Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War

The movie Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War is recognized as being one of the most successful Korean blockbuster having gained international fame. The movie has evoked large fame in the Korean society because it clearly represents the current Korean sentiments towards the Korean War.

According to Gi-Wook Shin, the "strong sense of unity and national pride displayed by Koreans arises in part from an identity based on a common bloodline and shared ancestry." This is suggested to be the reason why Koreans feel strong attachments to Korean descendants living in foreign countries. And this is seen as a bond between the two Koreas. Even though tension and conflict between the two Koreas are prevailing, our blood-based notion of nation still keeps the North and South Koreans united.

However, in the movie Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War, many atrocities are shown where brothers would fight against each other because of different political ideologies. Villages slaughtered by the same Koreans seems to suggest that maybe the strong Korean ethnic nationalism is not that powerful after all. The mere difference in political ideologies have lead the Koreans to kill each other, even within one family line.

Yet, the movie focuses on the brotherhood of Jin-Tae and Jin-Seok, who are united in the ending of the movie. Even though Jin-Tae later becomes a North Korean mad-man, Jin-Seok and Jin-Tae promises to meet again. Jin-Seok searches for his brother for his entire life. This shifts the focus on the importance of family above nations or ideologies.

North VS South

My grandma still tells me stories about how my grandfather was a soldier and medic during the Korean War. And because we were Chinese, in her stories she’s always defensive and bias towards North Korea and China. So I was never surprised when I saw that war movies produced by the South showed obvious condemnation towards only the North Koreans and the Chinese, while the South Koreans are described as faithful nationalists trying to defend their own country. When we only listen to one side of the story, it’s hard not to form an opinion. However, what is different about Brotherhood of War is that it “strives toward a more balanced approach than earlier anticommunist films, and condemns both sides for committing atrocities—including right-wing extremists” (Korea Beyond Armistice: 303). One particular scene from this movie caught my attention: the scene where Chingtae (played by Jang Dong-gun) witnessed the “burning” of his younger brother Chingsok (played by Won Bin), an order given by a South Korean military leader. The “death” of Chinsok led Chingtae to realize how much he hated fighting for a country that killed his younger brother and he then decided to fight for the North Koreans instead. Yes, there are scenes where the North Koreans are seen as the ultimate enemy, killing innocent civilians as they retreat from the frontier, but the movie also shows us that the North and the South, although different, it is still quite similar. South Korean right wing activists shot all suspected civilians, regardless of whether or not they were guilty, including Chingtae’s fiancée Yongsin. As Chingtae and Chingsok see Yongsin dying in Chingtae’s arms, they “became unwitting witnesses to the violence meted out by the Republic’s army on its own people” (Korea Beyond Armistice: 304). So really, the North Koreans may be helf responsible for starting a war between the North and South and killing innocent civilians, but there are always casualties in a war, but with the Right wing extremists piling up body count, it seemed to make things worse. The point I'm trying to make is that in order to judge a situation, one must have all sides of a story, and Brotherhood of War as a South Korean film, did a pretty good john at it. 

The marines who never retuned

      The Marines Who Never Returned is an outstanding war movie. It is highly rated among other representative Korean Combat films. The film was produced by Lee Man Hee in black and white. It was first released in 1963 and aired for 42 days continuously. The film attracted an audience of approximately 194, 124 people (Gowman, 2009). It was voted best among 10 of the highest featured Korean War films. The film portrays the friendship of fellow Korean soldiers and their instincts when facing death at the war front. 

   
      The story of the film is developed on a war front where Korean soldiers are at war with the Chinese soldiers. The film illustrates the challenges that the Korean soldiers endure during the war. It manifests the predicaments of the Korean citizens who lost their loved ones on the war front. The people unite during the turbulent time and support their fellow citizens all who have suffered grievous losses. In the plot, the people are represented by a young lady who is sheltered by the marines after losing her loved ones.

