are used later (Min, 2003).
It is not about terminological conceptualization but more about an attempt to consider general concepts — language, nation, film industry — through the prism of such interpretations that would make sense directly to the current discussion. In the same section, the author describes some of the teachings of the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin and his principle of heteroglossia. In the next part of his article, the author discusses aspects of the cultural life of society and shows that any culture is dynamic and changing, which is manifested in the progress of the film industry.
One of the most important sections for the topic of the entire article was the next section in which Seo’s analysis of theoretical concepts of Korean culture was conducted. The author introduces the reader to three critical terms, Minjoong, Minjok, and Haan, which mean philosophical doctrine, nation, and a kind of human emotional center, respectively. A critical thought in this section is the recognition that Korean cinema has long been focused on Haan; that is, film works have been endowed with features of dramas whose viewing evoked strong feelings in the audience. The following section discusses the philosophy of the study in detail, emphasizing that Korean cinema — indeed, it was about the cinema of any nation — should not be viewed only as a product of culture. While this is true, and cinema reflects the spirit of a particular era, it is also a commodity subject to specific regulations and propaganda.
The phenomenon of national cinema is then discussed through a comparison of this concept with the theoretical framework of Gabriel and Armes: Korean cinema begins to be seen as “Third World Cinema” or “Third Cinema,” since Korea is not a developed country and has long been seen as an afterthought in the Asian geopolitical scene. In other words, Korean national cinema explains the desire of the local population — in particular, those who make and watch films — to demonstrate the independence and identity of the Korean community.
The section on international cinema focuses on the influence of politics on the creation of works. This discusses examples and reforms that have been created by Canadian authorities to manage the film industry effectively. The same and subsequent section explores that the influx of foreign films into domestic distribution in Korea also has political overtones: obviously, projects that do not benefit the state are unlikely to find the loyalty of officials, so this selection of what to watch can be seen as the country’s political-economic filter.
Consequently, by studying the rental film agenda and examining the products of domestic production through the perspectives of the economic, social, spiritual, and political spectrum, it becomes possible to analyze the culture of national cinema and form a theoretical framework for it. Ultimately, this paper sheds light on the uniqueness of Korean cinema and shows that conducting an analysis requires a careful, critical, and, most importantly, multifaceted examination of interrelated factors.
Reference
Min, Ŭ. J., Chu, C. S., Joo, J., & Kwak, H. J. (2003). Korean film: History, resistance, and democratic imagination. Greenwood Publishing Group.