National Pride, Globalization, and Im Kwon- Taek

As I read the first chapter in Im Kwon- Taek: The Making Of A Korean National Cinema , I found myself perpetually thinking back to Gi- Wook Shin’s The Paradox Of Korean Globalization. In her essay, Shin argues that globalization and nationalism in Korea are by no means contradictory phenomena, but rather, the two forces coexist and compliment each other. Shin writes, “Koreans see no inherent contradiction between nationalism and globalization… Koreans initiated and pursued globalization from with a clear nationalistic agenda from the outset” (Shin, 6). She goes on to explain that expressions and feelings of national and cultural pride go on the rise as a response to a globalizing society. In Korea, this has surely been the case. Reading in depth about Im Kwon- Taek’s success helped me to better understand Shin’s theory, for the popularity and hype over his period-piece films exemplify the cohesive relationship between globalization and national pride.

Having never seen a film by Im Kwon- Taek (excluding the clip of Sopyonje shown in class), I am eager to after James’ and Kim’s descriptions of some of his works. In particular, I am intrigued by the Korean landscape shots that Im is known for. These shots are mechanisms not only for beautifying the film, but also for “showing of ” Korea’s natural attributes, and therefore eliciting pride from the Korean audience. These shots do not included foreign cars, McDonald’s, or skyscrapers in the background, but instead, bring viewers to a “less threatening”, non globalized world. Im’s most famous works (and most popular with the people of Korea) are his period pieces, films that transport the audience to simpler time. James et. al states this perfectly: “Im’s field of dreams was not the future but the nostalgic past, a pre modern universe where the values of tradition, nation, and family remained intact and united” (37). It is explained in Im Kwon- Taek that many of Im’s famous historical works were released after 1986, the year that foreign film companies were allowed to set up shop in Korea, thus creating an influx of Hollywood films. I believe that this information solidifies the thesis presented by Shin, for Im’s pride-prompting films gained popularity at a time when Koreans were being bombarded with outside information and imagery.

On a completely different note, I would like to add to Beth’s discussion on pop culture and pleasure. In Watching Dallas, Ang writes, “No attempt will be made to give the definitive answer to the burning question: why is Dallas so popular? Instead, I want to concentrate my attention on a phenomenon, one aspect of popularity which is in itself complex enough: pleasure” (6). I suppose the question now becomes, “why do certain cultural products/ media forms illicit pleasure?” In terms of Korean cinema, I believe Im Kwon -Taek’s films were pleasurable not only because they were expressions of national pride, but also because of the escapism that they provided (perhaps the same escapism that Dallas provided for fans all over the world?) In Korea, for example, harsh times coincided with the popularity of film. James et. al write, “Cinema was the most popular cultural medium of nationalist expression during the Japanese colonial period” (20). Perhaps retreating mentally to another (better?) place or time is a driving force behind popular culture.


- Melanie Lubin

Meaning and Pleasure

Brian Longhurst’s article on “Text & Meaning” in Popular Music and Society and Ien Ang’s piece Watching Dallas have an interesting point of intersection in that they discuss the two most fundamental points of evaluation for cultural material: meaning and pleasure. To begin with, while Longhurst states that his article “is concerned with the ways in which pop music creates and conveys meaning” (Longhurst, 158), he does not give a definition of what meaning is, but rather seems intent to challenge how meaning is evaluated and analyzed through the decoding of structure and content of a cultural medium. Ang, in contrast, gives the sociological definition of pleasure as “the experience of satisfaction whenever a certain pre-existent need is fulfilled” (Ang, 9). Her article is more oriented with why so many people find Dallas pleasurable to watch. More provocatively, Ang then goes on to explain her “ambivalence” about soap operas such as Dallas due to her intellectual and feminist sensibilities, while also admitting that she has always enjoyed such shows (Ang, 12). She feels that she should not find pleasure in Dallas because it does not contain enough “meaning”. Thus, Ang’s definition of meaning seems to be related to the degree to which a particular medium has substance and divorces itself from the realm of superficial.

Longhurst takes up this point in his article when he discusses “value-laden terms” in musicology” (Longhurst, 158), which despite having the same definitions as other standard terms while carrying more favorable connotations. In this way, certain genres of music, namely Western classical music, have been traditionally deemed to have more meaning than other genres such as popular music. The very nature of being classical implies that something has some special meaning which has enabled it to endure the passage of time and still be present in culture. The nature of something popular implies pleasure; it must be enjoyable in order for mass consumption to occur. Yet the question remains, must a cultural artifact have a certain level of intrinsic meaning in order for it to be popular? My own mind is not yet made up, but it is certainly a notion worth further consideration.

Reading Comics response

Reading Comics by Mila Bongco has really got me thinking. Has the dominant culture created popular culture, using popular culture as a control device to keep itself dominant in society? Popular culture is not taken seriously – it is discredited due to its consumerist rather and artistic interests and its lack or rebellion of “standard American” morals and values. Popular culture, like comic books, is aimed towards the masses and as Bongco explains that “its generally accessibility (contrary to catering to a ‘cultured’ or ‘cultivated’ few) […] is characterized as unsophisticated and hence easy to cater to” (25). Popular culture is again devalued with the notion the mature and intelligent would not be bothered with such related mediums.

Combining the unimpressive packaging and delivery of popular culture with messages that contradict the ideology of the dominant culture, it is easy for the messages to be swiftly discredited as well. Bongco leads me to question that perhaps popular culture “[has been] ‘framed,’ their voice and arguments distorted and labeled as deviant and wrong, in such a way as to depoliticize them” (26). If values and ideas of popular culture are dismissed and presumed as immoral and incorrect, it can be assumed that the opposite values and ideas, or the values and ideas of the dominant culture would in fact be true. By placing oppositions and arguments against the ideologies of the “standard American” culture in a forum that can be easily challenged then rejected, the dominant culture can be perceived as superior by default.

Could this be the purpose for popular culture and not for the mediocre entertainment it is projected to be? Even the question reminds us to continue to think critically and examine more closely what the media, government, or other institutions are handing us. Quoting Bongco one last time, why aren’t we questioning “other major institutions of communication such as the Church, or the Law, whose legitimacy and responsibility seem to be taken for granted” (31)?