ANOTHER FINE PIECE OF KOREAN CINEMA - TAEGUKI

[velvet inkbrush of YiSoonShin]

so for anyone who wants some insight into the korean war, this brilliant film captures a lot of it in a nutshell

Taeguki - the brotherhood of war

Taeguki is the korean word for the south korean national flag (manseh! - hehe had to throw it in).

The film opens in the present. Scraping away years of dirt and debris, korean memorialists excavate the remains of numerous soldiers that died unburied around the DMZ. As they unearth and catalog the various skeletons and memorabilia, some confusion arises as to the remains of one soldier labeled "Yi Jin Seok". Checking the archives, it turns out the man is still alive. When they phone him, now an elderly grandfather, he asks, "is there any chance that the name is Yi Jin Tae?" They are doubtful that it is. We learn why this confusion arose - the two men were brothers.

The film then jumps to the past - 1950. Here we meet the two brothers as carefree young men - the older working to put his younger brother through school. In addition both look after their mute mother and Jin Tae's finacee's younger siblings. Unfortunately their peaceful life is turned upside down when the Northern Army invades south korea. During their attempt to flee the area, both brothers are drafted against their will

the film goes on to show the grisly horrors of war made all the more horrific when those the brothers are fighting are koreans just like themselves, some no older than 15. Jin Tae tries to shield his brother from danger by placing himself in front first, but Jin Seok is angered by his brother's actions, thinking him reckless.

I won't spoil the rest, but i will say that as a korean, i found this movie heartbreaking. i wasn't sure what to find more disturbing - the graphic battle scenes, the scenes of refugees picking through dead bodies to find their loved ones, or the brutality the south korean soldiers experienced at the hands of their own superiors and countrymen. I cried so hard at the end

give it a go, but be emotionally prepared first. i had to watch it in pieces as it became too much for me. but you will not regret watching it

[pearblossom]

taegukgi ranks as one of my top 3 movies of 2004!

an excellent cinematographic treatment of the korean war imho.

and what about that boa song they played during the end credits? beautiful beyond words!

this film broke box office records all over asia this year.

[seven stars]

Sorry about the late response VIB and pearblossom.

My wife and I viewed Tae Guk Gi for the first time this past weekend. It was everything that you built it up to be!

Truly an emotional movie in the mold of "Saving Private Ryan." The difference is in it's intended audience, and also in it's thrust.

It was obviously done with Koreans (South and hopefully also North Koreans) in mind. Having said that, it is an epic war film of the same quality as any comparable western film.

As I already pointed out, my first instinct was to compare Tae Guk Gi to "..Private Ryan". I compare two scenes, one from each movie, to drive home the thrust of the films.

*Spoilers*

At the end of "Ryan", the old man turns to his wife after remembering the deaths of his wartime compadres. He goes on to ask her if his life was worthy of their sacrifice (or something to that effect).

I took this to imply that the loss of his friends would be found appropriate if we live lives worthy of their sacrifice. In this way, their deaths, if given for a better way of life, are worthy if that better way of life if realized and perhaps maximized.

At the end of "Tae Guk Gi", Jin Seok (now an old man) finds his brother's bones and cries over them, saying only that he had been waiting fifty years for him to return. He asks Jin Tae why he didn't make good on his promise to return, and cries out to his bones asking him to say something.

I took this to imply a different view of war and death. It showed the deep pain that Jin Seok felt, not just at the time of the Korean War, but for the rest of his life. It demonstrated the tearing apart of a family as a small part of a much bigger picture. It didn't allow for a value to be placed on war and death the way that "Private Ryan" did.

I think that the two movies represent many of the same things, and also some very different ideas.

I loved "Tae Guk Gi", and there is a good chance that I'll go out and buy it sometime soon. Too many people are entirely unaware about the "forgotten war" and are therefore ignorant to it's contemporary importance and implications.

Thank you for recommending it VIB and pearblossom. I wouldn't have rented it otherwise!

[Eowyn]

Hey seven stars, do you know that I never liked the ending of Saving Private Ryan, or when Tom Hanks says "make it worth it" to Ryan. I kinda thought that Ryan was being set up to feel guilty.

[moreshige]

Hey, I loved this film too but I just want to point out the differences with "Saving Private Ryan". The main difference I saw as a Korean is without being preachy the film seems to question the justification for the violence itself. In SPR, we know who the villains and heroes are; there's a clear demarcation between the evil Nazis and the good allied forces. Of course I don't blame Spielberg since in reality WW2 itself, unlike Vietnam did not lend itself to be an ambiguous war. Hitler and Mussolini were clearly evil men with evil objectives.

What the filmmaker for "Taegukgi" seems to do is put the Korean war away from a WW2 black and white, good-vs-evil mentality to more of a "Vietnam war-esque" category of moral dilemma, confusion, chaos and misunderstanding that always seems to end in senseless violence.

For example, the film cleverly emphasizes a civil war between brothers both symbolically(north vs. south) and literally (Jin Sook vs. brother). The film is about the tradegy of disconnectedness, between love for family, friends, lovers and even with oneself.

