Public vs Private

Diffrient (2005) said that in many cases, soldiers are seen as a collective, not as individuals. That concept can be applied to events too in terms of treating the event with detachment as a part of history or with compassion as a part of the lives of peoples. In the movie, Marines that Never Returned, this distinction between public and private affairs is repeatedly brought to our attention.

The war crosses the boundary between being political and historical or personal several times: first when Young Hui and her mother get caught in the crossfire and her mother dies and the little girl’s live crosses into the battlefield inhabited by soldiers who are tools used by political powers; second, when Private Goo’s discovers his sister’s corpse during the first battle; and third, when one of the two new marines brings up the 1950 war, which he is alluding to in a broader historical sense but it irrevocably personal for another marine whose hyung had died in the war. These instances were not supposed to be personal but it does become personal and that seems to be the point. You cannot keep them separate as people are affected – not civilians or populations but people. Human beings. Diffrient also notes how South Korean war movies are more personal, using characters who are families, orphans teachers etc rather than only soldiers, which also brings the events back to a personal level, reminding us of how the normal people suffer too and how intricately their lives are intertwined with an event.

Furthermore, Yi Tae-Jun makes the post liberation turmoil and uncertainty amongst the South Korean public apparent and how this personal aftermath is put aside for political machinations – the USSR, the US and China are all trying to get a political stronghold in the new South Korea and the US army is spreading good offers for Japanese people still in S. Korea though they knew how much anger that sparked amongst the public. The help came with a price, turning from conventional Santa Claus to a darker version (Diffrient, 2005). They offer conditional help, taking what they want in return for the help provided to South Korea. The scene in Lucky Club is a further extension of this while also showing the private emotions, specifically the social divide amongst the saeksis who don’t wish to consort with the Korean marines and the marines who are angered by the preference for ‘foreign goods.’ It feels like a combination of Kim and Hyon’s feelings from Yi’s story. Kim celebrates the soldiers who fought abroad and Hyon wants recognition for those who faced opposition at home, like the marines in the club, and also dealt with the mental struggles e.g. the marines trying to understand the point of the war and the battle they, specifically, are fighting.

The director does not hold back on showing the realities of war and the effect on the marines, painting them from heroic patriots to adventure seekers who provide comedic relief. This real and rough portrayal breaks away from the nationalistic patriotic filters that have been discussed before. This is partially why I hesitate to link it to what Park described as national literature when realism operates in it, “representing the individual lives of the Korean people as they pertained to the institutional problems specific to Korean society” (Park, 2006, 171). I don’t want to link it to the national aspect since from the description of nationalism, this movie wouldn’t be very nationalistic but can’t nationalism be reinterpreted as something that is true to the people who make up the nation?