Madame
freedom was produced in 1956; only 3 years after the Korean War ended as North
and South Korea signed the armistice agreement. In the film, women are in their
han-bok, wearing rubber shoes, and not many people know how to read and write
Korean. It’s been 57 years
since Madame Freedom hit the screens of Chungmuro and a lot has changed since
then. Or has it?
In So-young Kim’s article “Questions of Woman’s Film: The Maid, Madame Freedom and Women”, she writes, “American modernity under the signifiers of consumerism and sexual freedom slips into the film to converge on the Madame Freedom figure.” I don’t know whether it would still be called “American modernity”, but consumerism and sexual freedom has definitely found its place in Korea since then. In recent years, “Woman’s Film” targeted for the ajuuma consumers, has been replaced by dramas; more specifically, “Morning Dramas.” These “Morning Dramas” air between 8am to 10am, prime time for housewives after they send their husbands off to work and kids to school. These dramas are full of rich, upper class women with their Louis Vuitton bags having brunch in fancy restaurants, either having an affair or trying to get revenge on their husband who’s having an affair. Sound familiar?
In the scene above, Yoon-ju and Sun-young are talking about diamond rings and pearl necklaces, commenting that they are “authentic.” This line wouldn’t look awkward if it was used in a morning drama airing tomorrow morning.
Since Madame Freedom’s big hit in the Chungmuro box-office, a lot has changed in Korea. Korea is no longer poverty-stricken, and surprisingly in 2012, the first female president was elected. Society has changed and public notion on the role of women have also changed. But the mentality of women in the screens seems to have stayed the same over all these years. How is it that a woman’s desire depicted in a film from the 1950’s be so strikingly similar to those desires portrayed in modern day dramas? Do their wants represent those of the consumers? If so, has anything really changed since then?
No comments:
Post a Comment