Managed to get some time to see Gwanghae [Masquerade] (광해, 왕이 된 남자) three Saturdays ago; it's good entertainment but it may be a bit incredible that someone of a rather "modest" background could be a better king than the real king. (I suppose it depends on what one thinks of the king - being an improvement may not take much.) Lee Byung Hun (이병헌) plays both King Gwanghae and the [gisang house] comedian/jester/entertainer who resembles the king. The comedian is recruited by the Royal Secretary ( Ryoo Seung-Ryong 류승룡) to pretend to be the king at night because the king fears for his life.
I was pulled in by the movie's visuals to think over the plot and issues. Such a pretty movie. But of course they had certain scenes to make it a tearjerker! Did it deserve to win Best Picture for this year's Daejong Awards, though? I don't deny that it is a sentimental crowd-pleaser, as evidenced by its box office pull. (Is Pietà the better movie?) One might think that the jester's awkward infatuation with the queen is a misstep in the story, but it seemed plausible to me that this would happen, since the jester is both a man and also rather attached to the royal institution, despite the failures of the king to secure justice. He might be tempted to take his playacting too far, falling in love with the queen having seen how beautiful she is. And it is understandable that this infatuation could never be resolved to his satisfaction; the queen recognizes the goodness in him but is faithful to the king. It is a good movie for LBH fans and those who are interested in Korean cinema, but the story is a bit shallow and simplistic even if it provides material for reflecting on the Korean monarchy and political theory in general.
*spoiler warning*
Is the movie pro-monarchy or pro-democracy? Or does it neutral on the question of the best government? The jester seems to have greater virtue, benevolence (仁) than the actual king, who is fatigued from the conflicts with certain powerful bureaucrats and has taken refuge in dissolution (too much time with his concubines - a royal failing recognizable to Confucians). The jester cares for the good of the people as a king should (this is recognized by those who are closest to the king, the eunuch, the chief bodyguard, and the Royal Secretary in addition to the queen). In some ways, he is a a bit too innocent, though he too is tempted to have relations with the concubines and the queen. A commoner who is better at being the king than those of royal blood...
And the government which the king heads is responsible for oppressing the people through an unjust tax burden - this is illustrated by the story of the tasting girl (Shim Eun-kyung 심은경). The jester has witnessed corruption before; he is tortured by a local magistrate for making lewd jokes about the king and is coerced by that magistrate into arranging a tryst with a young gisang. The jester also protests against the foreign policy of the court, which fails to safeguard the good of the people. Korea, being a tributary state to [Ming] China was required to give both tribute and soldiers for wars. The jester speaks against this, recognizing that as king he already steals from the people - but he cannot also take their lives wrongly. The king is isolated from the common people, out of touch with them and their suffering.
And yet, the movie can be seen as an argument for a more effective king; as the one who is ultimately responsible for the good of his people, he must have the powers that he needs in order to overcome inefficiencies, politicking, and corruption of the bureaucrats. Having compassion for those who suffer under the government, once he takes over for the king who has become incapacitated, he desires to fight against the greed of corrupt officials, but is constantly being told by the Royal Secretary that he cannot merely declare his will. (This is something of the "traditional" case for monarchy, that the king is the check on those who have power and hold a position between him and the common people.)
The rule of the court seems to be a law higher than the person of the king, and a manifestation of the "rule of law" that is supposed to restrain the king from the arbitrary exercise of power. The Royal Secretary urges that the jester be respectful of the rule of law. This serves as a reminder that the rule of law not solely a characteristic of liberal democracies, despite what some of their defenders might claim. (And arguably the rule of law has failed, since the constitution of the nation-state and its laws are not ordained to the common good, but to the benefit of a few.)
Are the movies of the maker counting on the average moviegoer to be familiar with Korean monarchy? With what can he compare the movie's portrayal of monarchy? His experience of Korean "democracy"? They probably intended to make an entertaining historical fiction drama. What do normal Koreans think of their monarchy? I don't know of too many Korean monarchists; I have not read that those who call themselves Confucians (scholars? authorities?) advocate a return to the monarchy either.
The lack of accountability and distance between the center of power from the people is not a problem limited solely to monarchies governing large populations - it is a problem also with large "democracies" as well - to any form of government attempting to rule an over-sized population. How big of a community does one need in order to obtain all of those goods necessary for a complete life? Too many men have made an idol out of size and scale in their desire to lord power over others (or to have that sort of worldly glory reflected upon themselves). The good of civic friendship is as important as other goods, if not more important, but it is not commensurable with a population that exceeds a certain size.
How big were Tolkien's kingdoms in his Middle Earth stories?
Some videos:
No comments:
Post a Comment