지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Everywhere we look, it is apparent that television dramas have become a cultural product enjoyed by the masses, a phenomenon that has become a symbol of pop culture today. But historical dramas have set themselves apart from other dramas by virtue of the ability provide historical knowledge to the audience, and naturally, has an influence that far outstrips any history book. It is because of this that no serious historian can stay ignorant or indifferent to production of historical dramas.
Because of its portrayal of a controversial historical character from Korean history and the great war between the ancient Korean state of Koguryo against Sui and Tang dynasties of China, Korean audiences flocked to watch 〈Yongaesomun〉, a 100-episode historical drama produced and broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System from July of 2006 to June of 2007, which maintained a high viewer rating during the duration of the broadcast. Yet despite declaration from the producers of 〈Yongaesomun〉 that their drama would faithfully take actual historical events into account, the drama never quite lived up to that promise.
The problems with 〈Yongaesomun〉 are manifold, but can be divided to four major aspects.
The first and the most outstanding error concerns the arrangement of the script itself. Aside from episodes 1 and 2, which formed the introduction, episodes 3 to 54 formed the first half, and the rest (episodes 55-100) formed the second. Yongaesomun himself, the namesake for the entire drama, was actually the main character only ill the second half.
The writer's biased interest in a specific part of history made Yangdi of Sui the central figure if the first half, with Yongaesomun relegated to a minor role. Such an arrangement is an error of monumental proportions, for Yangdi and Yongaesomun have never personally met each other and, more importantly, lived generations apart. A mistaken attempt to connect the two characters mixed up the actual order of historical events as well as seriously skewing the relationships between the major characters. A warped timeline became a critical error that doomed any claims about 〈Yongaesomun〉 as a serious historical drama.
The second error is no less glaring, in that it bent basic historical fact. Aside from the changing of order of historical events mentioned above, the roles assigned to a number of characters revealed wide discrepancy with the actual role they played in history. Though there is room for imagination or certain amount of fiction in a drama, a historical drama is different in that the basic facts that form the background of the story must adhere to the truth. Anything that allow pieces of fiction that contradict basic fact to enter the story line, is at best historical fusion or fantasy, and has no right to be called a historical drama.
Third, the drama was dripping with fatalism and the writer's hero worship. The fatalism that was revealed many times in the drama, which claims that there are things in history that happen no matter what happens, is perhaps the greatest obstacle to proper understanding of history. In addition, excessive hero worship, overemphasis on masculinity, and a historical perspective bordering on chauvinism obviously prevented the writer from objective understanding of why things happened the way they did and why other things did not.
Fourth, the writer exhibited an appalling lack of creativity by utter inability to bring new characters to life, rather relying on heavy borrowing from other literature. It was highlighted by the fact d1at personalities and appearance of many characters did not resemble the people of Koguryo, but instead were copied from epics from other countries, Writers of good dramas must consider research into the diversity of human nature his or her main responsibility, to discover the various natures and characters in real life. By choosing to borrow and copy rather than create characters, a historical drama supposedly about Koguryo was noticeable for its surprising lack of genuine people of Koguryo.
Yet despite all of the abovementioned shortcomings, 〈Yongaesomun〉 was successful in introducing Koguryo to the general public and eliciting their interest. It was still able to bring many historical scenes to life in a way historians could not, a feat that would not have been possible if not for millions of dollars in production costs and labor of hundreds of cast and staff.
In the end, 〈Yongaesomun〉 suffers from too many defects to be a bona fide historical epic, a historical fiction or fantasy at best. Yet it managed to open up possibilities for dramas based on the history of Koguryo.
It is true that the public today learns more about history from a historical drama on TV than from historians who have failed to produce literature for the masses. Case in point, a drama like 〈Daejanggeum: Jewel in the Palace〉, frequently touted as an example of a well-made drama, can do much more for introducing Korean history and culture to the rest of the world than any historical publication.
