Korea films love to talk about their own unbearable history.
The more unbearable it is, the more often we have to look back.
That's right.
Another "dare to shoot" movie is coming:
"My Uncle" Li Shanjun's posthumous work.
To refocus on the assassination of the president of Korea, the production cost alone is as high as 10.6 billion won.
How can you not watch this battle?
Happy country
Land of Happiness
The background of the story is familiar:
On October 26, 1979, Korea President Park Chung-hee was assassinated by Intelligence Minister Kim Jae-gyu, and shortly thereafter, Chun Doo-hwan staged a coup d'état and became the autocrat of a generation that ruled Korea for eight years.
This major event, which cannot be bypassed in the process of modern democracy in Korea, has been made into a movie several times.
Such as "The Ministers of Namsan" and "Seoul Spring".
The historical facts described in "Happy Country" are between the time gaps of the above two films.
It's the same as the first two films.
The films all present a quasi-political norm in which one dictator falls and another stands up.
The difference is that the first two focus on political figures who affect the whole body.
"Happy Country" focuses on those chess pieces, those little people who are not noticed in historical events.
The creators want to use this to salvage the forgotten little people in the big history.
I want to erect a monument for the dusty little people.
The story focuses on a trial:
Within six hours of the assassination of President Park Chung-hee, all those involved in the case, including the assassination mastermind Kim Young-il and his secretary Park Tae-joo, were arrested.
A trial of whether to characterize a political rebellion or a democratization movement immediately began.
So, this is another courtroom drama that celebrates democracy?
No.
Because the two protagonists of the trial, the defendant Park Tae-joo (played by Lee Sun-kyun) and the lawyer Jung In-ho (played by Cho Jung-suk), did not voluntarily join the turmoil.
Park Tae-joo is a soldier.
In the mindset of a soldier, orders are unquestionable, and he will do whatever his immediate leader tells him to do.
Even if it's aimed at the current president.
And that's exactly what happened.
After his arrest, he rejected Chung's suggestion that the case should be transferred to a general court, choosing to be tried in a military court, and also rejecting Chung's suggestion that he pretend to be stupid, that is, not admit that he knew that it was the president who was going to be killed.
Isn't he afraid?
I'm afraid, too.
There is a scene where Park Tae-joo had a dream in which he dreamed that the leader canceled the assassination operation.
Then he breathed a sigh of relief.
For him.
The so-called democratization of change, or the fighter he became, was not what he wanted.
He just wanted nothing to happen.
Be a good soldier who obeys orders.
So, what about lawyer Zheng Renhou?
He is not a fighter for democracy, and he is even more than a lawyer who likes to take advantage of the loopholes of the law.
I took on this case entirely because of interests.
Originally, even though this was a national sensation, no one was willing to defend Park Tae-joo.
Why?
Or is it because Park Tae-joo is a soldier.
At a time when democratization was gaining momentum, Korea's military was synonymous with "executioners," ruling the country and standing in opposition to the general public.
But Zheng Renhou didn't have much choice.
His father, a benevolent priest, was imprisoned for not only giving to the poor, but also providing refuge for progressive students who were fighting against the government.
In order to save his relatives, he had to take over this defense job.
So what to say.
Different from similar themes we know, the protagonists of "Happy Country" are actually two people who are coerced by politics, and they are not praised by people during their lifetime, and they will not be remembered by people after their deaths.
The film is a biography of the characters in the cracks of history.
But here's the thing.
Did the film do it?
Sorry, no.
Although the film is 124 minutes long, the final effect is still to shoot these little people as tool men.
How so?
For example, Park Tae-joo.
What we see in the end is Park Tae-joo, who cares about life and death, and has almost zero emotional elements, just a state machine without the slightest expression.
Earlier, I talked about fear.
But after Park Tae-joo was imprisoned, the fear of death in his body suddenly disappeared without a trace.
Sir can't even feel what a person is, the most basic nostalgia for life.
And Zheng Renhou.