     The theme of humanity is greatly evidenced in the composition of the film. The soldiers are portrayed as sensitive, kind, and empathetic, despite the fact that they are at war. The way they care for their fellow citizens, represented by the young girl, is amazing. They have the spirit of solidarity. The film was created and aired at a period when there was heightened tension in Korea. The state at the period exercised so much control of the media because of political unrest in the country. The film attempted to promote the spirit on solidarity among the people in the nation.


References

Gowman, P. (2009, June 23). The Marines who never returned. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from London Korean Links: http://londonkoreanlinks.net/2009/06/23/the-marines-who-never-returned/

The Marines Who Never Returned

In a genre like war film, it is easy to disregard other aspects of a plot for explosions, gunfire, and combat in order to captivate the audience.  However, in The Marines Who Never Returned, Lee Man-hee did a great job of approaching more sensitive subjects such as family disintegration and betrayal, the loss of loved ones, and loyalty to fellow soldiers while at the same time depicting the dynamics of the front line. Also at this time,  it was common for war films in South Korea to be used as anticommunist propaganda.  As David Scott Diffrient’s article shows, although Lee Man-hee’s films were officially labeled “military enlightenment” and “anticommunist” by the Park Chung Hee regime, his films actually transcended genre constraints and took a humanistic approach to the Korean War (22).  Another easy trap to fall into is following the line of thinking that these Korean War films clearly depict a straightforward, clear cut communist versus anticommunist battle.  Once again, in an actual war, nothing is ever that easy.  Can we really categorize every soldier fighting on each side as strictly one or the other? Where do everyday emotions fit in to the fight?  Diffrient points out that Lee Man-hee attempted to “present subtle alternative to the dichotomous portraits of South Koreans as virtuous and communists as merciless,” which eventually resulted in the filmmaker’s arrest (27).  Young-hui, a little girl caught in the crossfire to which she just lost her mother, is taken in by the South Korean soldiers.  Young-hui becomes an integral part of the story, keeping the audience aware of how much her presence as the platoon’s “mascot” means to them.  She keeps the soldiers’ hopes up, as a living, breathing reminder of the happiness that they could potentially await them at the end of the war (Diffrient 39). In a time of terror, there is nothing as powerful as a quick glimpse into a happier future. For the soldiers to believe that their lives ares till worth fighting for and that hope outweighs fear; this is where Young-hui plays the most important role. 

[The Marines Who Never Returned]

The film The Marines Who Never Returned (1963), directed by Lee Man-hee, is a Korean War film produced in a period, not too far after the real war had ended. As mentioned in David S. Diffrient’s reading, the movie not only illustrates the anticommunism of the Park Chung Hee regime, but also takes a “humanistic approach to the Korean War” (Diffrient, 22) one of which that shows comradeship in the battle line.

For instance, at the beginning of the film, there is a scene that shows a shooting between the marines and the communists. While the heartless communists shoot the woman who is trying to flee with her daughter, the marines succeed in rescuing the young girl, and they take good care of the orphan (Young Hee).

             Another interesting point of the story was the depiction of the brothers – one of the squad members’ brother was a communist. This reminded me a lot of another famous Korean War film, where two brothers stand against each other across the 38 line. The two Koreas have been frequently described as brothers (since they are one huge family) – but why is it that the one fighting for the North is described as the older brother in both this film and Tageukgi: The Brotherhood of War (2004)? Is there a particular reason? In a South Korean perspective, it is South Korea that gives aid to North, not the other way around. And I think (at least in Asian context), the older sibling has more responsibility in taking care of the younger sibling. In that sense, shouldn’t the person representing South be described as the elder?

             Personally, I found the description of the war times very realistic throughout the movie. Some may disagree, but this film was produced in the 60s. Perhaps the fact that Korean War took place only a decade ago allowed the director to reproduce the battlefront similar to what really took place. The explosions, and shooting were quite impressive when thinking about the 60s – recent techniques (computer graphics) were not available, so it must have been done during the actual process of making the film. 

“Personal” War and Korea where Koreans are not the Masters of Their Own Country

          The South Korean war film, The Marines Who Never Returned, directed by Lee Man Hee, was released in 1963, ten years after the Korean War armistice agreement had been signed (Diffrient 23). In short, the South Korean soldiers who have successfully landed on Inchon are given the next mission: to survive and prevent invasion from Chinese forces by defending the front-line. However, except for three, every soldier dies in action.

