[Full Text] Film Industry Figures Hold Emergency Press Conference Over "Assassin(s)" Controversy: "Let Audiences, Not Politics, Make the Judgment"

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

Film industry figures held an emergency press conference to express concern over political intervention in the controversy surrounding "Assassin(s)."

On the morning of the 8th, an emergency press conference by film industry figures was held at Busan Haeundae Event Plaza regarding recent controversies surrounding the film "Assassin(s)." They issued a joint statement calling for politics not to use films as tools for political strife and not to substitute for audience judgment.

The press conference on this day was attended by film figures from various generations and professions, including directors Jeong Ji-young, Lee Myung-se, and Kim Hong-jun, Kim Dong-hyun, Executive Committee Chair of the Seoul Independent Film Festival, film critic Yoon Seong-eun, director Baek Jae-ho, and film critic Jeon Chan-il.

Through their joint statement, film industry figures acknowledged that debate over criticism of a film and historical interpretation is permissible. However, they expressed concern that the scope of the debate has expanded to issues involving directors, actors, production companies, and institutional investors, as well as public institutions, theaters, schools, and screenings at overseas film festivals.

They asked, "Who is entitled to watch a film directly and make a judgment?" pointing out problems with methods where politics first defines the meaning of a work and its production intent, thereby influencing audience judgment.

They also stated that public authorities, such as national audits and document requests, must be exercised based on concrete facts and evidence, emphasizing that "public authority must not be used as a tool for political pressure."

In the Q&A session following the press conference, questions were raised regarding why the Busan International Film Festival has not issued a separate official statement on this matter.

Director Lee Myung-se explained that this press conference was not an event led by a specific organization, but rather a venue naturally formed as film industry figures shared their concerns and continued discussions. He also stated his opinion that there is a need to sufficiently discuss and publicize the issue of the Busan International Film Festival's response with film industry figures after the festival concludes.

Director Jeong Ji-young, premised on this being his personal opinion, conveyed that "asking questions left by history through works is one of the roles of cultural and artistic figures, including directors," and expressed the view that it is undesirable to turn this into a subject of political strife.

Film industry figures repeatedly emphasized that the press conference on this day was not intended to demand support for or opposition to a specific film.

Through their joint statement, they stated, "Whether in favor or against, politics must not substitute for the meaning of the work and audience judgment," urging, "Do not use films as tools for political strife, and do not use public authority as a means of political pressure. Please leave audiences the opportunity to watch and judge for themselves."

Do not use films as tools for political strife

Do not let politics substitute for audience judgment

Recently, debates surrounding the film "Assassin(s)" have rapidly expanded beyond the scope of evaluating the work to issues involving the political sphere, public institutions, institutional investors, theaters and schools, and screenings at overseas film festivals.

Criticism and discussion regarding films are open to everyone. If a work deals with historical events, even more intense debate may occur.

However, we are concerned about the situation in which this debate is expanding beyond evaluating the film into becoming a tool for political strife.

The method of first defining the production intent and political nature of a film before sufficiently watching it or verifying the facts, and then continuously expanding new targets of responsibility based on that judgment to include directors, actors, production companies, institutional investors, public institutions, theaters, and film festivals, needs to be reconsidered.

In particular, we wish to ask:

Who is entitled to watch a film directly and make a judgment?

While criticizing the film crew for trying to teach audiences, if politics tries to judge what should be seen and what should not be seen by first defining the meaning and intent of the work without having watched the film, who is actually teaching the audience?

We also believe that clear principles are needed in the use of public authorities, such as national audits and document requests.

At yesterday's national audit, debates continued over issues including the attendance of the director and crew regarding this film, the investment and support process, and the content of the work and its historical interpretation.

The national audit is a system for questioning the responsibility of the government and public institutions based on concrete facts and evidence. It must not proceed in a manner that first raises suspicions that have not been sufficiently verified, and then continuously expands document requests, witness demands, investigation targets, and the scope of responsibility based on them, thereby pressuring even the domain of private investment, screenings, and cultural institutional judgment.

Public authority must not be used as a tool for political pressure.

It is also necessary to verify what facts and evidence served as the basis for the national audit and document requests regarding this matter, and through what process their targets and scope were expanded. Film industry figures will continue to examine that process and its basis through publicly available materials and lawful procedures.

If issues have been raised through public authority, it must also be possible to explain what facts and evidence those issues are based on.

Expanding domestic political debates to the independent work selection and screening decisions of overseas film festivals should also be done cautiously.

The Singapore International Film Festival announced in an official statement on October 7 that, despite external controversies and demands, it would screen "Assassin(s)," selected through its independent programming process, as scheduled for the opening ceremony. It also stated that the role of a film festival is to allow audiences to experience diverse stories and perspectives.

This is precisely the principle we are trying to convey.

Which works to select and screen is within the domain of a film festival's independent judgment, while whether to watch a work, and how to receive it, is for the audience to decide.

In the course of this debate, situations have occurred where personal information of individual film industry figures has been exposed, their residences and daily lives infringed upon, and threats to their safety have followed. These actions are clearly distinct from criticism of a film or expression of political opinions.

We are not asking for support for a specific film.

Nor are we asking that you do not oppose it.

Whether in favor or against, politics must not substitute for the meaning of the work and audience judgment.

Do not use films as tools for political strife.

Do not use public authority as a means of political pressure.

Please leave audiences the opportunity to watch and judge for themselves.

Let politics step back one step,

And return the place of judgment to the audience.

October 8, 2026

All Film Industry Figures of the Republic of Korea

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.View Original