Needless to say, historians trapped in ivory towers and refusing to communicate with the rest of the world slowly are doomed to lose their place. A historian closely attuned to and recognizes the educational aspect of history must not hesitate to criticize historical programs on TV that are off the mark, and help them become programs based on historical truth that can facilitate proper understanding of history and transmission of the solid facts.
Up until now, writers of historical dramas were never constrained or have limits placed upon them in creating works of 'history' that never existed. There was rarely, if at all, any criticism for having created false history without proper consultation, from paltry imagination of the individual writer. It is academic historians' arrogant neglect of historical dramas or novels enjoyed by the public that played no small part in creating this situation.
Just as reviewers of art have contributed to artistic progress with criticism, so must historians dispense stem criticism upon historical novels or dramas. Also, they should not withhold any advice and consultation from creators of such works. This is unavoidable responsibility and duty historians have for advancement and progress of the popular culture industry, to make history more accessible to the public.
Because of its portrayal of a controversial historical character from Korean history and the great war between the ancient Korean state of Koguryo against Sui and Tang dynasties of China, Korean audiences flocked to watch 〈Yongaesomun〉, a 100-episode historical drama produced and broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System from July of 2006 to June of 2007, which maintained a high viewer rating during the duration of the broadcast. Yet despite declaration from the producers of 〈Yongaesomun〉 that their drama would faithfully take actual historical events into account, the drama never quite lived up to that promise.
The problems with 〈Yongaesomun〉 are manifold, but can be divided to four major aspects.
The first and the most outstanding error concerns the arrangement of the script itself. Aside from episodes 1 and 2, which formed the introduction, episodes 3 to 54 formed the first half, and the rest (episodes 55-100) formed the second. Yongaesomun himself, the namesake for the entire drama, was actually the main character only ill the second half.
The writer's biased interest in a specific part of history made Yangdi of Sui the central figure if the first half, with Yongaesomun relegated to a minor role. Such an arrangement is an error of monumental proportions, for Yangdi and Yongaesomun have never personally met each other and, more importantly, lived generations apart. A mistaken attempt to connect the two characters mixed up the actual order of historical events as well as seriously skewing the relationships between the major characters. A warped timeline became a critical error that doomed any claims about 〈Yongaesomun〉 as a serious historical drama.
The second error is no less glaring, in that it bent basic historical fact. Aside from the changing of order of historical events mentioned above, the roles assigned to a number of characters revealed wide discrepancy with the actual role they played in history. Though there is room for imagination or certain amount of fiction in a drama, a historical drama is different in that the basic facts that form the background of the story must adhere to the truth. Anything that allow pieces of fiction that contradict basic fact to enter the story line, is at best historical fusion or fantasy, and has no right to be called a historical drama.
Third, the drama was dripping with fatalism and the writer's hero worship. The fatalism that was revealed many times in the drama, which claims that there are things in history that happen no matter what happens, is perhaps the greatest obstacle to proper understanding of history. In addition, excessive hero worship, overemphasis on masculinity, and a historical perspective bordering on chauvinism obviously prevented the writer from objective understanding of why things happened the way they did and why other things did not.
Fourth, the writer exhibited an appalling lack of creativity by utter inability to bring new characters to life, rather relying on heavy borrowing from other literature. It was highlighted by the fact d1at personalities and appearance of many characters did not resemble the people of Koguryo, but instead were copied from epics from other countries, Writers of good dramas must consider research into the diversity of human nature his or her main responsibility, to discover the various natures and characters in real life. By choosing to borrow and copy rather than create characters, a historical drama supposedly about Koguryo was noticeable for its surprising lack of genuine people of Koguryo.
Yet despite all of the abovementioned shortcomings, 〈Yongaesomun〉 was successful in introducing Koguryo to the general public and eliciting their interest. It was still able to bring many historical scenes to life in a way historians could not, a feat that would not have been possible if not for millions of dollars in production costs and labor of hundreds of cast and staff.