Some scenes that come to mind: When the "North" Korean POW turned out to be a family friend who happened to be forced to join the North. This parallels Jin sook and his brother's situation when they just happened to be "recruited" to fight for the South.

When anti-communists agitaors rounded up the "red-dogs" for execution. It turned out that the victims were "guilty" of signing up for the communist party but we find out they only did so out of starvation. (The communists were offering food to anyone who would sign up).

[seven stars]

moreshige said:

Hey, I loved this film too but I just want to point out the differences with "Saving Private Ryan". The main difference I saw as a Korean is without being preachy the film seems to question the justification for the violence itself. In SPR, we know who the villians and heros are; there's a clear demarcation between the evil nazi's and the good allied forces. Of course I don't blame Spielberg since in reality WW2 itself, unlike Vietnam did not lend itself to be an ambiguous war. Hitler and Mousoulini were clearly evil men with evil objectives.

What the filmmaker for "Taegukgi" seems to do is put the Korean war away from a WW2 black and white, good-vs-evil mentality to more of a "vietnam war-esque" category of moral dilemna, confusion, chaos and misunderstanding that always seems to end in senseless violence.

For example, the film cleverly emphasises a civil war of between brothers both symbolically(north vs. south) and literally (Jin Sook vs. brother). The film is about the tradegy of disconntedness, bewteen love for family, friends, lovers and even with oneself.

Thanks for pointing that out Moreshige. In my rush to compare and analyze, I neglected to point out the fundamental difference between the second world war and the korean war. The World Wars were truly in the interest of the security of ours and other nations. As you pointed out, the wars in both Korea and Vietnam are "Cold War" wars. Unfortunately these small countries became the venues at which larger opponents engaged one another.

I agree with you, that there was a genocidal evil at work in WWII and it had to be confronted. Communism was villified in much the same way by the western countries, in an effort to stir up support and build justification for the wars that took place throughout the cold war era. While I may still believe that capitalism is a better system when all factors are considered, I think that this approach of totally rejecting communism as an evil ideology allowed the western governments to avoid answering some of the difficult questions that a viable alternative way of life would normally have forced them to face. I do not believe that our current economic system is beyond improvement, regardless of how deeply our current leadership desires the public to buy into that premise. But I digress.

In the bonus interviews, one of the production team members made the statement that in some ways, humans are worse than animals, because animals only kill when they are hungry, while humans will kill to give themselves better lives. I feel that this was an interesting thing to say, and it is worth pondering, even if you aren't predisposed to agreement with that statement.

eowyn said:

Hey seven stars, do you know that I never liked the ending of Saving Private Ryan, or when Tom Hanks says "make it worth it" to Ryan. I kinda thought that Ryan was being set up to feel guilty.

I definitely hear you Eowyn. How could Ryan have lived up to the great sacrifice that those men made for him. Every time he made a mistake he may have second guessed the worthiness of their sacrifice.

Having said that, war killed them not Ryan. While his life is forever attatched to their death, saving his life was a predicament that they were placed in because of conflict between nations.

[ortega]

A flash animation about Korean War
www.geocities.jp/whis_shosin/koreanwar1950english.html

[generaldu]

sevenstars2 said:

moreshige said:

Hey, I loved this film too but I just want to point out the differences with "Saving Private Ryan". The main difference I saw as a Korean is without being preachy the film seems to question the justification for the violence itself. In SPR, we know who the villians and heros are; there's a clear demarcation between the evil nazi's and the good allied forces. Of course I don't blame Spielberg since in reality WW2 itself, unlike Vietnam did not lend itself to be an ambiguous war. Hitler and Mousoulini were clearly evil men with evil objectives.

What the filmmaker for "Taegukgi" seems to do is put the Korean war away from a WW2 black and white, good-vs-evil mentality to more of a "vietnam war-esque" category of moral dilemna, confusion, chaos and misunderstanding that always seems to end in senseless violence.

For example, the film cleverly emphasises a civil war of between brothers both symbolically(north vs. south) and literally (Jin Sook vs. brother). The film is about the tradegy of disconntedness, bewteen love for family, friends, lovers and even with oneself.

Thanks for pointing that out Moreshige. In my rush to compare and analyze, I neglected to point out the fundamental difference between the second world war and the korean war. The World Wars were truly in the interest of the security of ours and other nations. As you pointed out, the wars in both Korea and Vietnam are "Cold War" wars. Unfortunately these small countries became the venues at which larger opponents engaged one another.

I agree with you, that there was a genocidal evil at work in WWII and it had to be confronted. Communism was villified in much the same way by the western countries, in an effort to stir up support and build justification for the wars that took place throughout the cold war era. While I may still believe that capitalism is a better system when all factors are considered, I think that this approach of totally rejecting communism as an evil ideology allowed the western governments to avoid answering some of the difficult questions that a viable alternative way of life would normally have forced them to face. I do not believe that our current economic system is beyond improvement, regardless of how deeply our current leadership desires the public to buy into that premise. But I digress.

