這是一部以真實(shí)人物及事件為原型的虛構(gòu)故事，除了更改人名及強(qiáng)化戲劇沖突，基本上復(fù)制了歷史原貌，金大中，韓國歷史上口碑最好的總統(tǒng)，沒有之一，號(hào)稱“亞洲的曼德拉”，是真正的民主斗士，雖然最后因?yàn)閮鹤迂澪劢o他的名節(jié)蒙了些灰，但他也是僅有能夠善終的卸任總統(tǒng)（剛卸任的文在寅有待觀察），畢竟韓國總統(tǒng)是全世界風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最高的職業(yè)。 政治題材的電影最考驗(yàn)表演的含金量，李善均的影子軍師有更多的情緒起伏，表演上擁有更多空間，但薛景求真正做到了以靜制動(dòng)，足夠沉穩(wěn)的氣場讓臺(tái)詞都充滿了感染力，渾身是戲，不得不愛！任何時(shí)期的政治成功都需要道術(shù)合一，金大中的道只有通過嚴(yán)昌祿的術(shù)才能登上歷史舞臺(tái)，最后的二元分立也是影片闡明的矛盾所在！ 電影照進(jìn)現(xiàn)實(shí)，也正是金大中執(zhí)政時(shí)期建立了韓國電影的分級制度，才讓創(chuàng)作的自由度得以最大釋放，也就有了現(xiàn)在的亞洲之光。繼續(xù)期待！

手段和大義!一體同胞到兩相分離 兩敗俱傷的局面，一個(gè)丟了理想，一個(gè)暫時(shí)沒達(dá)成目標(biāo)!但是唯一我覺得比較反感的是 似乎把徐太昌表現(xiàn)得太無所不能了!失去了他，好像一敗涂地，沒了詭詐的手段必然失敗，詭詐的手段必然成功一般!所以我覺得甚至徐太昌應(yīng)該活著 活著看到金范志成功當(dāng)選，親眼所見堅(jiān)持自我正義的金范志雖然暫時(shí)失敗，但是最終成功! 同時(shí)我還覺得本片可以通過徐太昌只能通過依附在各色主公身邊才能發(fā)揮才智!以此表現(xiàn)所謂資本主義的假民主!只是一個(gè)理想主義者需要通過這種民主走上一條不死不休的不歸路!我覺得敘事重點(diǎn)應(yīng)該放在面臨二者分裂之后民主失利，讓徐太昌多一些自我懷疑的時(shí)刻吧！前面多做一些二人理念不同關(guān)系破裂的鋪墊和金范志這種純粹的理想主義者也得利用不擇手段的假民主!以此反思社會(huì)環(huán)境和制度! 片中最喜歡的部分就是二人分裂時(shí)刻對國民的闡述!最佳導(dǎo)演實(shí)至名歸，在很多地方鏡頭拍攝還是有所新意的，比如樓梯和李韓尚的談判、部長被開除透過門的鏡頭一進(jìn)一出兩個(gè)空間很有層次!這些鏡頭把空間感利用起來了!還有全片的用光，對影子這個(gè)身份的光線造型，有巧思的!

徐昌大，一個(gè)為所欲為的男人，翻手為云覆手為雨，像一盞阿拉丁神燈，滿足一切爭權(quán)者的欲望。 這個(gè)世界從我們年幼起就開始教我們循規(guī)蹈矩、誠實(shí)誠信、與人為善，但規(guī)則永遠(yuǎn)是給遵守規(guī)則的人制定的，社會(huì)經(jīng)驗(yàn)會(huì)告訴我們“人善被人欺”的道理，破壞規(guī)則的人反而可以獲得既得利益。所以徐昌大在一開場就對被偷雞蛋的村民說，如果想改變現(xiàn)狀，就要用惡毒的方法，不然就要做一輩子善良的冤大頭。天平的兩端，一邊是良心，一邊是利益。 我個(gè)人是喜歡看這種題材的電影，符合現(xiàn)實(shí)。世界本不公平，好人總得不到好報(bào)，對付壞人就應(yīng)該用壞人的辦法，以其人之道還其人之身。在法律的紅線內(nèi)，不擇手段達(dá)到目的，最好一招制敵。最近火爆的《黑暗榮耀》不也如此？解決了一切障礙，但合情合理且不臟手。當(dāng)然，也可以一直秉承善良寬容之心生活下去，無非是道阻且長，但目的地還是會(huì)達(dá)到的。

電影里的金云范不明白一個(gè)道理，改變世界，是需要有話語權(quán)有實(shí)權(quán)的人才能做到的。大權(quán)在握之前，那些主張只能被稱為“理想”，一個(gè)能否實(shí)現(xiàn)都是未知數(shù)的口號(hào)。

Released in January 2022 just weeks before the presidential election in South Korea, writer-director Byun Sung-hyun’s fourth directorial effort, Kingmaker, is as much a character drama as it is a political film.

It is 1961, Seo Chang-dae (Lee Sun-kyun), a local pharmacist who fled the North, meets Kim Woon-bum (Sol Kyung-gu), an eloquent small-time politician who has lost four elections in seven years. Immediately, Seo sees that they share not only ideals but also troubles: when the ruling Republicans label them as “commies”, little does it matter to the people how the two want to help the nation.

