Series

Aema Premieres on Netflix, Reimagining a Controversial Chapter of Korean Cinema

Korean Cinema's Turbulent Past Comes Alive on Netflix
Molly Se-kyung

The new South Korean series Aema has launched globally on the Netflix streaming platform, presenting a historical comedy-drama that delves into one of the most turbulent and contradictory periods of the nation’s modern cultural history. Set in the heart of the Korean film industry, known as Chungmuro, during the early 1980s, the six-part series constructs a fictionalized narrative around the production of a real and historically significant film: the 1982 erotic feature Madame Aema. This film was a box office sensation that effectively inaugurated a boom in erotic cinema, a genre that would come to define much of the decade’s popular cinematic output. The series, however, uses this historical event not as the subject of a biopic, but as a catalyst to explore the systemic pressures, gender politics, and artistic compromises that defined filmmaking under an authoritarian regime. The narrative is driven by the intersecting trajectories of two women at opposite ends of the professional spectrum. Jung Hee-ran, portrayed by Lee Hanee, is an established, award-winning actress at the apex of her career, yet she finds herself struggling to redefine her public image and escape the typecasting that brought her fame. Opposite her is Shin Joo-ae, a fiercely ambitious newcomer played by Bang Hyo-rin, who begins the series as a nightclub tap dancer with aspirations of stardom. The central conflict is ignited when Hee-ran, in a decisive act of professional self-preservation, refuses the lead role in Madame Aema after reviewing a script replete with what she deems excessive and gratuitous nude scenes. This refusal creates a vacuum that the opportunistic Joo-ae eagerly fills, winning the part and setting the stage for a complex professional rivalry. This dynamic unfolds within a male-dominated industry where female agency is perpetually contested, establishing the series’ core thematic terrain from its opening moments. The classification of the series as a comedy-drama is a crucial indicator of its tonal and intellectual strategy. Rather than approaching its serious subject matter with unalloyed solemnity, Aema employs comedic and satirical elements to dissect the absurdities of the era’s power structures and social mores, positioning the work as a sophisticated critical commentary rather than a straightforward historical melodrama.

Aema
Aema

The Paradoxical Landscape of 1980s Chungmuro

To fully comprehend the narrative pressures shaping the characters in Aema, one must understand the unique and deeply paradoxical socio-political landscape of South Korea in the early 1980s. The series is set during the authoritarian military regime of President Chun Doo-hwan, whose rule from 1980 to 1988 is remembered as one of the darkest periods in the nation’s modern history, an era of intense political repression and curtailed civil liberties. In cinematic representations, this period is almost invariably depicted with a somber visual palette, characterized by muted colors and heavy shadows, reflecting the oppressive national mood, as seen in films like 12.12: The Day and 1987: When the Day Comes. The Chun government, seeking to quell public dissent and divert attention from its political activities, implemented what has been described as the “3S Policy”: a state-sponsored promotion of Screen (cinema), Sex (eroticism in popular culture), and Sports. While some historical debate exists regarding the formal codification of this policy, the series posits it as a calculated instrument of political pacification, designed to provide the masses with entertainment and outlets for distraction. A key component of this strategy was the active encouragement of the erotic film industry. The lifting of a 36-year nationwide curfew in 1982 created a new market for late-night entertainment, leading to the rise of “midnight films,” of which Madame Aema was the first and most explosive success. However, this state-sanctioned encouragement of sexual content was paired with an equally powerful and contradictory force: a stringent and often arbitrary system of state censorship. Filmmakers found themselves in a volatile and schizophrenic creative environment. They were pushed by government policy and market demand to produce sexually explicit content, yet simultaneously subjected to the unpredictable whims of censors who could demand cuts or alterations, effectively stripping them of their freedom of expression. This fundamental contradiction is not merely a historical backdrop in Aema; it functions as the narrative’s primary engine. The external pressures that buffet the characters—from the producer’s relentless demands for nudity to meet commercial expectations, to the director’s desire to create art amidst crass commercialism, to the actors’ struggles with exploitative scenes—are all direct consequences of this paradoxical state policy. The series posits that in this era, the personal and professional lives of artists were inextricably bound to the political machinations of an authoritarian state, creating a microcosm of the broader societal tensions of the time.

