Korea

¾¯·½ÔÚº«¹ú½­ÄÏÇøÒ»¼Ò¾Æµê·¿¼äÄÚÕÒµ½ÄêÇáòÃÀµÄYoon-jungʬÌå——Ò»¼Ò¹ã¸æ´´×÷¹ËÎÊ£¬ ËÀÕßÉíÖÐÖÂÃü¾Åµ¶¡£·¢ÏÖʬÌåÁ½¸ö¶àСʱºó£¬ ¾¯·½ÔھƵêÍ£³µ³¡¾Ð²¶ÁËYoung-hoon£¬ ²¢½«Ëû¿ÛÁôµ÷²é¡£°¸¼þת½»ÖÁÉÃ춴¦Àíıɱ°¸µÄ¾¯½ç´«Ææ¼ìÊÂYeon-ki´¦Àí¡£ ¡¡¡¡È»¶ø£¬ Yeon-kiÅÌÎÊYoung-hoonʱµÃÖª¶Ô·½ÏëɱYoon-jungµ«µ±ËûµÖ´ïÏÖ³¡Ê±ÒÑ¿´µ½Yoon-jungËÀÈ¥¡£È»¶ø£¬µçÊǪ́ÖÆ×÷ÈËÒà¶Ôì¶Õâ×Úıɱ°¸Òà¸ÐÐËȤ£¬ ì¶ÊǾö¶¨Á¬ÐøËÄÊ®°ËСʱֱ²¥¾¯·½¼©Ð×¹ý³Ì£¬ ¸ü¶Ôµ÷²é½á¹û×÷³ö·ÖÎö£¬ ÎÞÐÎÖÐÔö¼ÓÁËYeon-kiµÄѹÁ¦…… A lot of people go to the movies to find something exciting, something which will take them somewhere different than the reality they're living in; others look for a challenge, thought provoking films which question their preconceptions about society, politics, history, everything. Because we are animals addicted to brand, classify and dissect just about everything we come into contact with, from books to music and inevitably even films, words like 'genre' were born. And the primal, the first real distinction many people tend to make when discussing films is between what is considered art, and what's just mass entertainment. But, just like superficial ways of classifying ideology ('left wing', 'right wing') can make politics become a mere slugfest between rival tribes, one risks becoming a victim of this labeling game when watching films. What if something doesn't exactly fall into the boundaries of what is considered art, nor is an empty exercise in mass entertainment? Then you have two ways to deal with the problem: you exclude this 'third choice' for being a half-breed, neither black nor white; or, maybe, you consider the possibility there might be a center, a gray area, a kind of 'nongenre' where films are just films; neither pretentious and pseudo-intellectual 'art', nor dumbed-down and superficial 'mainstream' fare. Korean Cinema is a bit like that: often misunderstood because it doesn't offer clear-cut genre cinema (horrors that don't feel like horrors, comedies which turn into melodramas, action films not solely concerned with spinkicks and punches), difficult to get into because it spreads all over the spectrum, covering just about every 'genre' that's available, while at the same time deviating -- frustratingly, for some people -- from such formulae with reckless abandon. While you can easily categorize people like Kim Ki-Duk and Hong Sang-Soo as auteurs, and Kwak Jae-Yong and Kang Woo-Suk as producers of mass entertainment, things become a little harder to pinpoint when you talk about people like Park Chan-Wook, Bong Joon-Ho, Ryu Seung-Wan, or Kim Ji-Woon. Some of the best directors the country has to offer, but are they black or white, populist filmmakers or auteurs? The fact Park's films can travel overseas and either be considered substance-less 'stylish pulp' for fanboys, or masterfully orchestrated trips into our subconscious, just shows how getting rid of those labels from the beginning would pretty much solve the problem. Take Jang Jin for example: his films are much smarter and wittier than most commercial films out there, but he's never showed even a hint of pretentiousness. Just for the sake of contradicting what I just wrote, let's give him a label. Would 'populist auteur' do the job? He led a very intense life, but it's hard to understand why his films operate the way they do without looking at his personality, and at his past.