ED Profiting from tragic history

Controversies are not always bad for filmmakers. When debate over their work intensifies, public curiosity often grows, prompting people to seek out the film and form their own conclusions. Filmmakers can benefit commercially from such controversies, as viewers flock to theaters.

But increased public attention does not always guarantee a film’s commercial success. The more attention a work receives, the more scrutiny it faces, increasing the chances that its flaws will be exposed.

Award-winning filmmaker Hur Jin-ho’s new movie, “The Assassin(s),” is at the center of such scrutiny. Since its release in time for the Chuseok holiday, the film has been mired in controversy. Hur offers an alternative explanation about the assassination of then-first lady Yuk Young-soo on Aug. 15, 1974. Yuk, the wife of then-President Park Chung-hee and mother of former President Park Geun-hye, was shot dead by Moon Se-gwang, a Korean Japanese man who was alleged to have ties to North Korea, during a ceremony commemorating Korea’s 1945 liberation from Japanese colonial rule.

More than five decades later, the film clears Moon of responsibility for the assassination, suggesting that he was falsely accused and that the killing was the result of a power struggle within the intelligence agency involving a third figure believed to be Park Chung-hee.

Hur has said that viewers should make their own judgment about the tragic history by comparing what actually happened with the dramatization presented in the film.

Movies are movies. In a democracy, filmmakers should be free to use their creativity and imagination to reinterpret historical events and their meanings. As a political thriller, “The Assassin(s)” deserves freedom of expression.

But freedom of expression is not unlimited. Creators who invoke that freedom also have a responsibility not to abuse it. There is a line between creative reinterpretation and historical distortion, and filmmakers should exercise appropriate caution not to cross it.

This movie, however, appears to cross that line. Although based on a historical event, it uses several cinematic devices to blur the distinction between fiction and fact, making its claims appear more compelling. For example, it raises questions about the assassin's execution three days after the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, portraying the timing as unusual. In fact, executing a convicted murderer after the Supreme Court has confirmed a death sentence is not, in itself, unusual.

The movie also follows a plotline similar to that of the 1992-2002 North Korean propaganda film series “Nation and Destiny,” which revolves around the same historical event and has become another source of controversy. In the North Korean film, South Korea’s intelligence agency is depicted as being behind the assassination of the first lady. In a YouTube video, Han Song-yi, a North Korean defector living in Seoul, said that “The Assassin(s)” and “Nation and Destiny” share many parallels. “The two movies are so similar that I felt they were identical twins,” she said.

It remains unknown whether Hur was aware of the North Korean film or was inspired by it. That raises serious questions about the filmmaker’s judgment and ethics. He should respond to them.

Additionally, Hur’s apparent change in position has added to suspicions about his motives.

Facing pressure over accusations of historical distortion and a slowdown in ticket sales, Hur appeared to modify his position. In a media interview, he said there was nothing in his movie suggesting that Park was involved in a plot to kill his wife. He emphasized instead that the film suggests that deadly infighting within the intelligence agency was responsible for the first lady’s assassination.

His remarks contrast with those of Kim Won-kuk, CEO of HIVE Media Corp., before the film’s release. Kim said viewers would understand why the movie’s title uses the plural form “assassin(s)” rather than the singular “assassin.”

Reviews of “The Assassin(s)” have been sharply divided. Critics have accused the film of distorting historical facts and demonizing the late president and his family. A criminal complaint was filed with the police against Hur for defamation. Supporters, however, have praised the movie for attempting to uncover the truth and shed light on an alleged cover-up, albeit decades after the fact.

The coexistence of sharply contrasting views about the same movie is not unusual in a deeply polarized society. But the controversy raises a fundamental question about the filmmaker’s ethics: Did Hur intend to profit from the nation’s tragic history by creating a conspiracy theory? Or does his latest work reflect a failure of creative judgment?

Hur should say whether he deliberately sought to cash in on controversy despite the potentially serious consequences for social cohesion.