A Narrative of Rivalry and Solidarity

The dramatic core of Aema resides in the intricate, evolving relationship between its two female protagonists, whose personal and professional journeys serve as a powerful lens through which the series examines the gender politics of 1980s Korean cinema. The narrative meticulously charts their dynamic as it transforms from one of sharp-edged rivalry into a resilient and meaningful alliance. Jung Hee-ran’s character arc is one of resistance and reclamation. As portrayed by Lee Hanee, she is a top star who built her career on the popular “hostess films” of the 1970s, movies that often featured bar girls and prostitutes, cementing her image as a sex symbol. Now, at a pivotal point in her career, she is determined to move beyond this persona and be recognized for her acting talent alone. Her refusal of the lead role in Madame Aema is not an act of prudishness but one of calculated professional self-determination, a stand against being further typecast and exploited. This act of defiance, however, does not grant her freedom. She is contractually bound to the film’s producer, the odious and manipulative Gu Joog-ho (Jin Seon-kyu), who uses a loophole in their agreement to force her into a humiliating supporting role in the very film she rejected. This forces her to navigate the production from a compromised position, culminating in moments of explosive confrontation, including a physical altercation with the producer and the defiant promise, “Joong-ho, let’s go to hell”. In stark contrast, Shin Joo-ae’s arc is a bildungsroman of ambition and disillusionment. Played by newcomer Bang Hyo-rin, Joo-ae is a character of raw ambition, a tap dancer who views the vacated lead role in Madame Aema as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. She audaciously declares her intention to become “the next Jeong Hee-ran,” signaling her desire to supplant her idol. Initially, she is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, including complying with the industry’s exploitative demands. However, as production progresses, her illusions are systematically shattered. She is confronted with the reality of her role, forced to perform “senseless explicit scenes” dictated by producers and censors, and experiences firsthand the pervasive misogyny of the industry. Her journey is a painful but transformative one, leading her from naive ambition to a developed critical consciousness about the system she sought to conquer.

Initially, the relationship between the two women is defined by friction. Hee-ran, insecure about being sidelined and resentful of her replacement, gives the newcomer a “hard time” on set. Yet, as they both endure the machinations of the men in power, their shared experience of systemic oppression begins to forge an unlikely bond. Their rivalry slowly gives way to a “gentle solidarity”. They come to recognize that their true enemy is not each other, but the patriarchal system that pits them against one another for scraps of power and respect. This evolution from antagonists to allies, united in a shared resolve to push back against exploitation, forms the emotional and thematic heart of the series. This journey is framed by the actions of the male characters who represent the industry’s corrupting forces. Gu Joog-ho, the CEO of Shinsung Films, is the embodiment of cynical commercialism. Described as a “shady producer” who would “stop at nothing to survive” in the competitive world of Chungmuro, he views his actors as commodities and art as a product to be sold. His foil is the rookie director, Kwak In-woo (Cho Hyun-chul). Characterized as “timid,” “awkward,” and “diffident,” In-woo is an aspiring artist who wants to make a film with “subtle eroticism” but finds himself caught between his own creative vision and the producer’s relentless clamor for “endless bosoms”. He represents the compromised artist, struggling to maintain integrity within a system geared toward exploitation. The series employs a sophisticated narrative structure where the film-within-a-film becomes a potent meta-commentary on female agency. The on-screen struggles of the characters in Madame Aema directly mirror the off-screen battles of the actresses portraying them. As one analysis notes, “Transmuted through the filmmaking process, the on-screen sexual desire of Madame Aema’s protagonists becomes the desire for agency of the actresses portraying them”. Hee-ran’s fight against performing nude scenes and Joo-ae’s discomfort with gratuitous content are not mere plot points; they are thematic arguments about the control and objectification of the female body in both cinema and society at large. Furthermore, the series makes a subversive structural choice in its allocation of tone. The primary dramatic narrative—the complex emotional journey from rivalry to solidarity in the face of systemic abuse—is carried almost exclusively by the two female leads. In contrast, the male cast members are largely responsible for the comedic elements, which often arise from their crudeness and the peak cringe comedy of directing and shooting the erotic scenes. By making the male figures of authority the primary objects of satire and the female figures the subjects of serious, compelling drama, the series subtly inverts traditional narrative power dynamics, centering the female experience and using humor to critique the very foundations of the patriarchal system.

