May be easiest to find at this where there are significant Korean communities. But it's very good. In some ways, it's a bit of a Korean Saving Private Ryan, with a look at what makes for valiantry, at what really matters to those in war, but it also shows a bit of the dark side, how easy it can be to become the enemy - the evil one is fighting.
If you can, it should be on your list to consider seeing.
Full Version: TaeGukGi
Darcy Paquet over at Koreanfilm has a slightly cooler response.
I almost picked this up when I was in Toronto, but went with some other stuff instead. Still keen on picking it up sometime in the future.
I almost picked this up when I was in Toronto, but went with some other stuff instead. Still keen on picking it up sometime in the future.
The opening is very interesting. An archeological dig of a battle field, digging up weapons, books, skulls; identifying bodies, putting them in coffins, draping them with flags.
The frenetic battle scenes are very gripping. Scenes of prisoner abuse certainly bring to mind Al Graib. There are questions of what kind of freedom the army is fighting for. Admittedly, a US audience will have a different reaction than a Korean (or Korean-American) audience. For us the Korean War is more distant than Vietnam. For Koreans, it's ongoing (although at a much different level.)
The frenetic battle scenes are very gripping. Scenes of prisoner abuse certainly bring to mind Al Graib. There are questions of what kind of freedom the army is fighting for. Admittedly, a US audience will have a different reaction than a Korean (or Korean-American) audience. For us the Korean War is more distant than Vietnam. For Koreans, it's ongoing (although at a much different level.)
| QUOTE (Darrel Manson @ Sep 23 2004, 10:01 AM) |
| Admittedly, a US audience will have a different reaction than a Korean (or Korean-American) audience. For us the Korean War is more distant than Vietnam. For Koreans, it's ongoing (although at a much different level.) |
Have you seen Park Chan-Wook's Joint Security Area (aka JSA)? It's an excellent film that touches on this, as it deals with the relationship between a group of South and North Korean soldiers on the DMZ.
Well my DVD of this movie finally came and I watched it tonight. Sadly the comparisons to Saving Private Ryan are justified, though I think there's a lot of Zhang Yimou's To Live in it as well. One of the things that bugs me about war movies is that they are all the same movie, and I think that was probably the biggest flaw in this one. Still, I'm not ashamed to call it an excellent movie.
If Korean cinema has taught me one thing about their culture is that Reunification is the ultimate goal. A lot of undercurrents of that in this film, I think. A lot about how brothership is more important than politics. It's an interesting war film in that it doesn't seem to take sides. The overall message is that they're all Koreans, I think.
To say it packs an emotional punch isn't too far off. To say I was crying like a baby at the end is only a slight exaggeration. A great film all around. Sadly the DVD release is split into two discs, even on the super duper ultimate flip top box edition.
For a more depressing look at the effects of the Korean war (extra credit viewing?), try Kim Ki-Duk's Address Unknown.
If Korean cinema has taught me one thing about their culture is that Reunification is the ultimate goal. A lot of undercurrents of that in this film, I think. A lot about how brothership is more important than politics. It's an interesting war film in that it doesn't seem to take sides. The overall message is that they're all Koreans, I think.
To say it packs an emotional punch isn't too far off. To say I was crying like a baby at the end is only a slight exaggeration. A great film all around. Sadly the DVD release is split into two discs, even on the super duper ultimate flip top box edition.
For a more depressing look at the effects of the Korean war (extra credit viewing?), try Kim Ki-Duk's Address Unknown.
Apparently, TaeGukGi is South Korea's entry for next year's Oscars. Pity... I would've loved to have seen OldBoy get the nod, but that might just be my avatar talking. 
Oldboy was extremely well done but I'd go out on a limb and say it probably doesn't have the mass appeal of Taegukgi. People can watch a bloody war film these days and not come out a fourth as disturbed as they would with Oldboy.
Korea has a lot to choose from as far as Oscar-worthy films go. I still consider Memories of Murder to be the best Korean film I've seen. Someone said there was a newer Kim Ki-Duk film in the running for the Oscar submission as well. 3-Iron? I haven't seen it.
Korea has a lot to choose from as far as Oscar-worthy films go. I still consider Memories of Murder to be the best Korean film I've seen. Someone said there was a newer Kim Ki-Duk film in the running for the Oscar submission as well. 3-Iron? I haven't seen it.
Oh, I can totally see why they didn't pick OldBoy... I just wish they would've. Of course, I haven't seen TaeGukGi so I can't compare the two films.
And yes, I've heard 3-Iron is very good, possibly Ki-Duk's best. Some friends saw it in Toronto (I skipped and wished I hadn't) and really raved about it.
And yes, I've heard 3-Iron is very good, possibly Ki-Duk's best. Some friends saw it in Toronto (I skipped and wished I hadn't) and really raved about it.
I heard someone say that if Pearl Harbor was rated R and starrred Koreans, then you would have seen TaeGukGi.
Too cheesy. Too Hollywood. Emotionally empty.
Too cheesy. Too Hollywood. Emotionally empty.
