From Director to Dictator: Kim Jong-il on the Art of Cinema

Back in the early 70s, years before he decided to launch Taepodong missiles towards Japan and Hawaii, Kim Jong-il was North Korea's culture minister — a job given to him by founding Prime Minster Kim Il-sung, or as Kim likes to call him, dad. Tasked with creating a national cinema that embodied the spirit of the people's revolution, Kim would regularly visit movie sets to "oversee" the production of films, and some have credited him as the director of such classic films as The Flower Girl and Sea of Blood. In 1973, Kim wrote his treatise on film — the 330 page On the Art of Cinema, which, sadly, is less a study of the art form than it is a rulebook for all aspiring North Korean directors. It's interesting to note that Kim never found a director who could actualize his vision, and as a result kidnapped South Korean director Shin Sang-ok and forced him to make propaganda films for over eight years. With the pint-sized leader rapidly working his way towards the top of the Public Enemy list, I thought it would be an excellent time to purchase and read through this masterwork. To call Kim's writing dry would be an understatement. From its opening sentence ("This is the great age of Juche.") to its on-the-nose chapter headings ("In Creative Work One Must Aim High"), it's soon obvious that we're not faced with a page-turner. But beneath the propaganda about ideas as seeds, working-class revolutionary heroes, and how dramatic conflict should be settled in accordance with the law of class struggle, there are a few passages about Hollywood and the studio system that ring true (and are perhaps even more valid today than they were in '73). Two of the more interesting ones: "A film which merely aims to make a profit by showing off the stars' faces cannot be real art. The capitalist cinema, which promotes a few 'popular stars' to curry favor with the audience, is in essence a reactionary art form which reduces the stars to puppets and the film to a commodity. There cannot be a genuine creative spirit, and the beautiful flower of art cannot bloom where actors sell their faces and even their souls." "In the capitalist system of filmmaking, the 'director' carries that title, but in fact the right of supervision and control over film production is entirely in the hands of the tycoons of the industry who have the money, whereas the directors are nothing but their agents. [The director] is a mere worker who obeys the will of the industrialists whether he likes it or not." Chris Columbus comes to mind. Yet if stories out of North Korea are true, Kim is a die-hard film fanatic who has a private vault of over 15,000 films, many of which are the so-called capitalist film he denounces. (One can only wonder if he's seen Team America.) Though the book is bogged down in ideological arguments on proper communist art, many of Kim's rules aren't far removed from what you'd find in a Syd Field book. He's a champion of method acting, encourages originality, stresses the need for screenwriters to have an excellent grasp of language, and places great importance on the use of music. (As evinced by the chapter, "A Film Without Music is Incomplete.") The book closes with a few chapters on film criticism, which Kim sees a collective endeavor. Critics are meant to come together and collectively assess a film purely on its adherence to Juche-oriented ideas, and the director's understanding of Party policy. (Sort of like what Armond does.) For fun, passages from On the Art of Cinema can easily be applied to current releases. To wit: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: "A film with an untidy plot cannot grip the audience and define their emotional response. Only when the storyline flows naturally and logically can the film rouse the ideological and emotional sympathy of the audience, and make their hearts beat faster. If it does not convince the audience of the truth through the natural flow of the story, it is not art." The Break-Up: "If the characters' behavior in a given situation is determined by the whim of the writer, and not by their own will and conviction, they will not seem like living people and will fail to arouse a genuine emotional response. Actions which have no basis in logic or the characters' rationale are no more than the imposed movements of marionettes." Any Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer/Roland Emmerich film: "Introducing some stunning occurrence or the total impact of something completely strange and unheard of in the hope of evoking meaningless exclamations of wonder is a vulgarity which is incompatible with art created for the people." On the Art of Cinema can be ordered from Amazon.

Comments

[Thom]

Good points, Burritoboy. But, let's also add into the equation the fact that regardless of any ideaological bureacracy the film creators always have at least one alternative: not to make the film. That's freedom too.

[HarryTuttle]

burritoboy,
I meant the artists in these periods were enjoying freedom themselves, i.e. they were part of the dominant class.

I guess the Gulag artists wouldn't necessarily agree with your theory though...
Just like the separation of Church and Power is important to democracy, the separation of Culture and Politics is important to the Arts.
Even if Kim Jong-il was a great artist, it doesn't benefit artistic freedom if one man controls how arts should be, by ideology.

I'm not sure what you mean by less freedom under capitalism... Staline (concrete regime, not theoretical communism) isn't the best counterexample to prove Capitalism "less free")Sure I would argue capitalist artists are conditionned by money, thus limiting their inspiration. But the very nature of Capitalism doesn't limit arts, it's only the (free) psychological reaction of artists themselves.

[Duncan]

Thom, "regardless of any ideaological bureacracy the film creators always have at least one alternative: not to make the film. That's freedom too." Oh, I like that. And under freedom of speech we have the alternative to just shut up. Or, under freedom of religion, if we don't like the official church, we have the alternative to worship in catacombs, or just be atheists. No, I don't think that *is* freedom.