The Auteurist Vision of Lee Hae-young

Aema marks the television debut of writer-director Lee Hae-young, a filmmaker whose established body of work in cinema provides a clear context for the series’ stylistic and thematic ambitions. An examination of his filmography reveals an auteur with a distinctive voice, characterized by genre fluidity, a refined visual sensibility, and a consistent preoccupation with characters navigating oppressive social structures. His previous films have spanned multiple genres, from the crime action of Believer (2018) and the spy thriller Phantom (2023) to the mystery-horror of The Silenced (2015) and the comedies Foxy Festival (2010) and Like a Virgin (2006). Across these varied projects, his work has been praised for its “fresh storytelling,” “sensitive and subtle direction,” and a sophisticated mise-en-scène that combines strong action with highly distinctive characterizations. The thematic concerns of Aema are not new to Lee’s work. His most recent film, Phantom, which also starred Lee Hanee, was noted for its focus on “women’s solidarity in a suffocatingly patriarchal society,” a theme that is central to this new series. In this sense, Aema can be seen as a continuation and expansion of his artistic interests, applying his cinematic sensibilities to the episodic format of television. Perhaps the most striking authorial signature in Aema is its deliberate and highly stylized visual aesthetic. The series consciously rejects the conventional visual language used to represent the Chun Doo-hwan era. Instead of the expected “muted palettes” and “thick shadows” that signify political oppression, Lee Hae-young constructs the 1980s as a “ravishing” and “voluptuous” world, a “smorgasbord of kaleidoscopic colours and fabulous fashion”. This is not an act of nostalgic romanticization but a calculated critical strategy. The director himself has articulated the intent behind this choice, stating that the more “dazzling the sounds and images appear on the surface, the more clearly the violence of that barbaric age would come through as a message”. This aesthetic choice functions as a form of historical revisionism. It argues visually that the era’s brutality was not just a matter of overt political repression but was also masked by the gaudy, distracting surface of a state-sponsored mass entertainment culture. The vibrant aesthetic forces the viewer to confront the profound dissonance between the burgeoning, colorful culture industry and the grim political reality it was designed to obscure. This visual strategy makes the underlying oppression feel more insidious, highlighting the hypocrisy at the heart of the 3S Policy.

The series also arrives as part of a larger conversation within contemporary South Korean cinema. It shares notable stylistic and thematic DNA with other recent films that re-examine the nation’s cinematic past. Its premise bears a strong resemblance to Kim Jee-woon’s Cobweb (2023), a meta-comedy and affectionate farce that satirizes the egos and insecurities of a film crew in the 1970s. Using a film-within-a-film structure, Cobweb follows a frustrated director as he battles studio executives and government censors while trying to reshoot the ending of his picture. Furthermore, Aema‘s visual panache and its casting of Lee Hanee in a role that deconstructs female archetypes echo Lee Won-suk’s cult film Killing Romance (2023). That absurdist musical black comedy also utilized a vibrant, surrealist style and a darkly comedic plot to explore a woman’s liberation from an abusive, controlling man, while critiquing celebrity culture. The emergence of these films suggests that Aema is not an isolated work but a key entry in a developing subgenre of self-reflexive period pieces. This movement sees contemporary Korean filmmakers engaging in a critical dialogue with their own national and cinematic history, using the tools of genre, style, and meta-narrative to re-interrogate the traumas and contradictions of the past from a modern perspective.

A Fictional Lens on Historical Truth

While Aema is deeply rooted in a specific historical moment, it is crucial to understand its relationship to the factual record. The series is a work of historical fiction, not a documentary or a biopic. The 1982 film Madame Aema was a real and massively influential cultural phenomenon, topping the box office and spawning a dozen direct sequels and numerous other spin-offs. However, the characters who populate the series—from the actresses Jung Hee-ran and Shin Joo-ae to the producer Gu Joog-ho and director Kwak In-woo—are entirely fictional creations. Director Lee Hae-young has acknowledged drawing inspiration from the documented experiences of actresses from that era, particularly An So-young, the star of the original Madame Aema, but the narrative does not adhere to the specific events of any single individual’s life. This deliberate fictionalization is a strategic choice that allows the series to pursue a deeper and more expansive thematic agenda. By creating archetypal characters rather than being constrained by biographical fidelity, the narrative is free to function as a broader social commentary. It can more effectively explore the systemic issues of misogyny, censorship, artistic compromise, and corporate exploitation that were endemic to the industry at the time. The characters become representatives of the various forces at play, allowing for a more focused examination of the era’s power dynamics.