In the end, 〈Yongaesomun〉 suffers from too many defects to be a bona fide historical epic, a historical fiction or fantasy at best. Yet it managed to open up possibilities for dramas based on the history of Koguryo.
It is true that the public today learns more about history from a historical drama on TV than from historians who have failed to produce literature for the masses. Case in point, a drama like 〈Daejanggeum: Jewel in the Palace〉, frequently touted as an example of a well-made drama, can do much more for introducing Korean history and culture to the rest of the world than any historical publication.
Needless to say, historians trapped in ivory towers and refusing to communicate with the rest of the world slowly are doomed to lose their place. A historian closely attuned to and recognizes the educational aspect of history must not hesitate to criticize historical programs on TV that are off the mark, and help them become programs based on historical truth that can facilitate proper understanding of history and transmission of the solid facts.
Up until now, writers of historical dramas were never constrained or have limits placed upon them in creating works of 'history' that never existed. There was rarely, if at all, any criticism for having created false history without proper consultation, from paltry imagination of the individual writer. It is academic historians' arrogant neglect of historical dramas or novels enjoyed by the public that played no small part in creating this situation.
Just as reviewers of art have contributed to artistic progress with criticism, so must historians dispense stem criticism upon historical novels or dramas. Also, they should not withhold any advice and consultation from creators of such works. This is unavoidable responsibility and duty historians have for advancement and progress of the popular culture industry, to make history more accessible to the public.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말 - 퓨전사극과 정통사극
Ⅱ. 드라마 ‘연개소문’의 시간 흐름의 문제점
Ⅲ. 역사적 사실과 드라마 ‘연개소문’의 허구
Ⅳ. 고구려 시대에 고구려 인물이 없다
Ⅴ. 맺는 말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
History of Korean Drama
Korea Journal
1964 .06
-
역사드라마의 광학적 무의식, 민족서사와 재현 이미지 연구 : 〈스캔들〉, 〈형사〉, 〈음란서생〉의 경우를 중심으로
우리문학연구
2006 .08
-
고구려 역사 드라마의 역사서술과 재현
고구려발해연구
2007 .09
-
Sixty Years of New Drama in Korea
Korea Journal
1969 .03
-
Process Drama
미래영어영문학회 학술대회 자료집
2017 .12
-
역사콘텐츠를 통한 청소년들의 인식 조사‑ 드라마와 영화를 토대로 ‑
한국사상과 문화
2017 .01
-
歷史小說, 歷史드라마에 나타난 古代史像 고찰 : 최인호, 이문열 소설을 중심으로
스토리앤이미지텔링
2013 .06
-
역사와 역사소설 그리고 사극 : 장보고와 ‘해신’을 중심으로
역사와현실
2006 .06
-
사극을 어떻게 볼 것인가 : ‘꿈꾸는 역사’로서 사극
인문콘텐츠
2016 .12
-
영상 서사에 나타난 대체역사 주제 연구
어문학
2008 .03
-
창의성을 위한 영어교육: 과정 연극(Process Drama)
영어영문학
2014 .08
-
Problems of Korean Drama : Its Present and Future
Korea Journal
1962 .08
-
The Historical Drama Queen Seondeok : Imaginary Memory of an Ancient Heroine
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2011 .06
-
The Status of Historical Drama Films in South Korea in the 1960s: The Relevance between the Film Industry and Genre Films
Korea Journal
2019 .12
-
역사적 사실의 특징과 역사교육의 특수성
역사교육
2010 .03
-
동북공정 이후 중국 대중미디어의 고구려 서사 방식: TV 역사드라마를 중심으로
동서비교문학저널
2020 .09
-
포스트모던 역사인식과 역사학습
역사교육
2000 .06
-
20세기 중국 話劇과 전통 戱曲의 拮抗
외국학연구
2013 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-019486130