South Korean culture minister defends creative freedom amid film dispute

South Korean Culture Minister Chae Hwi-young told lawmakers at an Oct. 7 parliamentary audit in Seoul that the government should not intervene in the content of films, as a dispute over The Assassin(s) reached the National Assembly. His comments matter beyond the film: lawmakers also argued over whether its makers should be questioned by parliament and whether officials should intervene in student viewings.

The dispute concerns the film’s portrayal of the 1974 assassination attempt on President Park Chung-hee, in which first lady Yuk Young-soo was killed. Critics say it implies that Park or the state intelligence agency was involved in her death. Yonhap describes the established account as holding the assassin, Moon Se-kwang, responsible for the fatal shooting. The minister did not endorse the film’s disputed interpretation.

What Chae Hwi-young said about the film

Chae told the culture ministry’s parliamentary audit that there should be no restrictions on imagination and creative work. He said the government does not intervene in the content of creative works in South Korea, where freedom of expression is guaranteed and prior censorship is prohibited. Asked whether The Assassin(s) distorted history, he said that judgment belonged to the public and audiences.

Chae also said legal procedures were available to anyone who believed they had suffered serious defamation. That answer left the argument about the film’s historical accuracy unresolved at the audit. His stated position addressed the government’s role in regulating creative work; it was not a finding about what happened in 1974 or an assessment of every scene in the film.

Why lawmakers clashed over The Assassin(s)

Education Minister Choi Kyo-jin said there were limits to government intervention and that students should be helped to distinguish fact from fiction. Kang Kyoung-sook, a Rebuilding Korea Party lawmaker, objected to political scrutiny of the movie, saying the National Assembly was not a film censorship committee. SBS reported those exchanges from the Education Committee in its Oct. 7 account of the audits.

The dispute extended to the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee. People Power Party lawmakers sought to summon director Hur Jin-ho and other members of the production team as witnesses. Democratic Party lawmakers opposed the move, and the proposed summons did not go ahead. The disagreement left the filmmakers outside that audit’s witness questioning, while the parties’ competing views of the film remained public.

Protests and protection for actor Yoo Hae-jin

The parliamentary exchange followed protests connected to the film, including demonstrations outside actor Yoo Hae-jin’s home. Chae said he had spoken out because criticism of the film had escalated into personal threats against cultural figures. He said he had called for police action against illegal protest activity, while maintaining that criticism of a film was permissible.

On Oct. 6, Seoul Seongbuk Police Station provided Yoo with a smartwatch, registered him on the emergency 112 system and increased patrols near his residence, according to The Korea Times, which carried a Yonhap byline. The reported measures did not include a dedicated officer. The same report said protesters had demanded that the film be withdrawn and that its cast and crew apologize.

Those measures show a direct effect on a person associated with the film, separate from the disagreement over its historical interpretation. Chae’s comments at the audit addressed both issues: who should judge a contested work and how authorities should respond when protests involve threats. The reported police protection does not establish the identity of anyone responsible for a threat or the outcome of any legal case.

What remains unresolved after the audit

The Oct. 7 reports establish the minister’s position, the lawmakers’ arguments and the failed effort to summon the filmmakers. They do not establish that the government will take further action over the film, or that legal proceedings will follow. The film’s contested account of the assassination remains an allegation made by its critics, rather than a historical conclusion reached in the parliamentary exchanges.

For audiences, the immediate result is a clearer account of the government’s stated stance: Chae said officials should not decide the content of creative works and that viewers should judge whether this one distorts history. For those involved in the production, the separate safety issue remains concrete in the reported protection given to Yoo. Neither development resolves the underlying dispute about the film’s depiction of 1974.