The President's Barber & The Butler

  The comparisons have been made between The President's Barber and Forrest Gump, mostly referencing the similarities between two somewhat slow characters who were thrown into historical events without their knowledge as a means of telling a historical narrative from a (somewhat) neutral view point. However, I'd like to make the comparison between the President's Barber and the more recent film The Butler. The Butler was released in 2013, the true story of Cecil Gaines, the African American butler who served in the White House for 30 years under 8 different presidents during difficult times for the black population in the U.S. In the film, Cecil is present in the White House during the period of the Civil Rights Movement, MLK, the Vietnam War, Kennedy's assassination, and other major historical events. This is very similar to Han-mo's story in which he is exposed to political, historical events of the 1960's in South Korea from inside the Blue House while serving as the president's barber.

  In The Butler, Cecil is at one point asked if he is "political" to which he responds "no sir", a safe answer for an African American man in the U.S. at the time. This reminded me of Han-mo's tendency away from politics as he follows the instructions and opinions of his friends, participating in the rigged elections but not really knowing what was going on (in the flash still shots of the poll station in the black out, Han-mo just looks surprised and clueless). Another similarity is that in both films, the protagonists son gets much further involved into the politics of the country than his father, ironic since the fathers are personally serving the presidents. In The Butler, Cecil's son becomes a follower of Malcom X and a member of the Black Panthers, he is a Black activist ashamed of his father's position in the White House. In The President's Barber, although it is less of a pointed decision on the part of Nak-han, he still is thrown into politics in a way that his father never has been as he is captured and tortured by state police who suspect him as a spy. Comparing these two extremely similar films has made me wonder what the purpose of choosing a narrative like this is, choosing to expose history through the eyes of someone right next to it, but not quite involved in it. I think that both films are trying to use the protagonist as a middle ground in-between the state, who they serve, and the opposition, their sons - Cecil's son as a political and social activist and Nak-han as a representation of what happens to "the enemy." The film can then claim to take a neutral stance on the political, historical events, while still revealing the misgivings of the state at the time and not censoring the strong opposition that existed.