HarryTuttle, "I'm not sure what you mean by less freedom under capitalism ... Sure I would argue capitalist artists are conditionned by money, thus limiting their inspiration. But the very nature of Capitalism doesn't limit arts, it's only the (free) psychological reaction of artists themselves." Um, you're misunderstanding the issue with regard to film. Film is not like writing poetry, which can be done by one person without collaborators or equipment -- for a very long time poetry wasn't even written down. (Of course, like any other art, poetry is a social process; whether artists work within traditions or against them, they don't create ex nihilo.) Film on the other hand tends to be capital-intensive, requiring expensive equipment and a large crew of workers. (There are exceptions, but the movies most of us see are like that.) Being a mass medium, it also requires a distribution system. Whether the means of production and distribution are owned by a corporation or by the state, the problems of access to them are similar. Shin Sang-ok, the South Korean director who was abducted by the North and spent several years making "propaganda" films for Kim Jong-il, said in interviews that he had *more* artistic freedom in the North than he had in the South -- this even though he had had his own production company in the South. (Which had been shut down by the "free", anti-Communist Park Chung-hee regime.)

Films under capitalism are made by committee most of the time. I just saw Mervyn LeRoy's 1940 version of "Waterloo Bridge," about a young Englishwoman who turns to prostitution to support herself in World War I. Industry censors went over the script and cleansed it of sexual references: Under the capitalist system, the word "prostitution" could not be uttered. There's a lot of prattle these days about "political correctness" in the movie industry, for example in the making of "Pearl Harbor" which tried to appeal to Japanese as well as American sensibilities: censorship now is done by the marketing people. This doesn't mean that "capitalist artists are conditionned by money" any more than, say, Soviet artists like Andrey Tarkovsky were. But Tarkovsky, despite his unquestioned artistic stature, had trouble making the films he wanted to make in the West, as he had in the USSR, and he recognized that a major factor was the fact that film is an expensive medium.

I don't think I agree with burritoboy that "There's really never any serious examination of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes or Paul Samuelson or Gary Becker or Montesquieu -i.e. very few under capitalism can even begin to discuss the underpinnings of their regime. That means that there is no substantive alternative for most under capitalism - a true lack of freedom." Certainly his counterexample, that "At least theoretically, the communist regimes encouraged the entire citizenry to be conversant with the thought of Marx and of the Marxists", doesn't prove a thing. *At least theoretically,* in capitalist regimes the citizens are encouraged to be conversant with Adam Smith, and so forth. (And Smith's version of capitalism is very different than, say, Milton Friedman's.) Contrary to burritoboy's claim, there's a lot of very serious examination of John Locke, etc., in the US. It can be published and discussed publicly, whereas in the Soviet Union a serious critic of Marx -- let alone of the specific, practical application of Marx's ideas in the USSR -- would not be able to publish, and might be committed to a mental hospital or sent into internal exile. Unless burritoboy agrees with Thom, and believes that it's "freedom" enough to be able to think in the privacy of one's own mind, and that "freedom" not to publish, not to discuss, constitutes freedom.

The real problem, I think, is the capital-intensive nature of movie-making. When large amounts of money must be invested in the process of production and distribution, socialist no less than capitalist "bureaucrats" are not going to throw half a million dollars and more at any person who asks for it. ("Well, I don't have a script, but I have this great idea! I'm an artist! Just ask the other guys down at the coffeehouse! What's the matter, are you a bureaucrat stifling my artistic freedom?") Digital video, computer editing, and other lower-cost technologies are changing this a little, but the problem of distribution will remain. And audiences will have to be willing to venture beyond the multiplex.

[burritoboy]

"*At least theoretically,* in capitalist regimes the citizens are encouraged to be conversant with Adam Smith, and so forth."

No, actually, they're not. Capitalist citizens are expected to be able to mouth platitudes from the first few days of Economics 101, which isn't either Smith nor Friedman. Not only is no one expected to know more than that, you will be looked at as a communist (or heretic) if you mention what economists learn after they get their masters (just one secret you will never learn in Econ 101: the Debreu-Sonneschien-Mantel Theorem means that those cute supply-demand curves don't actually exist).

That is to say, Marxists have much easier access to real thinkers who reveal real alternatives. Now, of course, the vast majority of the population probably either can't or don't want to pursue that. And, obviously, there is an official state interpretation of these texts - just as there is a privatized-official state interpretation (the corporation's interpretation)of capitalism that you'd better parrot if you want to stay employed under capitalism. The two systems are simply not that different from each other.

[burritoboy]

"whereas in the Soviet Union a serious critic of Marx -- let alone of the specific, practical application of Marx's ideas in the USSR -- would not be able to publish, and might be committed to a mental hospital or sent into internal exile."

