Cho Kuk: "'The Assassin(s)' does not mock Yuk Young-soo's death—Yoo Hae-jin is a 'righteous militia face'"

Cho Kuk, head of the Rebuilding Korea Party's Innovation Policy Research Institute, has found himself at the center of controversy after personally watching the film 'The Assassin(s)'. Regarding the work, which is based on the shooting incident of First Lady Yuk Young-soo, he defended it by stating, "It does not mock the death of Madam Yuk," and described actor Yoo Hae-jin, who appears in the film, as having a "righteous militia face" (uibyeong-sang). In response, People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo immediately countered, reigniting a heated political debate surrounding a single film.

On the 4th, Cho announced through his SNS that he had watched 'The Assassin(s)', claiming, "This film does not advocate for the actions of Moon Se-gwang, nor does it mock the death of Madam Yuk." He further clarified his stance on the controversy surrounding the work, stating, "Whether it is defamation or otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to take legal responsibility."

He gave a quite generous evaluation of the film itself. Cho left a review saying, "The 131 minutes passed in an instant due to the thrilling story development that well combines fact and fiction, and the acting of our country's best actors." Aside from the political debate, he essentially highly praised the film's composition and the actors' acting skills.

In particular, Cho even proposed that relevant data held by state agencies be released to end the historical debate surrounding the shooting of Yuk Young-soo. Mentioning the warheads related to the shooting of Madam Yuk, which are known to have been collected and stored by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency at the time and the current National Intelligence Service, he argued, "How about suppressing the controversy by publicly verifying the relevant data held by state agencies?"

He also directly addressed the controversy surrounding Yoo Hae-jin. Cho criticized People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo for making personal attacks regarding Yoo Hae-jin's appearance, suggesting he looked like a "North Korean face," and mentioned that an ultra-right-wing group has announced a rally in front of Yoo Hae-jin's residence. He then cheered for the cast, saying, "I hope the cast, including director Hur Jin-ho and actor Yoo Hae-jin, find strength," and supported Yoo Hae-jin by saying, "National actor Yoo Hae-jin is a 'righteous militia face'."

Furthermore, Cho showed even more support for the film. By expressing his intention to watch 'The Assassin(s)' again with the citizens of Pyeongtaek who ran in the April 7 by-elections, it appeared he was actively stepping into the debate beyond mere film viewing.

In response, lawmaker Joo Jin-woo launched a counterattack on the same day. Regarding Cho's film review, Joo strongly criticized him, saying, "After watching the immoral film 'The Assassin(s)', he made a reckless remark to 'publicly re-verify the data on the assassination of Madam Yuk Young-soo'." He continued his sharp offensive by questioning, "Have you received orders to conceal the fact that it was the work of North Korea?"

Cho's expression of "righteous militia face" regarding Yoo Hae-jin also became a target of Joo's attack. Joo questioned, "He praised Yoo Hae-jin, who appeared in a film that commits character assassination on a family and hides North Korean atrocities by receiving a large guarantee, calling him a 'righteous militia face'," and asked back, "Which country's righteous militia is he?"

Ultimately, the debate surrounding 'The Assassin(s)' is expanding beyond the historical interpretation of the film to include the casting of actors and the reviews of politicians. Cho viewed the work as a film combining fact and fiction and advocated for the public verification of related data, while Joo countered this directly. Attention is focused on how far this political dispute triggered by a single film will continue.