I'm a little surprised at how polarized people seem to be by this film. With people starting to get their DVD copies this week, I've read a lot of comments by people who apparently hated it. It was similar to Saving Private Ryan, but I don't think this should be held against it. In fact I personally thought it was quite a bit more interesting than SPR, though not as well-crafted or well-funded.
A lot of people have been comparing it to Silmido, which came out earlier in the year. I thought both movies were good, but fell a little shy of greatness. Both movies were formulas that have been done before... in Taegukgi's case, about twice a year for the past six years. However they both added something to their respective genres, and I'd not be willing to call either movie emotionally empty or too commercial or contrived or whatever.
A lot of people have been comparing it to Silmido, which came out earlier in the year. I thought both movies were good, but fell a little shy of greatness. Both movies were formulas that have been done before... in Taegukgi's case, about twice a year for the past six years. However they both added something to their respective genres, and I'd not be willing to call either movie emotionally empty or too commercial or contrived or whatever.
Caught this one in the theatre last night.
The film certainly does mimic the frenetic, harshly-lit, muddy, grimy, in-your-face, blood-on-the-lens style of Saving Private Ryan, but it doesn't mimic much else. TaeGukGi is basically just one battle scene after another, and it's pretty relentless, whereas SPR at least had some sort of STORY between its two big battles. SPR also posed a challenging question or two, regarding the mathematics of warfare -- is it really as simple as doing whatever saves the most lives or kills the least? Or is there some other principle -- call it higher, call it abstract, call it irrational -- that can mess with our numbers? (I am often reminded of Jesus' parable about the shepherd who abandons the 99 sheep to rescue the one.)
TaeGukGi, while not much of a STORY, does at least have an IDEA -- as theoddone33 puts it, "brothership is more important than politics" -- but I haven't a clue whether this would be as subversive to its target audience as the dilemma posed by SPR. What's more, I find this a somewhat dubious idea; political ideologies DO make a difference, and there IS more to warfare than the "brotherhood in arms". (The attitude that soldiers should disregard politics and just stick up for each other was one of the things that bugged me about Black Hawk Down, too -- without SOME sort of political or ideological justification, warfare is nothing but mass slaughter. And I think the attitude that says there would be no difference between living in the democratic South and living in the Communist North is pretty cynical and even downright ignorant.)
That said, I DID like the way this film presented the Korean War as little more than a civil war between Koreans (at least until the Chinese got involved and prolonged the war another couple years) -- that probably does reflect how actual close-to-the-ground Koreans saw the war, in contrast to the United Nations and other major geopolitical players.
The film certainly does mimic the frenetic, harshly-lit, muddy, grimy, in-your-face, blood-on-the-lens style of Saving Private Ryan, but it doesn't mimic much else. TaeGukGi is basically just one battle scene after another, and it's pretty relentless, whereas SPR at least had some sort of STORY between its two big battles. SPR also posed a challenging question or two, regarding the mathematics of warfare -- is it really as simple as doing whatever saves the most lives or kills the least? Or is there some other principle -- call it higher, call it abstract, call it irrational -- that can mess with our numbers? (I am often reminded of Jesus' parable about the shepherd who abandons the 99 sheep to rescue the one.)
TaeGukGi, while not much of a STORY, does at least have an IDEA -- as theoddone33 puts it, "brothership is more important than politics" -- but I haven't a clue whether this would be as subversive to its target audience as the dilemma posed by SPR. What's more, I find this a somewhat dubious idea; political ideologies DO make a difference, and there IS more to warfare than the "brotherhood in arms". (The attitude that soldiers should disregard politics and just stick up for each other was one of the things that bugged me about Black Hawk Down, too -- without SOME sort of political or ideological justification, warfare is nothing but mass slaughter. And I think the attitude that says there would be no difference between living in the democratic South and living in the Communist North is pretty cynical and even downright ignorant.)
That said, I DID like the way this film presented the Korean War as little more than a civil war between Koreans (at least until the Chinese got involved and prolonged the war another couple years) -- that probably does reflect how actual close-to-the-ground Koreans saw the war, in contrast to the United Nations and other major geopolitical players.
Hmmm. I found the STORY (while not as well done as Ryan) probably more compelling. The tensions between the brothers. The betrayal by the army after Jin-Tae after his heroic should have bought Jin-Seon's discharge, which was one of the pushes that led Jin-Tae to switch sides. To be sure, the fighting scenes dominate the movie, but there is far more there than the blood and chaos.
My review
My review
My favorite aspect of the film was the fact that it was a war on the home front. They were constantly running into people they knew, which gave a good look at how the war had changed almost everyone into something a little less human. Especially the actions back in the brothers' home town, rounding people up and shooting them for suspected Communist ties. It had a message that was a lot like Bergman's Shame in that respect... that in most wars, everyone loses to some degree.
Whereas Shame was a look at the horror of war from the civilian perspective, Taegukgi did a nice job getting across its message from the perspective of the soldiers. The context allowed it to delve into some topics and events that Saving Private Ryan was unable to touch since it was about a foreign war. It was still a highly derivative movie, but this was a rare time that I didn't mind.