Lending significant weight to this approach is the involvement of the production company The Lamp Co., Ltd., which co-produced the series with Studio Kik Co., Ltd.. The Lamp Co. has built a formidable reputation for producing critically acclaimed and commercially successful films that are meticulously researched and based on true historical events. Their filmography includes such landmark titles as A Taxi Driver (2017), which dramatized the Gwangju Uprising; Mal-Mo-E: The Secret Mission (2019), about the preservation of the Korean language under Japanese colonial rule; Samjin Company English Class (2020), based on a real corporate scandal; and Phantom (2023), a spy thriller also directed by Lee Hae-young and starring Lee Hanee. The association of a production house known for its commitment to historical authenticity with a project that is explicitly fictional is a significant creative decision. It suggests a belief that, in this case, a fictional narrative is a more potent vehicle for conveying the emotional and systemic truth of the 1980s than a strictly factual retelling might be. It signals to the audience that while the story is not literally true, it is intended to be taken seriously as a historical interpretation, balancing the series’ vibrant, comedic, and dramatic elements with an undercurrent of journalistic and historical integrity. Ultimately, Aema presents itself as a complex modern re-examination of a pivotal and controversial moment in Korean cultural history. It utilizes its fictional framework and a distinct auteurist vision to explore enduring themes of female solidarity, the price of artistic integrity, and the intricate, often perilous, relationship between art, commerce, and politics.

The six-part series Aema is now available for streaming worldwide, having premiered on Netflix on August 22, 2025.