Although slightly concerned about Seo’s lack of hesitancy to play dirty, Kim accepts Seo to be a part of his campaign staff – partly because he needs someone like him, partly because Seo too seems dedicated to his country. Given his Northern background and, to say the least, questionable strategies, Seo has to operate out of sight, earning himself the nickname “The Shadow” – a recurring visual motif in cinematographer Jo Hyeong-rae’s composition of light and shadow.

With the help of Seo’s dubious stratagems, the idealistic and upright Kim finally starts climbing up the political ladder, ultimately running for the top job. Thus begins the electoral battle between New Democrat candidate Kim and Seo versus the incumbent Republican president Park (Kim Jong-soo) and his goons. The first two acts of the film oscillate between backroom political manoeuvres to petty electoral bribes of rubber shoes and flour. The third act and the real battle, however, become apparent when Seo and Kim eventually try to answer that age-old question: “does the end justify the means?”.

Having tried his hand at a variety of material from the 2012 romantic sex comedy Whatcha Wearin’? to the 2017 crime thriller The Merciless, Byun’s grasp of genre cinema receives further validation with this adequately favourable political/historical drama. Byun’s second-time collaborator Jo Hyeong-rae’s rich camerawork switches seamlessly between black-and-white newsreel-like footage to colour scenes (although the overserving of zoom-in extreme close-ups can feel a bit distracting at times). The success of the film is also attributable to the taut editing of motivated, smooth transitions and the score that captures the subtle and the grandiose moments equally well.

The “based on real-life events” aspect of it certainly adds more to the film. The audience, especially local viewers, can easily see through the thinly-veiled characters. Moreover, similar political systems help to bridge the gap and avoid alienating audiences abroad. The fact that the online audience of this year’s Far East Film Festival in Udine, Italy, chose Kingmaker for the MYMovies Award speaks to how the Korean-specific context does not constitute a barrier in understanding and appreciation. (Also, for viewers who’ve seen George Clooney’s 2011 feature, The Ides of March, Kingmaker will seem relatively familiar.)

Kingmaker is a story of crushed idealism but of a slightly different, nuanced kind. It is not a story of someone who learns political skulduggery, for that is granted at the very beginning: our kingmaker’s lack of qualms playing dirty is what opens the door of politics for him. Instead, it is partly concerned with what follows after, with the room where it happens, with how the sausage gets made.

Although political and historical in subject matter, Byun and co-screenwriter Kim Min-soo ultimately chose the relationship between the two male leads as the film’s primary focus. As such, its success depends largely on the charisma and chemistry between them. Rest assured, Kingmaker comes stacked with a heavyweight cast. Veteran Sol Kyung-gu shows his range once again by successfully transforming from a boisterous gangster in Byun’s breakout hit, The Merciless, to a contemplative politician. Known internationally for his role in the 2019 sensation Parasite, Lee Sun-kyun brings the Machiavellian Seo to life in a powerfully memorable way. The two actors’ interaction alone is thoroughly enjoyable and breathes life into the abstract ethical concerns of the movie.

However, it is also here that the film betrays its flaw. Same as the Cannes-premiered The Merciless, Kingmaker is also essentially a story of male bonding. It’s a man’s world where the women are relegated to the background, reduced from character to prop. While Kim’s wife (Bae Jong-ok) receives only a few lines of dialogue, Seo’s wife and child are barely present in the story.

In Kingmaker, Byun knew better than to try and offer ready solutions to historical controversy or philosophical concerns. His next project, Kill Bok-soon, is set to be a Netflix-distributed action thriller, once again featuring Sol Kyung-gu and Cannes winner Jeon Do-yeon (Secret Sunshine) as a single mother/hitwoman. Hopefully, in this instance, Byun will tell an equally good or even better story and give a more balanced representation.

Originally published on View of the Arts.

正如金云范和許昌大一樣，一個(gè)是陽光一個(gè)是影子，一個(gè)用他的善良去感染每個(gè)愿意追隨他的人，一個(gè)用他的計(jì)謀去幫助每個(gè)用骯臟手段對付金云范的小人對手，兩者互為表里。正如趙本山在《一代宗師》里提及的，一個(gè)門派，既要有面子也要有里子。

這里我要糾正一個(gè)說法，那就是說金是理想主義者，而許是現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者。那就錯(cuò)了，二者都是理想主義者，都想創(chuàng)造一個(gè)民主的世界。但是兩人選擇的方式不同，金用他的理想信念去影響身邊的人，希望用正大光明的手段去改變這個(gè)世界，正如影片末尾，金愿意相信他的鄰居是善良的，送他雞蛋并且給他道歉。相反，許不相信他是善良的，既然他已經(jīng)偷了雞蛋，如果你還給他道歉，他只會(huì)越加猖狂，所以他提到了開頭的那個(gè)計(jì)謀，把系好紅繩的雞放到他家去。影片至此，完成了首尾呼應(yīng)，讓人看了不由得十分感慨。我不能評價(jià)這兩種方式哪種是正確的的，但是正如這世界是辯證的是陰陽構(gòu)成的，有陰必有陽，有陽必有陰，互相對抗卻又互相支撐，缺一不可。

