No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
B1 Korean Publishers Association Bldg., 105-2 Sagan-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-190, Korea
P re f a ce
The first time I met Mr. IM Kwon-taek was in a November afternoon in 1986, at a coffee shop named Nan-da-rang in Namsan. At that time, IMs film Ticket had just been released and he was in the middle of preparing for the next film, Surrogate Mother. That winter, I had a long interview with him and was able to publish the first collection of interviews with IM. Many people had predicted that the book will be the final edition of interviews with IM not because it was well-written but because IM had come a long way as a director and that he wouldnt be able to go much further from that point. However, those predictions were very incorrect. IM went further, or I would rather say that he set out for his long journey from that point and started to produce outstanding films since then.
In those days of interviewing IM, I watched his movies again. I paid very close attention to his worlds. I hadnt realized at first but at some point, it struck me that understanding IMs works means not just comprehending his movies, but the historical background of Korean cinema; which leads me further to understand my father and my grandfather.
I was able to perceive the scenes, shots, stories, and the main characters which I couldnt understand before by recollecting the logics of his words while watching his movies again. Just then, I became aware that I was watching the life of the time which my father couldnt dare talk to me about. History of modern Korea consists of many fetters, in which different generations live with very different experiences; Japanese colonization, confusion after the liberation, the Korean War, division of North and South, the dictatorship of PARK Chung-hee, the Gwangju Massacre in May 1980, pro-democracy movements in 1987, the International Monetary Fund bailout in 1997, and the 21st century. Many artists left records of their generations but IM is the only one who has truly embraced all the events of the 20th century and is conveying a message to us now. Just looking at the result, he is nearly the most miraculous survivor but when the personal story of his survival comes to light, the miracle is a record of the tears of a tragic history. After all, I think Korean cinema is the director, IM Kwon-taek. I am not implying that he is the best director in Korea. Describing IM is recording the history of Korean movies and, furthermore, explaining the history of modern Korea.
To write this book, I used some quotes from previous interviews with IM but I met him again in October 2006 to hear more about his thoughts specifically for this book. During the recent interview, he showed some changes on some of his opinions from before. Therefore, I can say that IMs thoughts on films in this book are his most recent ones. However, we must not stop here because IM is a cineaste whose biggest fear is to stop at a place. He repeatedly makes pledges to himself even in his films. In his movie Chihwaseon, JANG Seung-up runs to his teacher with his painting of Sehando and proudly says, Teacher, I completed the picture. But the teacher scolds him fiercely saying, You fool, there is no completion when painting. IM will never complete his movie. This book will also be a temporary writing piece in this world, while it waits for IMs next movie.
CHUNG Sung-ill
Early Winter, 2006
H is Th ou g hts 1
Eyewitness to History (1962-1992)
History, System, Writer: IM Kwon-taek, as a Genealogy, IM Kwon-taek in Context
Discussing IM Kwon-taek means talking about Korean movies as well as the way Koreans lived during the 20th century. Godard said that if German music is Mozart, German cinema is Fritz Lang. Likewise, if Korean music is the pansori, Korean cinema is IM Kwon-taek. In more humorous but theoretical detail, talking about IM means restructuring Korean movies into a concept of national cinema. However, it comes with a history of bloody tears. I am not saying this as a figure of speech, but as the only expression that can best describe the history of IMs time. Although history sheds tears IMs movies are about people, and the history which can only be seen through their tears. Therefore, we must not only question the tears but the process that caused the tears. And through those tears, we must be able to see the original state of the distorted figure.
The most ineffective way to discuss IM is to choose a period among his movies, ignore what had happened before, and talk about his works from that period on, in which case the gap isnt the only problem. Perhaps talking about all his movies, that add up to almost a hundred, seems like a burden. However, if we ignore the past and restore IM to forms, we are inevitably confronted with the problems of ignoring the impurities; which are variations in story, attitudes of heroes, scenery, pansori, historical background, classical Korean architecture in the scenes, and intentional shots that embrace all of the above. However, I believe that there is the essence of IM in those impurities. IM was never driven by the form. He always adapted the camera His Thoughts to the forms his main characters requested for and questioned the forms over and over to find the best scenes for the story, and not the reverse! In that sense, IMs forms were always incomplete and at the same time atypical. Form and content are not separated into two different segments for him but are an unbalanced combination of understated forms and overstated content. The most absurd expression in movies is the term universal forms. Every movie is always a special exception. IM is an exception among exceptions, but he isnt trying to say something through the exceptions. His exception of forms is always restricted to exception of content. The stories of his movies, at a certain point, is the world that can only be explained in the content of Korean history. Therefore we must acknowledge the fact that the reason IMs exceptions of forms are filled with impurities is due to the content. The impurities in his movies desperately require explanation. The impurity is the tears in IMs movie but who is shedding the tears? History must endure the events modern Korea is inevitably creating in reality. We must understand this rhetorical cycle.