1980년대 영화운동 담론에 나타난 세계영화사와의 전이적 관계 연구

Abstract

Korean cinema has referred to and translated the important trends and movements through its filmmaking and discursive practices since the colonial period. The long history of cultural translation and transference can be defined as making attempts to demarcate Korean cinema as a national cinema. This paper focuses on the 80s, which is called “the revolutionary era in Korea”,because it is sharply differentiated from the earlier periods since the beginning of the era of division in Korean peninsula in terms of its activation of anti-imperialist and anti-american discourses. We could witness the most radical and organized underground cinema movement among the filmmaking groups in the 80s. Then, how about the dimension of discursive practices? I tried to trace how the active anti-conventional discursive choices reflected and translated certain moments of the world cinema history and developed the transferal relationships with them. As a result, I could confirm that the young filmmakers and critics in the 80s held tight to the independent and socialism-friendlier attitude the ones in any other periods since the 50s. However, there was also the tension and conflict between the competitive discourses even in the 80s: the one between the cinema-movement group, which considered cinema as a agitating and mobilizing medium partly accepting the attractive power of Hollywood conventions, and the counter-cinema group, which was more likely to take up the counter-cinema strategy totally resisting the mainstream conventions. Therefore, Chang, Sun-woo’s conception of ‘open cinema’ sounded out the possibility of combining neorealist practices, Godard’s experiments and Korean traditional theatrical conventions in the early 80s. However, the movement group started referring to The Third Cinema in the southern America in the mid-80s and finally to the Chinese and Vietnamese socialist cinema and then even to the North Korean cinema. However, the collapse of the socialist world resolved the tension between the two groups because the launching of the journal “Film Language” became the critical moment of absorbing almost all critics as its workforce. According to Zizek and Mouffe, the whole historical process in the 80s could be defined as the process of translation of the antagonism into agonism. Psychoanalitically speaking, the subject needs to overcome the transference phase of identification with the Other in order to be separated from the desire of the Other and to be really subjectified in the process of transference. Ironically enough, the concept of Minjok cinema, that was none other than the fantasy of the nation and the national cinema, indicates how the colonized subject is integrated into ideology of the national autonomy, the colonized fantasy. Henceforth, the80s’ concept of “Minjok cinema” was liberally diluted with the de-political concept of national cinema when Korean cinema began to pursue its fame and award-winning pride in the world film festivals.