最后我想提及下影片留給我們的一個(gè)問題，許昌大究竟有沒有去實(shí)施爆炸，如果沒有那究竟是誰？其實(shí)問題很簡單，許沒有，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)給他和金云范的關(guān)系帶來破滅，并不符合他的利益，他最后說是他干的，其實(shí)是對金不相信他的一種失望和憤懣，以及金說只想利用他的一種報(bào)復(fù)（因?yàn)樵S是高傲的，他想被承認(rèn)他所作的一切是有用的有意義的）。那么會(huì)是李會(huì)長他們嘛？也不可能，不然不可能是一開始知道發(fā)生爆炸的那種反應(yīng)，而且他們也知道這么做只會(huì)讓金云范的選舉更上一層樓。所以真相只是最離譜的那個(gè)但也恰恰是最真實(shí)的那個(gè)，就是金的侄子引起的爆炸?；蛟S說夸張的事實(shí)總是引的人難以接受吧。

寫到這，我其實(shí)是覺得蠻遺憾也覺得可笑的，遺憾是因?yàn)檫@么個(gè)偶然事件，居然成了二者友情破裂的導(dǎo)火線，在總統(tǒng)選舉臨門一腳的時(shí)候，就差那么一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)，就那么一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)啊，失敗了！也覺得蠻可笑的，明明雙方都合作那么久，卻還是不信任，或者說金不信任許，而許也對金的智商沒有基本盤的了解嘛。真的好笑

這部電影有趣地從“造王者”和“王者”的角度展現(xiàn)了樸正熙軍統(tǒng)期間，金大中在通過補(bǔ)選當(dāng)選議員后發(fā)生的一系列明面上及暗地里的執(zhí)政黨與在野黨之間政治斗爭，以及在這過程中“造王者”與“王者”之間惺惺相惜卻又因各自的政治正義執(zhí)著而漸行漸遠(yuǎn)的現(xiàn)實(shí)，不失添加了幾分人性的味道。我真的特別喜歡看政治題材的電影，尤其韓國電影，是真的敢拍！

但是想提個(gè)小問題，也是對電影中極度不解的情節(jié)設(shè)置（也可能是真實(shí)歷史中發(fā)生的），即金云范被狡猾的記者故意設(shè)陷阱問題，提前透露了其欲取消針對北韓的國民預(yù)備役部隊(duì)，而執(zhí)政當(dāng)局中央情報(bào)局則利用這點(diǎn)，開始煽動(dòng)北韓威脅。藥劑師（即造王者）在內(nèi)部會(huì)議上公開提出慣常伎倆put on a show，遭到其他幕僚甚至金云范本人的不齒。

要表演的話，還不如去馬戲團(tuán)。

此時(shí)金云范已經(jīng)慢慢摒棄這枚毒棋，把藥劑師留在國內(nèi)。沒想到此時(shí)正好有爆炸案發(fā)生，也正好切中藥劑師算盤，當(dāng)他正準(zhǔn)備發(fā)文強(qiáng)詞抨擊中央情報(bào)局的濫用權(quán)力制造恐怖時(shí)，就被中央情報(bào)局反將一軍抓捕監(jiān)禁，理由是新民黨在自導(dǎo)自演制造恐怖！我的問題是，在大眾對于中央情報(bào)局濫用權(quán)力制造恐怖的形象已經(jīng)有所認(rèn)知的前提印象下，中央情報(bào)局為什么敢在這個(gè)節(jié)骨眼把該形象反扣在新民黨？這樣難道不是會(huì)更加加深公眾對于當(dāng)局肆無忌憚打壓政治對手的反感嗎？公眾為什么會(huì)突然相信中央情報(bào)局的說辭，轉(zhuǎn)而認(rèn)為新民黨才是在自導(dǎo)自演制造恐怖？著實(shí)有些牽強(qiáng)。

最后加上首尾呼應(yīng)的小故事：有個(gè)農(nóng)夫發(fā)現(xiàn)自己家的母雞每次下蛋后，雞蛋都不翼而飛。在某個(gè)夜里發(fā)現(xiàn)是鄰居偷的雞蛋，而第二天他向村長告狀后，沒有任何事情發(fā)生，因?yàn)榇彘L是鄰居的親戚。藥劑師給出了他的解決辦法，“讓農(nóng)夫今晚回去把一根紅繩系在母雞腳上，并且在夜里把雞放到鄰居家的槽里，第二天讓全村人看到，鄰居現(xiàn)在不僅偷雞蛋，還開始偷雞了。這樣村長也保不了他了”。而在若干年后，當(dāng)藥劑師向金云范講述這個(gè)故事，問到如果是他，他會(huì)怎么做時(shí)。

“我會(huì)在第二天把新鮮的雞蛋送給鄰居，”金云范答道，“以此來表示我誤會(huì)鄰居的歉意，如果他有良心，他會(huì)改過自新?！?/p>

“那如果他沒有良心呢？”

“那我想，我就會(huì)來找你吧” （笑）