There are many ways to criticize a film: rating it, writing reviews, discussing it, or even taking legal action if it presents false information. However, the backlash against the film 'Assassins' has extended beyond these avenues, reaching a building in Gwanghwamun and a residence in Seongbuk-gu.
On October 6, conservative groups held a rally in front of the Gwanghwamun G Tower, where Burger King's domestic operations are based, demanding the film's screening be halted and apologies from the cast and crew. On October 4, protests occurred in front of the home of lead actor Yoo Hae-jin and the production company, with the rally at his residence reported to continue until the 31st.
Boycotts are not a new phenomenon. Consumers closing their wallets in response to labor rights violations or unfair practices is a legitimate form of protest. Last May, after a worker died at an SPC-affiliated factory, baseball fans initiated a boycott of 'KBO bread,' demanding an investigation and accountability with signs stating, "I will never eat bread stained with a worker's blood."
In April of this year, after two workers suffered severe finger injuries at the same factory, the union called for the establishment of a government investigation committee and a risk assessment involving union participation. Following the controversy over the 'Tank Day' marketing that belittled the May 18 Democratic Movement, Starbucks refunded approximately 76 billion won over two weeks after facing backlash. In these cases, the targets of the boycotts were corporate actions, and the demands were for the companies to make changes.
The boycott surrounding the film 'Assassins' presents a different scenario. On October 6, the conservative group Bellado demanded that companies withdraw their advertising contracts with Yoo Hae-jin in front of the building housing Burger King. The reason Burger King became a target was not due to any corporate wrongdoing but because Yoo Hae-jin was the model for their campaign. Burger King explained that the contract ended on September 30 and was a short-term agreement aligned with seasonal products. Kiwoom Securities, which ended its campaign featuring Yoo Hae-jin, has maintained its one-year model contract established in April. Despite having no responsibility, both companies have become conduits for pressure.
This raises the question of whether the justification for this pressure, namely the criticism of 'historical distortion,' is convincing. The film has sparked controversy by suggesting a hypothesis that contradicts the government's official announcement regarding the assassination of former First Lady Yuk Young-soo. The production team has stated that the film does not identify any specific individual as being behind the incident, and director Heo Jin-ho noted that he did not approach the film with the intent of revealing the perpetrator before its release.
Just because a dramatization presents a hypothesis does not mean it is asserting a fact. If the hypothesis is incorrect, it can be refuted through reviews, discussions, or investigations and trials related to defamation claims that have already been filed. This is the path laid out by the public discourse.
However, criticism from the political arena has ventured beyond this path. Lawmaker Joo Jin-woo of the People Power Party referred to the film as a "depraved movie," calling for its screening to be halted, the production company to be searched, and profits to be reclaimed. This is a demand to halt expression through investigation and state power. He also questioned why there was silence and protection for this "depraved movie" while there was outrage over Starbucks' advertising and support for Baejae High School. While he was inquiring about the government's and ruling party's response, the criteria for the boycott are clearly different. The Starbucks boycott stemmed from the company's own marketing, while the current boycott arises from a film unrelated to any corporate actions.
Lawmaker Kim Tae-kyu of the People Power Party appeared on the YouTube channel 'Genre Only Yeouido' on September 30, criticizing the film and suggesting that the actions of Chun Doo-hwan and Yoon Suk-yeol were not insurrections. When asked by the host whether Yoon Suk-yeol was an insurrectionist, he replied, "No," and gave the same answer regarding Chun Doo-hwan. He also stated, "The historical evaluation is not over yet." During the broadcast, questions arose about why the court's judgments regarding Chun Doo-hwan and Yoon Suk-yeol were viewed differently while criticizing the film for historical distortion. Kim responded, "To say we should accept judicial judgments is an act of tyranny."
Criticizing the film for differing from the government's official announcement while simultaneously rejecting the court's judgment on Chun Doo-hwan indicates a lack of consistency in their logic. When the same 'official record' is used as a standard for criticizing the film but is disregarded when it conflicts with their position, it highlights the inconsistency in the arguments against the film.
If there is certainty that the film is incorrect, it should be a matter of persuasion. However, pressure that begins with an unwillingness to accept alternative historical interpretations does not set a clear endpoint. The protests that have spread from the actor's residence to the production company and now to the advertisers' building illustrate this trajectory. If the target is not corporate wrongdoing but rather differing opinions, then regardless of which side is involved, this boycott is not a consumer movement.
When criticism claims to seek the truth but selectively chooses facts and attempts to erase alternative interpretations rather than refuting them, the assertion of correcting historical distortion becomes a pretext for controlling dissent.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.