Documentaries Without Questions [The Second Take]

Korean Theaters Captured by Partisan Logic

An unprecedented wave of political documentaries is sweeping through theaters. Films that overtly reflect either conservative or progressive ideologies are being produced in a competitive rush. Titles such as "You Are the Country (2022)", "I Am Moon Jae-in (2023)", "Kim Dae-jung on the Road (2024)", "The Founding War (2024)", and "Junstone: Year One (2025)" primarily focus on glorifying specific politicians.

Still cut from the movie 'The Act of Killing'.

Underlying this trend is an opportunistic alignment with factional logic for both commercial gain and political influence. Filmmakers believe that targeting a particular political fandom can guarantee a certain level of box office revenue and public attention. This is a distorted business model that prioritizes political agitation, turning social conflict into capital—a shallow marketing ploy within the film industry.

Of course, documentaries can and should address politics. However, politics must not overshadow the true nature of the documentary form. In recent years, many of the films released have uncritically praised specific politicians or unilaterally promoted one viewpoint. Some have fueled suspicions around tragedies and other controversies from a biased perspective. The essential questions that documentaries ought to raise have disappeared, replaced by propaganda that imposes predetermined answers.

As a result, theaters have transformed from spaces for reflection into sanctuaries of confirmation bias. Instead of encountering different perspectives and posing new questions, audiences now reinforce their existing beliefs. The unique diversity and value of cinema are diluted, while social confrontation and polarization are pushed to their extremes.

What awaits at the end of this abnormal division? History makes it clear what fate awaits films reduced to mere tools of political propaganda. Totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century mobilized documentaries as instruments of indoctrination—justifying revolutions, idolizing leaders, and demonizing enemies. They invested the era's finest visual aesthetics and artistic talents in these works. Yet, despite technical brilliance, such films faced the judgment of history alongside the regimes that produced them. Only disgrace remained. The documentaries driven by factional logic we witness today are following the same path.

What theaters need now is not mouthpieces for political factions, but art that gazes unflinchingly at the times. In the midst of clashing values, documentaries should incisively probe human contradictions and pursue genuine humanity within complex realities. They must present audiences with questions, not answers. Instead of a simplistic battle between good and evil, they should ask why these conflicts arise and where we should go from here.

Such documentaries require courage. They may unsettle both sides and are unlikely to receive immediate applause. Yet, history remembers and celebrates them differently. Works like "The Act of Killing (2014)", which confronted the humanity of perpetrators of the Indonesian massacres; "13th (2016)", which exposed systemic racial discrimination in the U.S. criminal justice system; and "Citizenfour (2015)", which revealed the reality of government surveillance, are prime examples. They maintained their independence despite commercial temptations and political pressure.

The courage of creators awakens audiences, and this awakening opens the door to a healthier public discourse. What the cinema needs most now are uncomfortable questions. Without them, neither documentaries, nor art, nor the public sphere itself can truly exist.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.