Looking back on the past, the Korean drama industry involved in the theme of "lynching justice" in an endless stream, such as "Model Taxi" and "Dark Glory", these dramas are full of dramatic tension in terms of penmanship, the victim's tragic situation, the perpetrator's heinous deeds, and almost one-sided emotional orientation, so that the audience's emotions are satisfied when the revenger defeats the enemy with one blow.
In contrast, Netflix's new Korean drama "The Embarrassment of the Murderer" subverts the audience's inherent perception of revenge dramas with its ingenious plot.
"The Shame of the Murderer" is like a breath of fresh air, breaking through the clichéd model of relying solely on lynching justice. The play not only dissolves the boundary between good and evil, but also triggers an in-depth discussion of the nature of "justice".
So, in the inadvertent lynching, if the so-called sword of justice is not deliberately raised, but a game of fate, what different stories will it bring us? Let's follow Yidang's perspective into the plot.
This decadent college student, who lived a corrupt life, inadvertently became the so-called justice after accidentally killing someone, because the other party turned out to be a serial murderer who had been wanted by the police for many years.
Everyone who fell under his hands seemed to be bad to the bone, from the half-blind woman who murdered her biological parents to get insurance money, the high school gangster who gang-raped a young girl and still got away with it, and the prosecutor who was negligent in his duties and sexually assaulted minors...
Perhaps the most appealing thing is that every character in the play is on the verge of moral ambiguity. Robin, who uses the help of Yidang's murder to free the shadow of his childhood, Matsumura, who is overwhelmed by hatred and blindly pursues vigilante justice, or the embarrassment of sticking to the policeman's sentiments in order to avenge his father, their respective struggles and pains are sympathetic, and there is no absolute good or evil.
Today, I will carefully interpret the core questions raised by the choreographer and director of this seemingly morally corrupt drama through the conflicts, differences, and growth processes between these four protagonists, through their stories.
Yidang's character at the beginning is very clear, a college student who is nested, confused, and has nothing to do, eager to go away. The occasional little evil didn't cause him more trouble, he wasn't a bad person, but he wasn't a good person either.
Most of his life depends on luck, stealing his classmate's tablet was not discovered, and he was not caught cheating with his club sister. Even if it is the first time that he accidentally kills someone, it can be regarded as "legitimate defense" from being attacked.
However, with every killing after Yidang, he will fall into a cycle of conscience condemnation and self-blame, and be in the stage of "moral hesitation". But every action seems to have a providential coincidence, and despite this, his inner confusion and struggle are always with him.
Just when Yidang decided to turn himself in, the result was interrupted by a completely different fate. It's as if everything is providential.
Every time a person is killed, the evidence is annihilated, and no one suspects that they are the murderer. Every few days the news came out that the victim was actually an abominable perpetrator.
This series of god-inspired killings accidentally contributed to the "lynching justice", which made Yidang feel in a trance, until the appearance of the hacker Robin made him gradually find the meaning of the action.
In Robin's eyes, Yidang is the superman in his heart, every superman will have an assistant by his side, and he understands that his character is timid and cowardly.
How disgusted he is with his own weakness, how much he admires Yidang, who has a talent for "lynching revenge", and he is happy to be an indispensable assistant by Yidang's side.
The two redefine their mission and power in different situations, and as long as the so-called justice can be achieved, they seem to find satisfaction and meaning in existence.
Watching the characters in the play rush to stuff themselves into "meaning", I feel that the nothingness hovering behind them is far greater than they realize.
Every time Yidang kills, he relies on Robin's support and encouragement, as well as infinite self-persuasion.
What's even more interesting is that in this world, there is also a man who does the same errand as him.
Matsumura, a retired criminal policeman, was bullied and bullied by his embarrassed father with his power, and even instructed him to transport drugs for himself. Matsumura, who couldn't bear it anymore, decided to fight violence with violence, find out everyone in society who did dirty things but still swaggered, forced them to write a letter of repentance, and then killed him.
Yidang carried out his actions through accidental "providence", while Matsumura acted entirely out of his own "will".
Who is more justified in the actions of these two lynchists, who have very different styles? Who has the right to determine who is guilty and who deserves to die?
Watching Matsumura's brutal abuse of those who had committed wrongdoing, Yidang felt disgusted, and he believed that these lynchings were arbitrary, and sometimes it was inevitable to kill innocents by mistake.
So Yidang decided to get rid of Matsumura and cut the grass to the roots, but unexpectedly, Matsumura's skills were stronger than he imagined, and he was not his opponent at all.
As the plot progresses, we see Yi Dang's perception of this blurred moral boundary, and how, through his conflict with other characters, he gradually realizes that lynching of any kind should not be seen as an absolute moral judgment.
The perpetrator and the victim are never absolute. It can be reversed at any time, and even form a never-ending cycle of revenge. Between black and white, there is a long gray area.
In addition, the album explores the dialectical thinking of lynching. Each character is searching for their own meaning in life and a standard of justice, and this search brings with it a greater sense of nothingness.
The play not only practices reflection, but also avoids the trap of dogmatism, vividly presenting the conflicts and struggles of the characters in the play.
The whole process of watching the movie is like a suspenseful journey of moral exploration, whether it is good, evil, or justice, it cannot be easily defined.
Although this is a film with no standard answers, full of twists and turns, it shows the multifaceted and complex nature of morality, and it urges us to think deeply and discuss, providing a broader space for reflection and understanding of human behavior, the nature of justice, and the meaning of life.