I'll again throw in a recommendation for Silmido, which was Korea's other recent historical drama. I found it to be about as good as Taegukgi for different reasons, and about as flawed as Taegukgi for the same reasons.
[Edit: Just another note, the actor who played Jin-Tae in Taegukgi is next appearing in Chen Kaige's film The Promise, which given the cast and crew, uh... promises to be worth a look.]
Whereas Shame was a look at the horror of war from the civilian perspective, Taegukgi did a nice job getting across its message from the perspective of the soldiers. The context allowed it to delve into some topics and events that Saving Private Ryan was unable to touch since it was about a foreign war. It was still a highly derivative movie, but this was a rare time that I didn't mind.
I'll again throw in a recommendation for Silmido, which was Korea's other recent historical drama. I found it to be about as good as Taegukgi for different reasons, and about as flawed as Taegukgi for the same reasons.
[Edit: Just another note, the actor who played Jin-Tae in Taegukgi is next appearing in Chen Kaige's film The Promise, which given the cast and crew, uh... promises to be worth a look.]
Caught it on DVD a few weeks back. Thought it had promise but sort of came unraveled. Might write a review.
Oh please somebody write a review! I read Darrel's. I'd be interested in knowing why you thought it came "unravelled" SDG.
Just wondering, did any of you notice any historical inconsistencies in the movie? I noticed one with a prop. Can you guess which one it was?
Where did you see that in the movie? I saw that only in the second DVD in the "making of the movie" part with regard to some of the rhetoric by the prof and the director.
Just wondering, did any of you notice any historical inconsistencies in the movie? I noticed one with a prop. Can you guess which one it was?
QUOTE
And I think the attitude that says there would be no difference between living in the democratic South and living in the Communist North is pretty cynical and even downright ignorant.)
Where did you see that in the movie? I saw that only in the second DVD in the "making of the movie" part with regard to some of the rhetoric by the prof and the director.
BBBCanada wrote:
: Where did you see that in the movie? I saw that only in the second DVD in the "making
: of the movie" part with regard to some of the rhetoric by the prof and the director.
It has been nearly 10 months since I saw the film, so I don't remember any specifics. All I can say is that I am evidently good at interpreting the director's intentions.
: Where did you see that in the movie? I saw that only in the second DVD in the "making
: of the movie" part with regard to some of the rhetoric by the prof and the director.
It has been nearly 10 months since I saw the film, so I don't remember any specifics. All I can say is that I am evidently good at interpreting the director's intentions.
Yeah, I recall the characters in the film conveying that impression as well.
Well in the 2nd DVD with the interviews and all, this is quite expressed. That is, the actors, directors and producers view the North as their brothers. However, as with you Peter, I think it is naively optimistic for the South (or at least this film crew) to think this way. The North and South represent two different visions or more likely, ILLUSIONS (yes, for my conservative buds, capitalism and democracy are a PART of the CREATION order, in which case they express a certain proper understanding about reality, but also convey certain inadequacies concerning that order as well).
Throughout, the younger brother, Jin-seok is portrayed as being more tolerant of communism, and while I would agree that the two nations are "brothers" (fellow countrymen), the "family" ends there. I don't think we should stretch this too far. The communists certainly don't veiw their neighbours to the south as the south views their neighbours to the north.
On the historical inaccuracies, the IMdb says that a modern Canadian Flag of 1965 was flying at a hospital that takes place in 1951. But before I read the IMdb, there was in a scene where Jin-tae gives Jin-seok a Hershey's chocolate bar that was not only king size--something introduced back in 1980, but you can see the nutritional information on the back--something that wasn't introduce into a health conscious culture until the 1990's. I thought, "Hey!! What's that doing there??"
Throughout, the younger brother, Jin-seok is portrayed as being more tolerant of communism, and while I would agree that the two nations are "brothers" (fellow countrymen), the "family" ends there. I don't think we should stretch this too far. The communists certainly don't veiw their neighbours to the south as the south views their neighbours to the north.
On the historical inaccuracies, the IMdb says that a modern Canadian Flag of 1965 was flying at a hospital that takes place in 1951. But before I read the IMdb, there was in a scene where Jin-tae gives Jin-seok a Hershey's chocolate bar that was not only king size--something introduced back in 1980, but you can see the nutritional information on the back--something that wasn't introduce into a health conscious culture until the 1990's. I thought, "Hey!! What's that doing there??"
Just thought about something. In this movie, there is a scene close to the beginning where the family is splashing around in a pond after dinner. Later on in the movie, during the war, Jin-seok reminisces about being back at that time. As some of you know, as important as the family is, I don't see it as ultimate goal of life. However, in this film, through scenes like the above, one would think that returning back to life that was "normal" as was reiterated throughout was all that life was about. I just have problems with that. From a theological point of view there is MORE to life than the moral horizon presented herein. As Christians we live for something more, though I can accept that these are but foretastes of a more glorious future, still it seem to present them as ultimate.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.