Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
H-Asia Oppenheim on Yoon and Williams, 'Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema' Review published on Sunday, January 10, 2016 Keumsil Kim Yoon, Bruce Williams. Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema. Jefferson: McFarland, 2015. 288 pp. $45.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-7864-9682-2. Reviewed by Robert Oppenheim (University of Texas at Austin)Published on H-Asia (January, 2016) Commissioned by Sumit Guha (The University of Texas at Austin) Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=44634 Korean Ethos in Cinema Attention to cultural and historical keywords has provided a helpful methodological and substantive focus to research in a variety of disciplinary fields. As its title suggests, Keumsil Kim Yoon and Bruce Williams’s book aims to elucidate “key cultural concepts” of a Korean “ethos,” understood as “a thread weaving through divergent social, economic, and political contexts rather than a static and essentialist norm” (p. 6). However, notwithstanding this disclaimer and the occasional just-so historical story about, for instance, the development of one facet of one important concept “when the nomadic tribes in Manchuria and Siberia moved to the plains of the southern peninsula” (p. 41), it is hard to take Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos as offering anything but in fact a fairly static and, yes, essentialist description of how Koreans think and feel differently from other peoples. Drawn mostly from the field of intercultural communications, which tends to see cultures as akin to psychological types, the authors’ notion of culture is explicitly a priori (p. 7). For speech or other communication, they posit a “cultural layer” prior to context and the linguistic formatting of ideas that is generative of deep meaning and nuance. In this formulation, there is a strong contrast with recent, more processual understandings of culture advanced in anthropology and related fields, for which culture does not stand apart from context but is inextricable from it, a method of being within it. The book is divided into two halves, with the first devoted to a conceptual unfolding of the authors’ central Korean keywords. There are seven in total: han (rancor, though by the very logic of the work, a translation cannot do justice), chung (loyalty), hyo (filial piety), jeong (emotional attachment and bond), chemyon (face), cheol (good sense or appropriate behavior), anddeok (virtue or moral goodness). These are first developed in association with Abraham Maslow’s famous pyramidal hierarchy of human needs as cultural variations or expressions of these needs, such thathan , for example, corresponds to the physiological level of Maslow’s pyramid and represents a Korean cultural emphasis on “inner strength” (to withstand material hardship) versus a corresponding emphasis on “physical strength” in the United States (p. 37). This mapping of key cultural concepts onto Maslow’s schema frankly feels somewhat forced. The following chapter discusses each of the concepts in more depth, in a way that does help clarify, although the organization of the chapter is somewhat puzzling since only han, jeong, and deok are retained as top-order concepts, with all the Citation: H-Net Reviews. Oppenheim on Yoon and Williams, 'Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema'. H-Asia. 01-02-2019. https://networks.h-net.org/node/22055/reviews/105324/oppenheim-yoon-and-williams-two-lenses-korean-ethos-key-cultural Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Asia others associated with deok and subordinated to it. Chapter 3 presents a theoretical argument as to how film as a medium and a focus on cultural keywords can be connected. It is in the second part of the book, where Kim Yoon and Williams’s key Korean cultural concepts are explicated through analysis of individual films and vice versa, that its greatest appeal lies. For this reason, the films, all from the 1990s or later, are worth listing in full. From South Korea, Kim Yoon and Williams focus on Im Kwontaek’s Seopyeonje (1993) and Chihwaseon (1992); Park Chanwook’s J.S.A. (2000 ); Lee Changdong’s Oasis (2002) and Poetry (2010); Kim Kiduk’s Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (2003) and Pietà (2012); Kang Jegyu’s The Brotherhood of War (2004); Lee Junik’s The King and the Clown (2005); and Bong Joonho’s Mother (2009). Chapter 7 adds discussions of three North Korean films, also of recent vintage: On the Green Carpet (2001), A Schoolgirl’s Diary (2007), and Pyongyang Nalparam (2006). Overall this is quite a varied lineup, idiosyncratic in a good way, with both staples of academic analysis and more obscure titles, blockbusters, and exemplars of the aesthetic of the extreme in Korean art cinema. For each film, the authors offer a reading in terms of one or more of their key terms, and many of these readings provide insights into the moral economies of the films that will be revealing to some viewers. There are several substantive concerns with and structural peculiarities of Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos that are worth mentioning. Of all the key cultural concepts unfolded in the first half of the book, only the three top-level ideas—han, jeong, and deok—are centrally illustrated in the second half devoted to discussions of individual films. As a result, the “two lenses” of the title are less than fully integrated with each other. The section on han in this second part begins with an analysis of director Im’s much discussed film Seopyeonje. And Seopyeonje is indeed a han machine—there is certainly no question of its appropriateness. Yet Im, throughout his career, has been engaged in a self-consciously traditionalist cultural politics. In a way emblematic of the limitations of their conceptual frame, Kim Yoon and Williams do not really connect the visualization of han in Seopyeonje with Im’s participation in this self-aware discourse on national self, instead simply understanding it as reflecting and revealing the underlying, essential Korean ethos. At the level of writing, there are several passages of review of literature in the book that churn prior scholarship on a topic—for instance, transnational cinema—as if merely to demonstrate that it exists, without any real advancement of the core argument. A few sections, unfortunately including the introduction, suffer from incidences of awkward phrasing and misplaced text, and could have used closer copyediting. Despite such issues, there are two potential audiences for whom the book—or parts of it, principally those dedicated to the reading of individual films in terms of key cultural concepts—might be quite useful. The first is comparative film scholars who, without any particular background knowledge of Korea, are inclined to incorporate the internationally prominent Korean cinema of recent years into the canon of world film. Kim Yoon and Williams’s insistence on the relevance of the cultural offers a forceful corrective to the tendency of comparative scholarship to rely on putatively universal modes of semiotic, formal, or psychoanalytic analysis. Those approaching Korean cinema for the first time and otherwise limited to understanding it in purely filmic terms will indeed learn something about textures of meaning available to a Korean viewership. A second audience for the book is instructors who might hope to use the popular and accessible medium of film as a way to introduce students to aspects of Korean society and culture. In a classroom environment, the book might help students see the unfolding of important Korean cultural ideas on the screen. Even in such a setting, however, it would be advisable to pivot quickly to more nuanced readings lest students be left with a crystallized Citation: H-Net Reviews. Oppenheim on Yoon and Williams, 'Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema'. H-Asia. 01-02-2019. https://networks.h-net.org/node/22055/reviews/105324/oppenheim-yoon-and-williams-two-lenses-korean-ethos-key-cultural Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-Asia notion of cultural psychology and the difference it makes. Citation: Robert Oppenheim. Review of Yoon, Keumsil Kim; Williams, Bruce,Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema. H-Asia, H-Net Reviews. January, 2016. URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=44634 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Citation: H-Net Reviews. Oppenheim on Yoon and Williams, 'Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema'. H-Asia. 01-02-2019. https://networks.h-net.org/node/22055/reviews/105324/oppenheim-yoon-and-williams-two-lenses-korean-ethos-key-cultural Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 3.