Discussion

There are 0 comments.

```
電視節目

《愛麻夫人熱映中》登陸Netflix,重新詮釋韓國電影史上備受爭議的篇章

Netflix's 'Love Affairs' Unveils a Turbulent Era in Korean Film History
Molly Se-kyung

全新韓國影集《愛麻夫人熱映中》已於Netflix串流平台全球上線,這部歷史喜劇劇情片深入探討了韓國現代文化史上最動盪、最矛盾的時期之一。故事背景設定在1980年代初期的韓國電影產業心臟地帶——忠武路,這部六集影集圍繞著一部真實且具歷史意義的電影——1982年的情色片《愛麻夫人》的製作過程,建構了一段虛構的敘事。該片在當時是票房鉅作,有效地開啟了情色電影的風潮,此類型也定義了該年代大部分的流行電影產出。然而,本劇並非將此歷史事件作為傳記電影的主題,而是以此為催化劑,探索在威權政體下定義電影製作的系統性壓力、性別政治與藝術妥協。故事由兩位處於職業光譜兩端的女性交錯的軌跡所驅動。由李荷妮飾演的鄭喜蘭,是一位事業正值巔峰、獲獎無數的頂尖女演員,但她正努力重新定義自己的公眾形象,並擺脫為她帶來名聲的定型角色。與她對立的是由方孝潾飾演、野心勃勃的新人申珠愛,她在劇集開始時是一名懷抱明星夢的夜店踢踏舞者。當喜蘭在審閱一份她認為充滿過多且無謂裸露鏡頭的劇本後,出於職業自我保護的決定性舉動,拒絕了《愛麻夫人》的主角,核心衝突由此點燃。這次拒絕創造了一個真空,投機的珠愛急切地填補了這個空缺,贏得了角色,並為一場複雜的職業競爭拉開了序幕。這種動態在一個由男性主導、女性自主權不斷受到挑戰的產業中展開,從一開始就確立了該劇的核心主題領域。將該劇歸類為喜劇劇情片是其基調和思想策略的關鍵指標。《愛麻夫人熱映中》沒有以純粹的嚴肅態度來處理其沉重的主題,而是運用喜劇和諷刺元素來剖析那個時代權力結構和社會風氣的荒謬之處,將作品定位為一部複雜的批判性評論,而非一部直白的歷史情節劇。

1980年代忠武路的矛盾景觀

要完全理解塑造《愛麻夫人熱映中》中角色的敘事壓力,必須了解1980年代初韓國獨特而又充滿深刻矛盾的社會政治格局。該劇背景設定在全斗煥總統的獨裁軍事政權時期,他從1980年到1988年的統治被銘記為韓國現代史上最黑暗的時期之一,一個政治壓迫嚴重、公民自由受限的時代。在電影表現中,這一時期幾乎總是透過陰鬱的視覺色調描繪,以柔和的色彩和沉重的陰影為特徵,反映了壓抑的民族情緒,正如在《首爾之春》和《1987:黎明到來的那一天》等影片中所見。全斗煥政府為了平息公眾異議並轉移對其政治活動的注意力,實施了所謂的「3S政策」:即由國家贊助推廣銀幕(Screen)、性(Sex)和體育(Sports)。儘管關於這項政策的正式立法存在一些歷史爭議,但該劇將其設定為一種精心計算的政治安撫工具,旨在為大眾提供娛樂和分心的管道。這項策略的一個關鍵組成部分是積極鼓勵情色電影產業。1982年,長達36年的全國宵禁解除,為夜間娛樂創造了新市場,導致了「午夜電影」的興起,而《愛麻夫人》是其中第一部也是最轟動的成功之作。然而,這種國家認可對性內容的鼓勵,與一個同樣強大且矛盾的力量並存:一個嚴格且常常是任意的國家審查制度。電影製作人發現自己處於一個動盪和精神分裂的創作環境中。他們被政府政策和市場需求推動去製作性露骨的內容,卻同時受到審查員不可預測的反复無常的擺布,審查員可以要求刪減或修改,從而有效地剝奪了他們的表達自由。這種根本性的矛盾在《愛麻夫人熱映中》中不僅僅是一個歷史背景;它充當了敘事的主要引擎。衝擊角色的外部壓力——從製片人為滿足商業期望而無情要求裸露,到導演在粗俗商業主義中創造藝術的願望,再到演員們與剝削性場景的鬥爭——都是這種矛盾的國家政策的直接後果。該劇提出,在那個時代,藝術家的個人和職業生活與獨裁國家的政治陰謀密不可分,創造了當時更廣泛社會緊張局勢的一個縮影。

愛麻夫人熱映中
愛麻夫人熱映中

一部關於競爭與團結的敘事

