역사극의 이론적 관점에서 본 한국역사극의 특성

Abstract

History drama has a specific way of expressing and interpreting the past which may be called ‘dramatic turn.’ In oder word, history drama intends to understand and describe the past dramatically. Based upon this assumption, this study deals with the following research questions: ① what is the theoretical frame proper for the analysis of history drama? ② what are the features of Korean history drama when it is analyzed under that theoretical frame? History drama can be discussed in three dimensions: ① the selection of historical material, ② the reconstruction of selected historical material, ③ the social effect of dramatic reconstruction. The dramatization of the past begins with selecting a specific historical material, and then proceeds to remake it dramatically and aesthetically. Accordingly we have to pay attention to the ways of remaking the past dramatically, that is, the use of specific dramatic forms, the surplus memory, and the historical viewpoint. The resulting dramatization of the past may cause a social effect, suggesting a certain collective identity by evoking a special sense of the past. Using the above theoretical frame, this study attempts to analyze four Korean plays dramatizing the national crisis. In the selection of historical material, <Sayukcin> focuses on the failed revolt against King Sejo, while <Tae> depicts the crisis of succeeding the pedigree caused by the usurpation of the throne. The failed revolt of <Sayukcin> is aesthetically reconstructed by the adoption of melodrama and linear plot, thus accusing the sinister world for its failure. <Tae> tries to reconstruct the past aesthetically, using the episodic form departing from realism in oder to depict the schizophrenic rupture caused by the usurpation of the throne. The failed revolt of <Sayukcin> is also glorified by the historical view of hero who undergoes the martyrdom. The schizophrenic world depicted in <Tae>, on the other hand, is signified by the reactionary view of history such as shamanist and Confucian ways of thinking. The result is the lack of obvious ‘historical analogies’ comparing the past with the present. Consequently <Tae>, like <Sayukcin>, remains as an old story that hardly helps to understand the present. The surplus memory evoked by <Sayukcin> is ‘the flood of tear,’ the symbol of moral purity. This image justifies the failed history aesthetically. The surplus memory of <Tae> is the bloodshed violating the moral norm and the ensuing history haunted by a sense of sin. <Sayukcin> and <Tae> generate the social effect, defining our collective identity in each own way. The collective identity suggested in <Sayukcin> is the history suffering failure owing to the evil of the world, and the failed history justified aesthetically by the virtue of martyrdom and moral purity. The collective identity alluded in <Tae> is the schizophrenic history attended by the bloodshed threatening the succession of pedigree, and the history suffering a sense of guilty. <Gesani> and <Gabose> that approach the national disturbance ‘from below' select Japanese invasion of Korea and Donghak revolution respectively as their historical material. <Gesani> maintains the critical distance toward the Royal court employing the formal elements of epic theatre and satire, while expressing the sympathy toward the people suffering hardships by using realism and melodrama. <Gesani> provides a historical analogy comparing Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 to Korean civil war. <Gabose> signifies the past from the specific political viewpoint using Madang play. Thus it reveals the class conflict and the critical attitude toward the ruling class using Korean traditional performing arts, and attempts to explain the need of uprising, introducing socialist art forms. As such <Gabose> adopts Marxist viewpoint of history to interpret the reality from the perspective of class struggle, and includes a historical analogy comparing Donghak revolution to Gwangju riot implicitly. If the principal memory of <Gesani> concerns the incompetent and irresponsible Royal court that causes the misery of the people, its surplus memory deals with the cynicism of the people that makes them the outsiders to the national crisis. The conflict between principal memory and surplus memory is also found in <Gabose>. Here the principal memory that recalls the righteous belief and activity of the peasant uprising collides with the surplus memory that suggests the irrational impulse of revenge. The collective identity in both plays is double. <Gesani> defines it with the evasion of responsibility on a national level, and with a strong survival power on a personal dimension. <Gabose> attempts to find our collective identity in an armed uprising to the social oppression and exploitation, which causes the irrational revenge.