In the bonus interviews, one of the production team members made the statement that in some ways, humans are worse than animals, because animals only kill when they are hungry, while humans will kill to give themselves better lives. I feel that this was an interesting thing to say, and it is worth pondering, even if you aren't predisposed to agree with the statement.

eowyn said:

Hey seven stars, do you know that I never liked the ending of Saving Private Ryan, or when Tom Hanks says "make it worth it" to Ryan. I kinda thought that Ryan was being set up to feel guilty.

I definitely hear you Eowyn. How could Ryan have lived up to the great sacrifice that those men made for him. Every time he made a mistake he may have second guessed the worthiness of their sacrifice.

Having said that, war killed them not Ryan. While his life is forever attatched to their death, saving his life was a predicament that they were placed in because of conflict between nations.

Sorry I missed this exchange back in June.

While "Ryan" deserves much credit for its comparatively realistic physical depiction of combat violence and its rightful homage to WW II vets, its central theme involving the saving of Ryan is not fiction but fantasy.

US infantry units in WW II (and in the Korean conflict) suffered severe casualty rates and there would have been no room in such a desperate struggle for the supposedly noble rescue effort depicted in the film, leaving aside the discussion as to whether the operation could have even been morally justified in the context of a war that claimed millions of lives.

[Daemado]

Thanks for bumping this thread Gen. Du ... I wish I'd had the opportunity to discuss "Taegukgi" a year ago in a friendly and thoughtful environment like this board.

I was affected *VERY* strongly by Taegukgi. I've seen any number of Hollywood war movies and quite a few foreign war movies too, yet none of them had anywhere near the effect of Taegukgi. Just for starters, the movie left me unable to touch red meat for most of the following week. And this may sound strange, but until then I had never thought of my parents' generation as anything but stoic, workaholic automatons -- certainly not as thinking, feeling people with hopes, aspirations and dreams.

I thought a lot of American film critics didn't "get" SPR, and I feel that was doubly true for Taegukgi. I'll leave the political rants for another day, but in general I got the impression that most reviewers watched a screener DVD while folding laundry with a Sunday afternoon hangover.

And -- horror of horrors -- Taegukgi is being shown on cable with a horrid English dubbed audio track. I have no problem with GOOD dubbing, but this was just about the worst dubbing I've ever heard ... I couldn't stomach more than a few minutes of the TV version. This could explain why Taegukgi has fallen off the IMDB Top 250 list.

[seven stars]

Thanks Generaldu and Daemado for picking this discussion back up.

I was previously dissappointed that more members did not have comments regarding this outstanding movie. I suppose I found comfort in the idea that perhaps several of our comrades here had not yet viewed the film.

I encourage all who have not yet seen Taegukgi to do so asap! You are missing out.

[skinz]

My little review on this movie since I saw it this past weekend.



Kudos to the director and script writer because they hit a lot of points of the Korean war. The confusion in the beginning of the war, the anti communist mob killing innocent civilians for being with the north, the starvation of the people, the superior officers reacting only on instant instead of being rational, and the bitter turmoil between families and ideas. I think the brothers relationship really it home in the middle of the movie. The older brother wanting to win the medal to save the younger brother,IMO, illustrated the entire war. (The north trying to win the war in order to "save" the south and become a whole and unified but lost their meaning during the war itself, well that's how I saw it )

SPOILER SPACE*********************

Highlight to read


There are some things that I didn't like also. First, the beginning of the movie felt rushed. When the brothers got on the train and left the next scene show them already on the battlefield. What happened to the training? The older brother was a shoemaker but once he got a gun he shot it like he was a veteran soldier, a small portion of the training would've made it believable.

Second, the CGI planes looked really noticeable. Not a big thing but the planes looked straight out of a WW2 video game.

Three, the portrayal of the older brother at the end of the movie. What was that about? He was growling and acting a like a wild beast. I can understand that the North were brainwashing their public and soldiers and also the grief of the older brother over his fiance and "brother" by the south officials, but why make a person who went to join the north (after seeing him kind and behaved nice in the south) act like that? Even when he saw his younger brother face to face, he still was acting beserk. I don't know, I just felt that was unnecessary.

I really would've like it if the brothers were already seperated before the war and we got to see the lives of the brother living in the North and the brother living in the South. At least we would've had some knowledge of what was happening overall.
I give it a 8/10

[TheBo]

Oops. I should not have read so far into your review, skinz. (My fault.) I just got this film from Netflix and am anxious to view it, although I may not be able to do so until the weekend. I'll give my candid and much awaited opinions then, LOL!

Bo

[seven stars]

Thanks for the review Skinz.

I noticed some of those details when I watched the film last spring. I would like to see it a second time in light of those observations.

Keep us posted Bo.

[truth]

Just found out that the story of brothers meeting each other in battlefield as opposing sides in this film got its idea from true story.

In the real story, Park Gyucheol, originally from today's North Korea, came down to the South shortly after the Communists took over the North, as he didn't like how the Communists were changing the North. (People were able to move freely between south and the north before the Korean War)

He joined the South Korean army when the war broke out and met his younger brother Park Yongcheol fighting for NK during a battle. The brothers cried and hugged. The younger brother then followed his big brother to the south.

There is a statue of them in Seoul Korean War Memorial.




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Brothers

[sageuk]

At least the brothers in real life got to survive the war together.