《愛麻夫人熱映中》的戲劇核心在於其兩位女性主角之間錯綜複雜、不斷演變的關係,她們的個人和職業旅程成為該劇審視1980年代韓國電影界性別政治的有力鏡頭。敘事精心描繪了她們的動態如何從尖銳的競爭轉變為堅韌而有意義的聯盟。鄭喜蘭的角色弧線是抵抗與重塑。由李荷妮飾演的她,是一位頂級明星,她的職業生涯建立在1970年代流行的「女招待電影」之上,這些電影常常以酒吧女郎和妓女為主角,鞏固了她作為性感象徵的形象。如今,在職業生涯的關鍵時刻,她決心超越這一形象,僅憑演技獲得認可。她拒絕《愛麻夫人》的主角並非出於拘謹,而是一種經過深思熟慮的職業自決,是對進一步被定型和剝削的抗議。然而,這一反抗行為並未給她帶來自由。她在合約上受制於影片的製片人,卑鄙且善於操縱的具重浩(陳善圭飾),後者利用他們協議中的一個漏洞,迫使她在她拒絕的影片中扮演一個羞辱性的配角。這迫使她在一個妥協的位置上應對製作過程,最終導致了包括與製片人發生肢體衝突和發出「重浩,我們一起下地獄吧」的挑釁性誓言在內的爆發性對抗。與此形成鮮明對比的是,申珠愛的角色弧線是一部關於野心與幻滅的成長小說。由新人方孝潾飾演的珠愛,是一個充滿原始野心的角色,一個將《愛麻夫人》空缺的主角視為千載難逢機會的踢踏舞者。她大膽地宣布自己要成為「下一個鄭喜蘭」,表明了她取代偶像的願望。最初,她願意為成功不擇手段,包括服從行業的剝削性要求。然而,隨著製作的進行,她的幻想被系統地粉碎。她面臨著角色的現實,被迫表演由製片人和審查員決定的「毫無意義的露骨場景」,並親身體驗了行業中普遍存在的厭女情緒。她的旅程是痛苦但具有變革性的,引領她從天真的野心走向對她試圖征服的體系形成成熟的批判意識。

最初,兩位女性之間的關係充滿了摩擦。喜蘭因被排擠而感到不安,並對替代者心懷怨恨,在片場給新人「穿小鞋」。然而,當她們都忍受著當權男性的操縱時,她們共同經歷的系統性壓迫開始鑄就一種不太可能的聯繫。她們的競爭慢慢讓位於一種「溫和的團結」。她們開始認識到,她們真正的敵人不是彼此,而是將她們置於對立面,為了一點權力和尊重而相互爭鬥的父權體系。這種從對手到盟友的演變,團結一致反抗剝削,構成了該劇的情感和主題核心。這段旅程由代表行業腐敗力量的男性角色的行為所襯托。信成影業的執行長具重浩是犬儒商業主義的化身。他被描述為一個在忠武路競爭激烈的世界裡「為求生存不擇手段」的「陰暗製片人」,他將演員視為商品,將藝術視為待售產品。他的陪襯是新手導演郭仁宇(趙賢哲飾)。被形容為「膽怯」、「笨拙」和「缺乏自信」的仁宇,是一位渴望製作一部帶有「微妙情色意味」的電影的藝術家,但他發現自己夾在自己的創作願景和製片人對「無盡胸部」的無情喧囂之間。他代表了在一個以剝削為導向的體系中努力保持正直的妥協藝術家。該劇採用了一種複雜的敘事結構,其中「片中片」成為對女性自主權的有力元評論。《愛麻夫人》中角色的銀幕鬥爭直接反映了扮演她們的女演員在幕後的戰鬥。正如一篇分析所指出的,「透過電影製作過程的轉化,《愛麻夫人》主角們在銀幕上的性慾,變成了扮演她們的女演員們對自主權的渴望。」喜蘭反抗表演裸露場景的鬥爭和珠愛對無謂內容的不適,不僅僅是情節要點;它們是關於在電影和整個社會中控制和物化女性身體的主題論點。此外,該劇在基調分配上做出了顛覆性的結構選擇。主要的戲劇性敘事——面對系統性虐待時從競爭到團結的複雜情感旅程——幾乎完全由兩位女性主角承擔。相比之下,男性演員主要負責喜劇元素,這些元素通常源於他們的粗俗以及指導和拍攝情色場景時極度尷尬的喜劇效果。透過將男性權威人物作為諷刺的主要對象,將女性人物作為嚴肅、引人入勝的戲劇主體,該劇巧妙地顛覆了傳統的敘事權力動態,將女性體驗置於中心,並利用幽默來批判父權體系的根基。

李海暎導演的作者視野

《愛麻夫人熱映中》標誌著編劇兼導演李海暎的電視首秀,他在電影界的既有作品為該劇的風格和主題抱負提供了清晰的背景。審視他的電影作品,可以發現他是一位具有獨特聲音的作者導演,其特點是類型流動性、精緻的視覺感受力,以及對在壓迫性社會結構中航行的角色的持續關注。他之前的電影涵蓋了多種類型,從《信徒》的犯罪動作片和《幻影》的間諜驚悚片,到《京城學校:失蹤的少女們》的懸疑恐怖片,以及《性愛狂想曲》和《天下壯士麥當娜》等喜劇片。在這些多樣化的項目中,他的作品因其「新穎的敘事」、「敏感而微妙的導演手法」以及將強烈動作與高度獨特的角色刻畫相結合的複雜場面調度而受到讚譽。《愛麻夫人熱映中》的主題關注點在李海暎的作品中並非新鮮事。他最近的電影《幻影》也由李荷妮主演,因其關注「在令人窒息的父權社會中的女性團結」而受到關注,這一主題也是這部新劇的核心。從這個意義上說,《愛麻夫人熱映中》可以被看作是他藝術興趣的延續和擴展,將他的電影感性應用於電視劇的集播形式。也許《愛麻夫人熱映中》中最引人注目的作者標誌是其刻意且高度風格化的視覺美學。