His change in thinking was when he realized that Park Tae-joo was a civil servant who was honest and honest and his family was almost poor.
But here's the thing.
Lawyer Zheng's compassion is so easy to attack, so how did he see money and open his eyes to profit before?
It inevitably makes people have to put a big question mark.
And similar films, how is it performed in "The Defender"?
Song Kang-ho went from a profit-seeking litigator to a legal hero who raised his arms and shouted for justice, and the foreshadowing can be said to be clear and followable.
He has long been moved by the tolerance of the restaurant proprietress for a long time, and people do not mind his embarrassment of eating the overlord meal many years ago, on the contrary, they fully understand.
So, before the son of the proprietress was detained, Song Kang-ho gradually realized his moral creed of repaying the kindness of dripping water by constantly visiting the small shop.
The character transitions are extremely silky.
So.
Because there are many places like this that are untenable in the play, this makes the narrative of the whole film progress, and it can only move forward top-heavy.
In the same genre, it can only fall behind.
So here's the problem.
In this case, why does Sir have to talk about it?
In fact, it is the powerlessness of people in the political whirlpool.
For many years, we have emphasized the role of human beings, either to turn the tide with courage or to act wisely.
"Happy Country" eliminates people's subjective initiative.
I still remember that Zheng Renhou once said: "In court, no matter whether it is right or wrong, only win or lose." ”
This is his only rule.
So he has been working hard to win the lawsuit.
And believe that people can change the situation.
But is that really the case?
Just look at the two rivalry scenes between Zheng Renhou and Quan Shangdou.
The first took place at the time of the trial.
In the inner hall of the court, Zheng Ren was arrogant and skillfully applied the law, and debated with Quan Shangdou about the principle of "accomplices do not ask".
Yes, at that time he still believed in the law.
It is believed that no matter what time it is, the status of the law is unshakable, and as long as the strategy is appropriate, the parties have a chance to get away with it.
As for Quan Shangdou, he did not reply to these statements.
The second one took place on the pitch.
At that time, Jeon Sang-dou had already launched a coup d'état, and Jung In-ho, who had lost everything, had no arrogance in the court, and knelt down to beg Jeon Sang-dou to let Park Tae-joo go.
Pay attention to the treatment of light and shadow in this scene.
Jeon Sang-dou is in the high place, Zheng Renhou is in the low-level, Jeon Sang-dou is always shrouded in highlights, and Zheng Renhou is swallowed by the darkness.
Even if we can't hear what they say.
As soon as we looked at how the light was cast on each other, we knew that the grasshopper could not shake the tree after all.
Actually, to put it bluntly.
The final judgment has long been written, and the war of words one after another is just a passing scene of mutual probing of the bottom line.
In other words, it is just a good show that the dictator has dedicated to the people.
It's as if Jeon Sang-dou has been listening to the trial process outside the courtroom, and deciding at any time which direction the wind of the trial should blow.
Compared with Quan Shangdou, Zheng Renhou is just a little treacherous, and the other party doesn't need to be old and treacherous, he can play with it in the palm of his hand.
Human life is as humble as an ant in the eyes of a dictator.
So what to say.
It can only be a pity.
After all, all movies should start from people and tell history, and this should be even more so.
Only when we clearly see a person's shortcomings and limitations can we be shocked by the defeat of today's self and yesterday's self, and we will be stunned by his defeat in the dark.
And "Happy Country", precisely this point is not done.
But at the same time.
We do see it trying to go a different way:
It rarely has that slogan-like passion.
Instead, it presents the cold reality that everyone is coerced by politics and doomed to defeat in the confrontation.
And such the original intention.
It should have made us realize that it is the failure of those who seek justice to no avail that will plant an indelible seed in people's hearts.
It's like Korea telling about this coup over and over again.
Or "little people" like Park Tae-joo will also be salvaged from the long river of history.
The power may be insignificant.
But it is better to remember insignificant than to pretend to be happy to forget.
The picture in this article comes from the Internet
Editorial Assistant: Yu Zi Sauce
#我的宝藏头条作者#