[Dispatch=Reporter Kim Ji-ho] 'Assassin(s)' is a fiction film. While it was motivated by a historical event, it is a fiction film. Of course, a fiction film is not a free pass for imagination. If it uses a real incident as material, caution is necessary.

Director Huh Jin-ho pushed back. "Such content does not appear anywhere in the film," he explained, adding that "the theory of Park Chung-hee's involvement is beyond my understanding of human nature."

If so, it is Director Huh Jin-ho's failure. Some viewers are interpreting (contrary to the director's intent) President Park Chung-hee as being behind the shooting incident of Yuk Young-soo.

Did the audience wear tinted glasses? Or did the director put tinted glasses on the audience? The tragedy of 'Assassin(s)' starts here. The production intent of the film is being read that way. It's regrettable.

'Assassin(s)' spends 131 minutes making the audience suspicious of a person behind the scenes. That suspicion extends to the security office, the KCIA, and those above. And this (unspeakable) upper level evokes the image of the president.

Look at the conversation between Chairman Han (Jungwoo) and Jaehwan (Park Hae-il). Jaehwan raises the hypothesis: "What if the KCIA's upper level colluded with Japanese right-wingers to create a farce, and a tragedy occurred?"

Chairman Han applies the brakes. "It's a matter involving the Director General's life," he points out the delusion of grandeur. Then he counters: "What if power were more important than life?"

The film clearly does not specify those behind the scenes. However, the audience can read it. In a situation where the film suspects the KCIA and "those above," the plural in parentheses is interpreted as referring to them.

The moral framework is also relatively clear. Journalists and detectives pursuing the truth stand at the center of the narrative. The audience follows the clues and inferences they discover and approaches the truth of the incident.

Conversely, KCIA agents and security officials are cruel. There is little internal conflict. They are entirely focused on covering up. They subject the protagonists pursuing truth to endless violence.

There are two propositions that must be distinguished in this film: "There are unresolved questions about the shooting incident" and "the Central Intelligence Agency or the Park Chung-hee regime planned the shooting incident."

These two statements are entirely different. The former is a historical question. The latter, by contrast, approaches conspiracy theory. The former can sufficiently be raised, but the latter requires separate evidence.

The film blurred the boundary between the two propositions. It compressed the historical question too easily, simply reducing it to the phrase "those above." Questions, suspicions, and doubts are entirely different categories.

"Having no intention to do so" and "there being no possibility to read it that way" are entirely different issues. Director Huh Jin-ho should have calibrated the boundary between suspicion and fact more carefully. The audience reading the film cannot be blamed.

<Photo source: 'Assassin(s)' stills>