該劇有意識地拒絕了用於表現全斗煥時代的傳統視覺語言。李海暎沒有採用預期的、象徵政治壓迫的「柔和色調」和「濃重陰影」,而是將1980年代構建成一個「絢麗」和「豐滿」的世界,一個「萬花筒般色彩和奇妙時尚的大雜燴」。這並非懷舊的浪漫化行為,而是一種經過深思熟慮的批判策略。導演本人已經闡明了這一選擇背後的意圖,他表示,表面上的「聲音和圖像越是耀眼,那個野蠻時代的暴力就越能清晰地作為信息傳達出來」。這種美學選擇起到了歷史修正主義的作用。它在視覺上論證了那個時代的殘暴不僅僅是公然的政治壓迫,還被國家贊助的大眾娛樂文化華麗而分散注意力的表面所掩蓋。鮮活的美學迫使觀眾直面蓬勃發展的、色彩斑斕的文化產業與其旨在掩蓋的嚴峻政治現實之間的深刻不協調。這種視覺策略使得潛在的壓迫感更顯陰險,凸顯了3S政策核心的虛偽。

該劇也作為當代韓國電影界更大對話的一部分而出現。它與其他近期重新審視國家電影歷史的影片有著顯著的風格和主題上的共通之處。其前提與金知雲的《誆世巨作:蜘蛛窩新宇宙》有著強烈的相似之處,那是一部元喜劇和充滿感情的鬧劇,諷刺了1970年代一個電影攝製組的自負和不安全感。《誆世巨作:蜘蛛窩新宇宙》採用「片中片」的結構,講述了一位沮喪的導演在試圖重拍影片結局時,與製片廠高管和政府審查員鬥爭的故事。此外,《愛麻夫人熱映中》的視覺華麗及其對李荷妮的選角——她扮演了一個解構女性原型的角色——呼應了李元錫的邪典電影《殺戮羅曼史》。那部荒誕的音樂黑色喜劇也利用了生動、超現實的風格和黑暗喜劇的情節,探討了一個女人從一個虐待、控制欲強的男人手中解放出來的主題,同時批判了名人文化。這些電影的出現表明,《愛麻夫人熱映中》並非一部孤立的作品,而是正在發展的自我反思時代劇子類型中的一個關鍵作品。這一運動見證了當代韓國電影製作人與他們自己的國家和電影歷史進行批判性對話,利用類型、風格和元敘事的工具,從現代視角重新審視過去的創傷和矛盾。

透過虛構鏡頭看歷史真相

雖然《愛麻夫人熱映中》深深植根於一個特定的歷史時刻,但理解它與事實記錄的關係至關重要。該劇是一部歷史虛構作品,而非紀錄片或傳記片。1982年的電影《愛麻夫人》是一個真實且具有巨大影響力的文化現象,它登頂票房榜,並催生了十二部直接續集和眾多其他衍生作品。然而,劇中的人物——從女演員鄭喜蘭和申珠愛到製片人具重浩和導演郭仁宇——完全是虛構的創作。導演李海暎承認,他從那個時代的女演員們的記錄經歷中汲取了靈感,特別是原版《愛麻夫人》的主演安昭映,但敘事並未遵循任何單個個體的具體生活事件。這種刻意的虛構化是一個戰略性選擇,它使該劇能夠追求更深層次、更廣闊的主題議程。透過創造原型人物而非受限於傳記的真實性,敘事得以自由地作為更廣泛的社會評論發揮作用。它可以更有效地探討當時行業中普遍存在的厭女症、審查制度、藝術妥協和企業剝削等系統性問題。這些角色成為各種力量的代表,從而能夠更集中地審視那個時代的權力動態。

為這種方法增添重要分量的是製作公司The Lamp Co., Ltd.的參與,該公司與Studio Kik Co., Ltd.共同製作了這部劇集。The Lamp Co.以製作備受好評且商業上成功的電影而建立了卓越的聲譽,這些電影都經過精心研究並基於真實歷史事件。他們的作品包括《我只是個計程車司機》(描繪了光州起義)、《沒有我們的國度》(關於在日本殖民統治下保護韓語的故事)、《菜英文沒在怕》(基於真實的企業醜聞)以及同樣由李海暎執導、李荷妮主演的間諜驚悚片《幻影》。一家以致力於歷史真實性而聞名的製作公司與一個明確是虛構的項目合作,這是一個重大的創意決定。這表明了一種信念,即在這種情況下,虛構的敘事比嚴格的事實重述更能有力地傳達1980年代的情感和系統性真相。它向觀眾發出信號,雖然故事並非字面上的真實,但它意在被認真對待為一種歷史解讀,平衡了該劇生動、喜劇和戲劇性的元素與新聞和歷史完整性的潛在潮流。最終,《愛麻夫人熱映中》將自己呈現為對韓國文化史中一個關鍵且充滿爭議的時刻的複雜現代反思。它利用其虛構框架和獨特的作者視野,探討了女性團結、藝術正直的代價,以及藝術、商業和政治之間錯綜複雜、常常充滿危險的關係等持久主題。

六集連續劇《愛麻夫人熱映中》現已在全球範圍內上線,於2025年8月22日在Netflix首播。

Discussion

There are 0 comments.

```