In South Korea, the documentary “The Birth of Korea” is attracting significant attention, with one million tickets sold in a nation of about 50 million. This film, which chronicles the life of Syngman Rhee, South Korea’s first president, is emerging as a focal point in the ongoing debate over the nation’s history.

Amid its popularity, the documentary raises critical concerns about the potential distortion of historical facts and its use as a tool for political manipulation. These risks are particularly pertinent given the film’s timing, its widespread endorsement by conservative politicians, and the broader debate over South Korea’s historical narrative.

The circumstances surrounding the movie’s popularity highlight its role beyond that of a historical recounting. As the documentary garners attention and ticket sales, it brings to the forefront the delicate balance between historical documentation and the shaping of public perception.

RESPONSE TO ‘12.12: THE DAY?’

“The Birth of Korea” enters a scene already influenced by politically themed movies, especially after “12.12: The Day.” This earlier film, focusing on Chun Doo-hwan’s 1979 military coup, sold over 10 million tickets in November and December.

Its box office success led to varied political reactions. Main opposition Democratic Party (DP) lawmakers encouraged voters to see the film, claiming its popularity reflected dissatisfaction with the conservative Yoon administration.

In contrast, the ruling People Power Party (PPP) argued that the opposition was misinterpreting the film’s success, emphasizing that it was the conservative Kim Young-sam government that dismantled the coup’s military legacy. They criticized the opposition for drawing inappropriate parallels between past military rulers and the current administration.

However, suggesting “12.12: The Day” was made solely for election purposes simplifies its impact. The film’s significant budget and focus on dramatizing historical events suggest financial motives alongside any political intentions. Its popularity, particularly among young people who praised it online, indicates that its success was more than just politically motivated.

In contrast, “The Birth of Korea” is achieving success under very different conditions.

A promotional poster for “The Birth of Korea,” a film that has attracted 1 million ticket sales as of Tuesday | Image: Docustory’s Young Kim via Facebook

MOBILIZING VOTERS

Concerns have been raised about the methods used to boost ticket sales for “The Birth of Korea.” Reports indicate that Protestant churches in South Korea have organized large group viewings, and Truth Forum, a conservative organization, has offered reimbursements to moviegoers aged 18 to 40.

High-profile conservative figures have also publicly endorsed the film. Interim PPP leader Han Dong-hoon expressed gratitude toward the director, stating that Syngman Rhee played a pivotal role in shaping modern South Korea. President Yoon Suk-yeol also commended the film for providing an opportunity to “correctly assess” historical narratives.

These actions suggest that the film’s success is partially attributed to orchestrated efforts, aligning it with conservative ideologies and making its viewership a symbol of political alignment among conservatives.

MORE THAN A MOVIE

“The Birth of Korea” could influence April’s general election by energizing the ruling party’s conservative base and through strategic mobilization efforts. However, the documentary’s relevance transcends immediate political contests.

This film represents a concerted effort by conservative scholars, journalists, and activists to counteract perceived attempts by progressives and North Korea to “erase” Syngman Rhee’s role in South Korean history. The documentary makes its intent clear, educating viewers on its perspective throughout its 100-minute running time.

It challenges the prevailing view of Rhee as a dictator, particularly focusing on the rigged March 1960 election in which Rhee was reelected for a fourth presidential term and the April Revolution of 1960, which resulted in 180 fatalities and thousands of injuries during the suppression of pro-democracy protests.

The narrative then revisits Rhee’s life chronologically, lauding his accomplishments and offering counterpoints to criticisms. Topics discussed include Rhee’s attempts to liberate Korea from Japanese occupation, refutations that he contributed to the Korean Peninsula’s division or that he fled from the front lines during the Korean War, and his diplomatic efforts that culminated in the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty.

The documentary includes interviews with several foreign experts, seemingly aimed at providing a semblance of impartiality. However, the selection of these experts and the presentation of their views raise questions about the film’s objectivity.

For instance, David P. Fields, an associate director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who frequently appears in the film, mostly provides positive or neutral comments about Rhee.

However, Fields’ own written work presents a more nuanced view. In his book “Foreign Friends,” he writes that Rhee “did not live up to his billing as Korea’s ‘apostle of democracy’” and that Rhee saw “himself as the ultimate guardian of the possibility of Korean democracy, even as he ran roughshod over the Republic of Korea’s legislature.”

This discrepancy suggests that the documentary may have selectively edited contributions to align with its narrative.

Ruling People Power Party interim leader Han Dong-hoon pays his respects at the burial site of former President Syngman Rhee at Seoul’s National Cemetery, Jan. 1, 2024 | Image: People Power Party

THE BIGGER PICTURE

“The Birth of Korea” represents only a part of a broader campaign aimed at redefining Syngman Rhee’s historical image. This initiative extends beyond the documentary, encompassing ongoing efforts to establish a Syngman Rhee presidential library and erect a statue of him in front of the ROK Embassy in Washington D.C.

Additionally, efforts to alter public perception of Rhee are evident in various activities. Truth Forum, which not only helped mobilize viewership for “The Birth of Korea” but also contributed to its production, has organized public seminars discussing Rhee’s legacy. Further, conservative media outlets have published articles attempting to discredit academics perceived as part of the “movement to erase” Rhee’s historical significance.

The endeavor to memorialize Rhee with monuments seeks to do more than merely polish his image; it aims to fundamentally reinterpret the roles of former authoritarian figures, historically linked with conservative politics in South Korea, as vital to the nation’s development.

The objective is to recast these figures as national heroes, as depicted in “The Birth of Korea,” contrasting with their portrayal as villains in works like “12.12: The Day.” This strategy reflects a deliberate effort to influence the collective memory and historical narrative concerning South Korea’s path to its current state.

PART OF A GLOBAL TREND

The resurgence of reinterpretations of history and instances of denialism is not unique to any one region or era but is part of a global trend that has seen renewed vigor in recent times.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas, which erupted last year, has been accompanied by an alarming increase in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denialism in Western countries. Similarly, in East Asia, Japan has long been accused of denying the Japanese state’s involvement in the systematic sexual enslavement of “comfort women” during World War II.

While “The Birth of Korea” does not quite rise to the extremes of Holocaust denialism or the dismissal of Japan’s wartime atrocities, it sets a concerning precedent with its treatment of historical events.

The documentary’s approach to the Jeju Massacre of 1948, which resulted in the deaths of over 14,000 civilians — though some estimates suggest a higher toll — is particularly troubling. One figure in the film even suggested that de-centering victims of the massacre would lead to a more objective appraisal of the event, a dangerous statement seemingly intended to justify state violence.

The endorsement of “The Birth of Korea” by conservative political figures, including Yoon, raises additional concerns. Such support, especially when viewed against the administration’s professed commitment to human rights and democracy, casts these stances in a new and potentially contradictory light.

While catering to conservative constituents in the lead-up to elections might be a tactical move, embracing contentious historical narratives can lead to significant and lasting ramifications.

Edited by John Lee