Korean Ethos in Cinema

Keumsil Kim Yoon, Bruce Williams. Two Lenses on the Korean Ethos: Key Cultural Concepts and Their Appearance in Cinema. Jeferson: 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) Korean Ethos in Cinema Attention to cultural and historical keywords culture is explicitly a priori (p. 7). For speech or oth‐ has provided a helpful methodological and sub‐ er communication, they posit a “cultural layer” stantive focus to research in a variety of disci‐ prior to context and the linguistic formatting of plinary fields. As its title suggests, Keumsil Kim ideas that is generative of deep meaning and nu‐ Yoon and Bruce Williams’s book aims to elucidate ance. In this formulation, there is a strong contrast “key cultural concepts” of a Korean “ethos,” under‐ with recent, more processual understandings of stood as “a thread weaving through divergent so‐ culture advanced in anthropology and related cial, economic, and political contexts rather than fields, for which culture does not stand apart from a static and essentialist norm” (p. 6). However, context but is inextricable from it, a method of be‐ notwithstanding this disclaimer and the occasion‐ ing within it. al just-so historical story about, for instance, the The book is divided into two halves, with the development of one facet of one important con‐ first devoted to a conceptual unfolding of the au‐ cept “when the nomadic tribes in Manchuria and thors’ central Korean keywords. There are seven in Siberia moved to the plains of the southern penin‐ total: han (rancor, though by the very logic of the sula” (p. 41), it is hard to take Two Lenses on the Ko‐ work, a translation cannot do justice), chung (loy‐ rean Ethos as offering anything but in fact a fairly alty), hyo (filial piety), jeong (emotional attach‐ static and, yes, essentialist description of how Ko‐ ment and bond), chemyon (face), cheol (good reans think and feel differently from other peo‐ sense or appropriate behavior), and deok (virtue ples. Drawn mostly from the field of intercultural or moral goodness). These are first developed in communications, which tends to see cultures as association with Abraham Maslow’s famous pyra‐ akin to psychological types, the authors’ notion of midal hierarchy of human needs as cultural varia‐ H-Net Reviews tions or expressions of these needs, such that han, There are several substantive concerns with for example, corresponds to the physiological level and structural peculiarities of Two Lenses on the of Maslow’s pyramid and represents a Korean cul‐ Korean Ethos that are worth mentioning. Of all the tural emphasis on “inner strength” (to withstand key cultural concepts unfolded in the first half of material hardship) versus a corresponding empha‐ the book, only the three top-level ideas—han, sis on “physical strength” in the United States (p. jeong, and deok—are centrally illustrated in the 37). This mapping of key cultural concepts onto second half devoted to discussions of individual Maslow’s schema frankly feels somewhat forced. films. As a result, the “two lenses” of the title are The following chapter discusses each of the con‐ less than fully integrated with each other. The sec‐ cepts in more depth, in a way that does help clarify, tion on han in this second part begins with an although the organization of the chapter is some‐ analysis of director Im’s much discussed film what puzzling since only han, jeong, and deok are Seopyeonje. And Seopyeonje is indeed a han ma‐ retained as top-order concepts, with all the others chine—there is certainly no question of its appro‐ associated with deok and subordinated to it. Chap‐ priateness. Yet Im, throughout his career, has been ter 3 presents a theoretical argument as to how engaged in a self-consciously traditionalist cultur‐ film as a medium and a focus on cultural key‐ al politics. In a way emblematic of the limitations words can be connected. of their conceptual frame, Kim Yoon and Williams It is in the second part of the book, where Kim do not really connect the visualization of han in Yoon and Williams’s key Korean cultural concepts Seopyeonje with Im’s participation in this self- are explicated through analysis of individual films aware discourse on national self, instead simply and vice versa, that its greatest appeal lies. For this understanding it as reflecting and revealing the reason, the films, all from the 1990s or later, are underlying, essential Korean ethos. At the level of worth listing in full. From South Korea, Kim Yoon writing, there are several passages of review of lit‐ and Williams focus on Im Kwontaek’s Seopyeonje erature in the book that churn prior scholarship on (1993) and Chihwaseon (1992); Park Chanwook’s a topic—for instance, transnational cinema—as if J.S.A. (2000 ); Lee Changdong’s Oasis (2002) and Po‐ merely to demonstrate that it exists, without any etry (2010); Kim Kiduk’s Spring, Summer, Fall, Win‐ real advancement of the core argument. A few sec‐ ter ... and Spring (2003) and Pietà (2012); Kang Je‐ tions, unfortunately including the introduction, gyu’s The Brotherhood of War (2004); Lee Junik’s suffer from incidences of awkward phrasing and The King and the Clown (2005); and Bong Joonho’s misplaced text, and could have used closer copy‐ Mother (2009). Chapter 7 adds discussions of three editing. North Korean films, also of recent vintage: On the Despite such issues, there are two potential au‐ Green Carpet (2001), A Schoolgirl’s Diary (2007), diences for whom the book—or parts of it, princi‐ and Pyongyang Nalparam (2006). Overall this is pally those dedicated to the reading of individual quite a varied lineup, idiosyncratic in a good way, films in terms of key cultural concepts—might be with both staples of academic analysis and more quite useful. The first is comparative film scholars obscure titles, blockbusters, and exemplars of the who, without any particular background knowl‐ aesthetic of the extreme in Korean art cinema. For edge of Korea, are inclined to incorporate the in‐ each film, the authors offer a reading in terms of ternationally prominent Korean cinema of recent one or more of their key terms, and many of these years into the canon of world film. Kim Yoon and readings provide insights into the moral Williams’s insistence on the relevance of the cul‐ economies of the films that will be revealing to tural offers a forceful corrective to the tendency of some viewers. comparative scholarship to rely on putatively uni‐ versal modes of semiotic, formal, or psychoanalyt‐ 2 H-Net Reviews ic analysis. Those approaching Korean cinema for the first time and otherwise limited to understand‐ ing it in purely filmic terms will indeed learn some‐ thing about textures of meaning available to a Ko‐ rean 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 notion of cultural psychology and the diference it makes. If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-asia 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: https://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. 3.

Load more