For Koreans, the 1970s and 1980s are often seen in movies, documentaries and dramas, and are etched in their memory as a turbulent period of history. In particular, the presidential assassination on October 26, 1979 and the subsequent military revolt on December 12 were recreated on screen in the films ‘The Managers of Namsan’ (2020) and ‘Spring in Seoul’ (2023). However, between the two incidents, the story of those involved in the assassination of the president only focused on the leader, former Central Intelligence Agency director Kim Jae-gyu, and the rest were not covered in detail.
However, the film ‘Land of Happiness’, which was released on the 14th, focused on the stories of those involved in the October 26th Incident, which many media outlets had overlooked. In particular, it focused on the impeachment of Colonel Park Heung-ju, a real-life figure who was the only soldier at the time of the trial for the October 26th Incident. The way the story is told also focuses on capturing the three characters (Jeon Sang-du, Jeong In-hoo, and Park Tae-ju) who represent the era by mixing reality and imagination rather than describing historical events in detail.
‘Land of Happiness’ is the new work of director Choo Chang-min, who mobilized more than 12 million moviegoers with the film ‘Gwanghae, the Man Who Became King’ (2012), adding cinematic imagination to the 15-day gap that was not recorded in history. As it is a story that continues ‘Spring in Seoul’, which deals with the events of the same period, ‘Land of Happiness’ attracted attention even before its release. However, the huge success of ‘Spring in Seoul’ must have been both an expectation and a burden for director Chu.
Director Chu, whom we recently met at a cafe in Jongno-gu, Seoul, said, “I think ‘Spring in Seoul’ is a film with broad audience appeal. ‘Spring in Seoul’ conveyed the characters and events related to December 12 in a refreshing way by treating them like a documentary, but our film had a different texture than that,” he said, “So rather than expectations (for the film’s success), audiences were drawn to this film of determination. “What I was most worried about was whether people would like it,” he confessed.
As he said, ‘Land of Happiness’ did not adopt a format that would cause enough anger to provoke a heart rate challenge. While it highlights the character of Park Tae-ju (Lee Sun-gyun), an honest soldier who followed his superior’s instructions to assassinate the president, and his life of integrity, it does not portray Jeon Sang-du (Yoo Jae-myeong), a character who eavesdrops on the closed-door trial and controls it, as the worst villain.
Director Chu said, “I wanted to talk about that era rather than a specific person. How barbaric that era was. “The kind of power and brutality of that era was shown through the character of Jeon Sang-du, replacing the more famous character, Chun Doo-hwan,” he said, “I think the human rights lawyer Jeong In-hoo (Jo Jeong-seok), who opposes him, is the civic spirit of that era. Park Tae-ju symbolizes the people who sacrificed themselves for power in that era. “I tried to show that era with more symbolism than the personal narratives of the three people,” he said.
Perhaps that’s why the trial scene, which is the main part of the film, shows things as they are rather than taking sides. Director Chu said, “I thought that in order for this work to approach the audience truthfully, the trial scenes should not be biased. Usually, when a villain is identified, one side is one-sidedly criticized and the other is defended, but in the courtroom scene, the power was equalized,” he said. “In the actual trial, it was recorded that the judges spoke informally and swore. However, putting it that way seemed like the trial would lose meaning. “I decided that it would be compelling if both sides seemed fair,” he explained. He added, “I didn’t think it was a good idea to add my personal judgment since there are still different opinions about the character Kim Jae-gyu,” and added, “The trial scene was made to match reality by almost 95% through thorough research.”
However, except for the trial scene and Park Tae-joo’s life, the film is situated between reality and imagination. Representative examples include the scene where Jeong In-hoo visits a golf course and the scene where the Army Chief of Staff decides to give favorable testimony to Park Tae-joo. Director Chu said, “If it’s not a documentary, I think past events can be reinterpreted within the writer’s imagination,” and added, “I think this kind of adaptation is a matter of persuasion rather than good or bad.”
The scene where Jeong In-hoo visits Jeon Sang-du, who is playing golf, and kneels down and screams to save Park Tae-joo is the most fictional scene, and at the same time, the most controversial scene among audiences. Critics are divided between those who say it is uplifting and cathartic, and those who say it is too unrealistic and breaks immersion.
Regarding this, director Chu said, “The golf course scene has the greatest symbolism of the time. Golf balls symbolize the audience who can play with them however they want. However, Jeon Sang-doo says, ‘The 3-iron doesn’t work well,’ and it seems like you can do it however you want, but it’s a scene that implies that the audience can’t do it easily.” He added, “Some people may think it’s excessive and ask, ‘Does this make sense? ’ I thought that if someone visited a place like Cheolongseong, the true face of the dictator would be revealed. “I wanted to express someone who was protesting at that time through the scene where Jeong In-hoo scolds Jeon Sang-du, just like an earthworm writhes when stepped on,” he said.
These metaphors and expressions keep appearing in the film. Jeong In-hoo, who fights to reduce Park Tae-joo’s sentence and realizes his civic spirit, has a real-life lawyer, Tae Yoon-gi, who became his motive, but in reality, he was a person who represented all the lawyers who were in charge of defending the October 26 leaders. So, the lines that Jeong In-hoo speaks in court are mixed with words spoken by other lawyers.
Many of the lines were said during the trial, but Park Tae-joo’s claim that Jeong In-hoo was a “good lawyer” is not true. Director Chu said, “The last line was a made-up line,” and added, “I know that about 32 human rights lawyers who worked hard for them were gathered, including lawyer Tae In-ki. “I thought it was a way to thank them,” he said.
Although Director Chu reserved all judgment on the actions of the real historical figures who formed the background of the film, he was clear in his assessment of Colonel Park Heung-ju, who became the motif of Park Tae-ju. Although he had a brilliant mind and rose to a high position at a young age, it was a fact that no one denied that he lived in a shabby shack and had only 4 million won in assets. He said, “By investigating the data, I know that the opposing prosecutor also acknowledged that Colonel Park Heung-ju lived with integrity. “So I did not hesitate to portray a real person in the film,” he said. “It is not yet clear whether his choice was correct, but I think the trajectory of his life is worthy of applause.” “I do not think that his entire life should be misled by the judgment made in the last 30 minutes,” he emphasized.
Director Chu’s thoughts, “Rather than big events, I wanted to tell the hidden stories in between and the stories of the people who were sacrificed,” were condensed in this ironic word Jeong In-hoo uttered toward Park Tae-joo. “Anyway, Korea only remembers Director Kim. Park Tae-ju doesn’t remember him.”
Reporter Jeong Jin-young young@kmib.co.kr
