Below is the message that should have been in the original post:
The film Joint Security Area is rich with commentary on the notion of nations. The idea of a line which seems impassible to both North and South Korea is recurrent throughout the film, and crossing it to make friends with the enemy seems so remarkable given the situation when in reality it is just a few steps over a bridge. Even the detective is somehow bounded by this line, her profession revolving around it. This is represented poignantly by a scene in which she paced on the line in the rain. The opposite sides of the line are very different only because of the national symbols contained on each of them. Uniforms, photographs of national leaders, degrees of grandeur (N. Korea seems to put on a façade with refined uniforms and extravagant buildings, especially the white building with a large stairway leading to where guards stood at the line of demarcation on either side) and basic color schemes (N. Korea seems to like dark grey, red, and white while South Korea prefers camouflage and blues) provide superficial differences.
The relationship between the two North Korean and the 2 South Korean soldiers, however, reveals that they share some essence of humanity. The effect of national symbols is magnified when the older N. Korean soldier is infuriated at the denouncement meeting, and he breaks the special bond he once shared with Sgt. Lee by shoving the table into his chest and professing unwavering commitment to his nation’s leader. This national symbol has now once for all cut the bond of humanity that they had shared. Because of the division caused by different allegiances, no one wins in this film. This shows that Korea is hopelessly divided, though some long for unity. This message may also be a commentary on “history”, observing that many of the results of society or what we chose to portray are based on our nationalism, and are not a true reflection of the common humanity that all men have shared through the ages. The harmony that could ideally be accomplished is shattered to the point where men that called each other friend and comrade mistrust and shoot each other minutes later, an event that led most a two of them to suicide later.
The director uses mise-en-scene techniques like lots of ominous shadows, intimate close-ups, and camera movements/views that almost take us inside of the character. Examples of this can be seen in scenes where the detective looks around the room and the camera swings as her vision would(but the camera remains behind her head), a shot of a perspective through night-vision goggles, and a shot of what one sees when they close their eyes and a bright light flickers about them when the soldiers signal to the others via sunlight on mirrors. The last example really brings the viewer literally into the character. We see what they see and relish or observe what they do. This contributes greatly to the intimacy of the film. All of these elements, coupled with our dramatic knowledge of the end of the intimate relationship of the soldiers, induces an uneasy tone in the film even as they meet as comrades- a want but incapability to share in the joy and hope of bringing down the long-standing national barrier.
I think it is a great review for JSA,and the most influence/effective purpose in the movie is the finding of Jang's investigation that discoverered a friendship between two soliders. This friendship represent the unnecessary split between the north and the south and a reminder for Korea as a united country becuase eventually they are all brothers in blood.
I found it interesting when you said theirs bond was shattered forever when Sgt. Lee declared his love for North Korean. Later in the film they still attempt to help each other as if friends, even after everything they had been through.
I feel like you really brought the misc-en-scene to life with this. When I watched the movie I caught on to some of what you are talking about, but you really dug in there and took it to the next level. Also, the part about national facades was intriguing.
Below is the message that should have been in the original post:
ReplyDeleteThe film Joint Security Area is rich with commentary on the notion of nations. The idea of a line which seems impassible to both North and South Korea is recurrent throughout the film, and crossing it to make friends with the enemy seems so remarkable given the situation when in reality it is just a few steps over a bridge. Even the detective is somehow bounded by this line, her profession revolving around it. This is represented poignantly by a scene in which she paced on the line in the rain. The opposite sides of the line are very different only because of the national symbols contained on each of them. Uniforms, photographs of national leaders, degrees of grandeur (N. Korea seems to put on a façade with refined uniforms and extravagant buildings, especially the white building with a large stairway leading to where guards stood at the line of demarcation on either side) and basic color schemes (N. Korea seems to like dark grey, red, and white while South Korea prefers camouflage and blues) provide superficial differences.
The relationship between the two North Korean and the 2 South Korean soldiers, however, reveals that they share some essence of humanity. The effect of national symbols is magnified when the older N. Korean soldier is infuriated at the denouncement meeting, and he breaks the special bond he once shared with Sgt. Lee by shoving the table into his chest and professing unwavering commitment to his nation’s leader. This national symbol has now once for all cut the bond of humanity that they had shared. Because of the division caused by different allegiances, no one wins in this film. This shows that Korea is hopelessly divided, though some long for unity. This message may also be a commentary on “history”, observing that many of the results of society or what we chose to portray are based on our nationalism, and are not a true reflection of the common humanity that all men have shared through the ages. The harmony that could ideally be accomplished is shattered to the point where men that called each other friend and comrade mistrust and shoot each other minutes later, an event that led most a two of them to suicide later.
The director uses mise-en-scene techniques like lots of ominous shadows, intimate close-ups, and camera movements/views that almost take us inside of the character. Examples of this can be seen in scenes where the detective looks around the room and the camera swings as her vision would(but the camera remains behind her head), a shot of a perspective through night-vision goggles, and a shot of what one sees when they close their eyes and a bright light flickers about them when the soldiers signal to the others via sunlight on mirrors. The last example really brings the viewer literally into the character. We see what they see and relish or observe what they do. This contributes greatly to the intimacy of the film. All of these elements, coupled with our dramatic knowledge of the end of the intimate relationship of the soldiers, induces an uneasy tone in the film even as they meet as comrades- a want but incapability to share in the joy and hope of bringing down the long-standing national barrier.
Sorry about that... The JSA post was written by Dustin Watts
ReplyDeleteI think it is a great review for JSA,and the most influence/effective purpose in the movie is the finding of Jang's investigation that discoverered a friendship between two soliders. This friendship represent the unnecessary split between the north and the south and a reminder for Korea as a united country becuase eventually they are all brothers in blood.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting when you said theirs bond was shattered forever when Sgt. Lee declared his love for North Korean. Later in the film they still attempt to help each other as if friends, even after everything they had been through.
ReplyDeleteI feel like you really brought the misc-en-scene to life with this. When I watched the movie I caught on to some of what you are talking about, but you really dug in there and took it to the next level. Also, the part about national facades was intriguing.
ReplyDelete-Matt Brundage