What is interesting about Lee Man Hee’s film is that it depicts the Korean War as “personal.” By personal, I mean showing genuine human feelings in various scenes. One prominent example is the scene where one of the marines emotionally breaks down after finding his sister’s body among the dead. Despite the fact that it is the black-and-white film, this scene where the soldier grieves shows the true human colors of actual Korean War. In this scene, the cold heartless soldier becomes a new character or returns to his true self, before the war transformed him into an emotionless robot fighting for the sake of ideology, : Brother who dearly loves his sister. I think that by revealing human feelings in the film, the director Lee Man Hee is trying to tell the viewers that the Korean War, although it pained every North and South Korean, should not be labeled in a binary system of Good and Bad.

Another topic that stood out in the film is the triangular relationship among yanggonju prostitutes (Diffrient 25), South Korean soldiers, and U.N. soldiers. In the film, South Korean soldiers go to a brothel called Lucky Club; however, they are denied entry because this bar is only reserved for U.N. soldiers as the sign outside indicates it is “off limits to ROK Soldiers” (Diffrient 42). What is bizarre and puzzling is the fact that even though South Korean and U.N. soldiers are allies fighting against communists, there is a social hierarchy or class system in which U.N. soldiers are superior and South Korean soldiers are treated as unwelcome guests or worse as despicable beings that even Korean prostitutes do not want to associate with. It is truly sad how South Korean soldiers are being discriminated by their own people. What are these soldiers fighting for? (They are fighting and dying for people including Korean prostitutes…)

In this triangle, one can question the South Korean sovereignty. Is South Korea an independent nation, which exercises its full sovereignty? Or is it a country that is submissive to Greater Powers? South Korea, one of the developed nations and strong economic powers today, still has U.S soldiers stationed across the DMZ and other places including Yongsan, Seoul where the former Japanese imperial army’s headquarter was located. Is South Korea a semi-colony? Are Koreans secondary citizens in their own country? Can Koreans be Koreans, masters of their own country? 

Korean Masculinity and UN soldiers

The 1963 South Korean war film, The Marines Who Never Returned, sheds some light into the depiction of wars that occurred during the cold war period as opposed to the more popular World War 2 setting. Due to the film being created not too long after the Korean War, the film utilizes very realistic war settings and special effects that is not commonly seen in recent times.  But the one scene that stood out for me is the scene at Lucky Club.  Here, the ROK soldiers are unwelcomed with a bilingual sign telling them that it’s off-limits for them and reserved for the UN soldiers.  The soldiers eventually get their chance to have a fun time at the club after wreaking havoc and destroying the property paying the madam the “expense” for their actions.  The men expressed their masculinity through this form of violence feeling threatened by the presence of UN soldiers and as Diffrient mentions in his reading, they are regarded as “local goods” thereby making their masculinity some sort of product that is somewhat regarded to be inferior to their UN counterpart. 

The next scene could be regarded as one of the more significant scenes throughout the film which includes the exchange between Ku Pong-so and the UN marine soldiers.  Though their exchange is presented in a comical light with Ku Pong-so’s broken English, like Diffrient brings up in the reading, the exchange also reveals the darker side of the US-South Korean relations.  With the gifts the marine soldiers bring for the saeksi, another form objectification is taking place with the soldiers being the benefactors and the girls being the product of sexual expenditure.  At the same time, I believe there is some sort of subtle social hierarchy taking place with the exchange itself.  It is important to note how it was the Korean side that had to yield to speak in English, regardless whether it was fluent or not, while the marines did not even attempt to communicate in the local language.  Ku Pong-so’s attitude also resembled to how superiors are supposed to be addressed when he was trying not to spoil the marine soldiers’ mood when they are in fact the strangers to the land.  Taking all these to account, while the marine soldiers are assisting South Korea in the war, their very presence also threatens the masculinity of Korea that has been battered so many times prior to the Second World War.      

Lenin Amaya