Which is not that different from many past eras under democratic capitalist countries - which, in the US, for just one, repeatedly purged the film community, the arts and academia (the UK did the same in various ways). It's true that, in the US, most dissidents haven't been imprisoned (well, after the 1920s, but they were readily imprisoned before that) - but plenty were sent into various types of exile. Meanwhile, the treatment of dissidents varied widely under different eras of communist countries. Overall, of course the treatment of dissidents was better under democratic capitalism, but the difference is of degree not kind.

[HarryTuttle]

Duncan,
Capitalism doesn't forbid the existence of dissenting producers (with anti-capitalist ideas or opposed to the running government) to make a non-profitable production (MoveOn.org)
A DV homevideo broadcasted on the internet can be very cheap. Experimental artists make feature length movies without an audience (Matthew Barney). The question of liberty isn't whether everyone can have a shot at making a big budget movie.

When I talked about money conditioning and psychology it was about directors who want to make money therefore compromise their own artistic freedom (without external oppression other than greed). It's not the capitalist system that prevents them to make cheap confidential movies.

burritoboy,
Would you say McCarthyism is conform to democracy or capitalism?

[Thom]

Duncan, "Oh, I like that. And under freedom of speech we have the alternative to just shut up. Or, under freedom of religion, if we don't like the official church, we have the alternative to worship in catacombs, or just be atheists. No, I don't think that *is* freedom."

I didn't make myself very clear. I was only responding to Burritoboy's comment that "...If you don't know any other alternatives, you truly are completely unfree."

My response was that we always have an alternative even if that alternative is to not do something. I meant that as long as it is our choice, even not doing something is an alternative. And under his definition having an alternative was freedom. I was writing theoretically. I would *not* prefer that to be our only alternative, nor would I advocate for the examples that you mention. If my only alternatives were to make a film according to a set of rules that I cannot tolerate or not make a film at all I would prefer to make the film and find creative ways around those rules to not making the film at all.

[Gregory GC]

Hey, I worship in a catacomb. Don't begrudge it. Our secret doctrine is the Debreu-Sonnenschein-Mantel Theorem (don't ask me to explain it to you; you might begin to gibber, scratch, and soil yourself upon hearing the incantation of its awesome wisdom.......... besides which, I have no idea what it means and can only repeat it phonetically).
Re Matthew Barney, as Amy Taubin once said in the Voice: "People are automatically going to resent anybody who doesn't have a hard time raising half a million dollars."
I just saw Drawing Restraint 9 at SFMOMA, along with his exhibition, and I loved it, but who can say with a straight face that this man is a viable example of your average struggling artist? He's a poor example to use, I would think. He's a pop star married to a pop star.
The Ubermensch of American capitalism is the charismatic fundraiser. Matthew Barney is a perfect specimen.
Excuse me, I have to return to the cave for evening prayers and a lengthy sermon on the potential for the Pareto efficient in modern society...
All kidding aside, I have enjoyed this spirited, mostly civil debate. Makes me wish I knew more about economic theory.

[Duncan]

burritoboy, "Overall, of course the treatment of dissidents was better under democratic capitalism, but the difference is of degree not kind." Which is basically what I was arguing, I thought. I disagree with your claim that
"Capitalist citizens are expected to be able to mouth platitudes from the first few days of Economics 101"; most capitalist citizens never take Economics 101. I know plenty of undergraduates who read Marx for classes. What I know of economics comes almost entirely from reading I did on my own, with books that were freely available in government supported libraries, not in samizdat. "Marxists have much easier access to real thinkers who reveal real alternatives." Are you lumping together all people who live in "Marxist" countries as Marxists? I am not a Marxist, but I have very easy access to real thinkers who reveal real alternatives. That being said, I notice that you agree that the trouble is that most people don't bother to use the access they have.

Harry Tuttle, "Capitalism doesn't forbid the existence of dissenting producers to make a non-profitable production ... The question of liberty isn't whether everyone can have a shot at making a big budget movie." Well, yes, it does, and it has: capitalist societies have actively, legally suppressed dissent. And the second point is just what I said. The point is that the artistic and political freedom of people who make "big-budget" movies are limited in very similar ways, whether the filmmaker is working in a "capitalist" or "Marxist" society.

It's also seriously debatable whether the fault lies with "directors who want to make money therefore compromise their own artistic freedom." At best, it's the question under discussion, something you need to prove rather than declare dogmatically. You seem to be assuming that making money requires compromising one's artistic freedom, which is not obvious. The American film industry (commonly called "Hollywood") doesn't necessarily know what will make money; just look at the many bombs it has sent into the world.

I suspect you're also assuming that "to make money" means "to make huge amounts of money." It doesn't, necessarily, except for The Suits. Plenty of artists just want to make enough money to be reasonably comfortable. In general, they are the artists who interest me the most; the product of the Hollywood system increasingly interests me less and less.