I rushed out of the office during lunchtime (missing yet another incredible AEI three-course lunch) to take the Metro down to the Library of Congress to attend UC Santa Barbara prof. Kim Suk-young’s presentation on “Kim Jong-il and North Korean films”. It was ridiculously hot and I had decided to wear my suit, which was a bad idea. The Metro was screwy and I was in such a rush that I went into the wrong building and had to get through security all over again. Eventually I found my way to her talk.
Prof. Kim is a Kluge fellow (or I might say, a fellow Kluge perhaps?) at the Library of Congress, and she stated that her presentation was to dispel the stereotype of Kim Jong-il as a madman obsessed with film. She noted that attempting to use psychiatry in understanding foreign policy might not be appropriate in this case. Her argument was that North Korean films function as 1) an efficient political tool, 2) a form of social education, and 3) have evolved dramatically (yes, literally) since the 80s.
Films are efficient political tools for the DPRK because of 1) their easy reproduction and distribution, especially compared to other means of conveying messages to the people. A traveling opera troupe is expensive and cannot penetrate society to the same scale. Films are also 2) a novel medium of communication, since most North Koreans are from the rural countryside and had not been exposed much to movies. More importantly, films are 3) a highly controlled art form, where every film process includes scripting, planning, rehearsals, shooting, editing, to make a final cut for distribution. Other performance art forms have more space for improvisation and are less controllable. Finally, films are generally 4) collective in production and consumption patterns. Since DV cameras and video editing software isn’t widely available in the DPRK, most films will require significant resources to produce.
Prof. Kim noted that because of the above reasons, film was well-established as a political tool in North Korea before Kim Jong-il came to power. The DPRK is the first hereditary socialist country, but prior to the succession it was unclear whether Kim Il-sung would pick his son to take his place, and Kim Jong-il had to prove himself. After seeing how Stalin and Mao’s legacies were treated, the great leader was concerned about his own legacy, and film was one way to immortalize that. Prof. Kim then introduced “Star of Choson” (1980-87), a drama series about the early life of the great leader. Apparently even the actor playing the great leader was revered as a dignitary, that somehow the respect for the subject being played was so great that it was transmitted to the player.
She then played a short clip from the great leader’s state funeral (1994). Everyone was wailing and crying, beating their chests. Even the announcer narrating the video sounded like she was about to burst into tears anytime. Prof Kim argued that this may be partly due to Korean cultural norms on public rituals of lamentation. She suggested that the film may have been to generate buy-in by documenting the mass mourning of the great leader. The next clip was Kim Jong-il’s visit to Russia to meet with Putin in 2001. She asked us to look carefully at his shoes, which were high heeled and added at least two inches to his height. Interestingly, the Russia visit clip was narrated in English, suggesting it was for an international audience. This was just before the nuclear crisis erupted, and DPRK was increasingly isolated internationally, thus the film might be to reaffirm his political activity in world affairs.
Moving on to films as a socializing and educational tool, Prof Kim argued that like any propaganda, films were used to create enemies for society to focus on. She screened a clip from an animated short “Lazy Pig” (1969), which was very Orwellian. It was set in a farmhouse, where the animals are debating about who should be chosen to be served on the Master’s banquet table. Dog was brave and guarded the farm from evil fox, Horse bears heavy loads for the Master, Ox ploughs the fields, but Pig is lazy and only eats tofu and naps, so he has to be sacrificed for the good of the farm. Then the moral of the story is narrated: if you are lazy and selfish, you too will end up on the banquet table. Even animals work diligently for the revolution!
The next two clips were “Choi Hak-sin family” (1966) and “Flower girl” (1972), which present American and Japanese imperialists respectively as evil. In both, women and children were presented as vulnerable victims, since family life is so important in Korea. Choi Hak-sin family actually had a white guy playing the American imperialist GI, I wonder where they found him? Or was he from the Soviet bloc? I have no idea, should’ve asked her about that. Flower girl was less interesting: after the little girl is blinded by the Japanese colonial mistress, her oppa swears revenge and burns down the house, but is caught by the kempetai police and separated from his family forever. Prof Kim notes that these early propaganda films were bland and boring – they were so bad I was laughing – so Kim Jong-il “invited” a filmmaking couple from the South to improve DPRK film standards. I thought her expression when she said “invited” was just so perfect. It was as if you could see the quotation marks floating in the air.
And improve them they did. She screened a clip from “Runaway” (1984), which featured a train blown up by guerillas, except that it wasn’t done by special effects (which would have been obvious in that era of film) but by blowing up a real, functional locomotive. Apparently the dear leader spared no expense for his action movies, even though DPRK transportation infrastructure probably needed that train a lot more than the film.
Prof Kim then screened a clip from their first romantic film, “love, love, my love” (1984), which was a musical based on the Chunhyangga folk story (I like the modern adaptation a lot better). Apparently it was a huge hit and tickets were scalped for exorbitant prices in the black market. I didn’t think it was that great, it was pretty much just a girl in hanbok singing and dancing. The next clip was from “Hong Gil-dong” (1986), which drew a lot from old Hong Kong kungfu movie techniques. The hero was some kind of wandering swordsman flying through the forest killing Japanese ninjas and defeating their pirate boss to save the abducted princess, who he then elopes with, presumably to the North.
The last film she talked about was “Schoolgirl’s Diary” (2006), which unfortunately wasn’t screened at all since we can probably get it on DVD (isn’t video piracy a major export?). Apparently it sold 8 million tickets, which means 1 in every 3 people in the DPRK have seen it, but then again population statistics aren’t too clear. The film’s significance is a bit hard to decipher. It is about an ordinary schoolgirl who is unhappy that her parents are too busy to be with her. Her parents are both scientists working on a project that isn’t explicitly described. Presumably the message is that the revolution is more important than being with your family. This was released two months before the nuclear tests were announced, and Prof Kim suggests that it was to prepare the nation to cheerlead the nuclear policy, but that seems like a bit of a stretch.
I didn’t stay for the Q&A because the talk had taken over an hour with all the clips played, and rushed back to the office. Fortunately there was still a roast beef salad left, and I managed to have lunch. Prof Kim’s talk was pretty interesting and I will probably go for her next one tomorrow on “For the eyes of the Dear Leader: Fashion and body politics in North Korean Visual Arts”. This time I will not bring my suit jacket. I will also be meeting Curtis from NK economy watch tomorrow since I have to go to GMU in the evening for a Koch program workshop.
