how do you judge a film that centres around a modern historical event & biopic, written for a patriotic domestic audience whose minds are still afresh with emotions of the era?
song kang-ho plays enterprising tax-turned-human rights lawyer sung woo-suk, who is not so discreetly modelled after roh moo hyun, who was also involved in the 1987 uprisings against korea’s then-authoritarian rule and later became the president of korea. the film takes place in 1981, when the spectre of the 1980 gwangju uprising looms large in everyone’s minds. for historical context, the 1980s was a dark period in korea’s history, when korea was ruled by a series of authoritarian and heavy-handed presidents. the images of 1980 gwangju often remind people of tiananmen.
having been treated kindly by an ahjumae who sells gukbapwhen he was a poor construction worker studying to become a lawyer, song sacrifices his lucrative career to defend her son and university students, who have been arrested on the counts of studying contraband literature that promotes socialist unrest. in a plot that closely narrates reality, song sets out to prove the innocence of these university students and expose the inhumane torture methods employed by the police to extract confessions.
there is little room to comment on the plot itself, given that the film is so tightly tethered to historical events (in the same way that i am frustrated by the plot in juror 8). often i find that historical films get more creative leniency when remaking events that happen generations ago (say the age of shadows), or are based on unique strands (a taxi driver). but this film is so wholeheartedly patriotic and historical, that it loses nuance and self-awareness. in an impassioned exchange, the villainous cop instructs song that this is a case of national security, and the law does not apply to national security cases. the camera then closes up on song - “who decides what cases are of national security? you said the country? who constitutes the country? according to the constitution, the country is its people & their freedoms!” tell me this is not a clear appeal to the audience’s patriotism (don’t get me wrong, i actually liked this scene the most.. song’s acting brought tears to my eyes! it’s just in your face)
at 2h 17m, the film lags and drags on at certain moments too. a lot of background-setting around roh/sung, and plenty of police brutality scenes. when you know that there are no surprises round the corner, the scenes become slightly self indulgent.
and when historical films like these are made, characterisation is often sacrificed. song tried to imbibe his character with as much depth as possible (the everyman rockstar overcoming inner turmoil with a strong moral compass), and im si-wan did a deft job at portraying the emaciated soulless student. but those familiar with korean history will also know that roh, although very much celebrated as a folk hero through sung, committed suicide in 2009 after intense bribery allegations. given a somewhat divided national memory of roh, this film is uncomfortably generous in its praise and commemoration of his activist legacy. it is fine to celebrate his deeds independently of what he did before or after, but to do so without nuance is slightly irresponsible film-making.
ironically, what i got most out of the film was a critical appreciation of historiography and historical memory in film-making. being a trained historian, seeing e.h. carr’s what is history? accused of instigating fascism provoked a lot of thinking. on one hand, the above is criticism of the film, but on the other, it is a demonstration of how engaged i am with the film’s material. i think there are better films about 1980s korea, but here is a decent one if you need a nationalistic jolt. – 6/10
Fresh from its ‘out of competition’ screening at Cannes, The Merciless is yet another South Korean crime film. This one stars Sol Kyung-gu and ZE:A’s Siwan. How does it stack up against the sea of South Korean noir thrillers? Read our review HERE
