Recent Korean cinema have dealt with historical events. Among them, <Silmido>(Kang, Woosuk, 2004) became super blockbuster. <Silmido> manifests ambivalent attitudes about the meaning of 'history' and 'historical event' held by many contemporary south Koreans. I would argue that the film presents historical trauma and confusion. That is, notions of both rationality and system are undermined by visible evidence that history is the concatenated and reified effect of red complex and ideology of cold war. <Silmido> telles us with great imagination. One can be in history, can make history, without paying attention and without understanding. Thus, reflection and reflexivity are a waste of time. <Silmido> denies the hermeneutic necessity of understanding the significance of that larger temporal spread we live and narrativize socially as history or histories. We don't know what it means. Ironic and playful, its thematics, mise-en-scène, and mode of representation make visible the breakdown of the segmentation that secured for us the borders and value between significant and trivial event, between fact and fiction, between experience and its representation. Furthermore, this narrative paradox is also figured as representational paradox. In sum, <Silmido> stands as both symptom of and gloss upon a contemporary moment in which history and historical consciousness have been often described on the one hand as at an end, and on the other hand have been the object of unprecedented public attention and contestation. One might say we are in a moment marked by a peculiarly novel readiness for history among the general population. That is, people seem to carry themselves with certain reflexive phenomenological comportment toward their immediate immersion in the present, self-consciously grasping their own objective posture with an eye to its imminent future possibilities for representation as the historical past.
1. 머리말
2. 빨갱이 혐오증과 냉전의 논리
3. '역사에 의한 희생'에서 '역사를 위한 희생'으로의 전이
4. 가해자를 위한 변명
5. 맺음말
(0)
(0)