The fact that there is this secret tunnel from Hosu Dorm to the forest, makes me think Hosu Dorm used to be a protestor stronghold, and Ms. Pi and the other older staff used to be part of that revolution.
The ANSP is shown to be a really corrupt organisation who, so far, have illegally kept an innocent citizen, hid…
Correction: A few high ranking members of the ANSP is shown to be really corrupt.
Correction: The legality of keeping that so called innocent is blurry, since technically, that innocent is harboring information about an actual NK spy. If that innocent didn't know Soo Ho at all, and he still went through that, then yes you would be correct.
Correction: The men who attacked the dorm, actually did it AGAINST the orders of the corrupt politicians from the North and South. And in fact, given what the ANSP is suppose to be for, they were in fact doing their actual jobs, which is to capture spies.
Correction: The only thing Kang Moo is guilty of, is being Hot AF. If being drunk on power means disregarding orders from corrupt directors, and doing what is right? Then I hope more men like him become drunk with power.
The show gives a brief background in the form of snippets of what the ANSP used to do, but in Snowdrop, they are showing that there is a change in the guard, and ANSP staffs are starting to do the right thing, which in fact shows that there are good people in the ANSP. A thought the Korean public does not agree with.
(sorry long ass essay post but i was reading through today’s discussions and wanted to add my own thoughts):…
You bring up some interesting points for discussion. Let me attempt to tackle them.
I understand the point you are trying to make. JTBC and the writer has made a plot so incredibly exaggerated that no one should be able to see the whole drama as anything more than satire. But there lays a few problems in the use of the word "Exaggerated", which I will be detailing more.
For us internationally fans that are not privy to South Korean history, nor are intimately connected to the events between 1980 - 1987, we are getting our information mostly from Google, Wikepedia, and some articles here and there. So we don't really know what is and what is not exaggerated. In fact, the plot of Snowdrop about a handful of Korean politicians working with North Korean generals to secure the election may very well be true, because in real life, a member of Chun Do Hwan actually does win the 1987 elections, and all though reports have been shown that he won it fair and square, a drama like Snowdrop at the very least brings up the question whether he cheated or not.
Now, let's add to the fact, that admittedly there are just some things that are lost in translation, even with the best of English subtitle translator, and what we get is an international audience that is trying to find the blackness in this particular political satire. I am not a native South Korean, so I cannot comment if the satire is incredibly obvious, but as an international audience who has seen her fair share of black comedies and political satire I can tell you, it is not hitting the mark, nor is it very obvious that they are satiring the ANSP.
One could argue, "Obviously it's satire, since the ANSP is not that incompetent". But it's not, I cannot speak on the competency of the ANSP agency because I was not there at the time. Maybe to you certain things seem very obviously satire, but to me, it just reeks of poor writing trying to use the word "Satire" to shore up weaknesses in the plot.
Actually, the plot, and the 5 episodes shown so far has shown us, or given us an alternate taught that all the crimes produced by the ANSP is due to the actions of Two men only. It doesn't paint the government as corrupt and "Evil", but rather it paints two ambitious and greedy men, who will do anything (including drinking a glass of blood), to rise in the ranks and to be the next presidential party nominee. In fact, the clarifications of Ep. 5 has shown that there is a distinct possibility, that the leader at the time, is not aware that all this is happening. And it's a very possible scenario, as the CIA/FBI may not tell the president everything, to foster Plausible Deniability. So in essence, the plot is emphasizing these corrupt actions are really the actions of a few men, rather than the whole organizations.
I don't believe the plot is making us question who is good, or who is bad. But rather it ask another critical question. What is the lesser evil? And for this particular question, I want to posit what I affectionally call The Three Northmen. You see, I don't think the writing is particularly smart to intentionally write them this way, but I will use these three North Korean spies to show my point. They raided Hosu Dorm and are taking the college hostage. This is a bad situation, we can even call it "Evil". Then we have the three spies, note how although the action itself is bad, the people in this situation are on different ends of the spectrum. In this scenario, we will be using wanting Pee as our controlled situation.
We can clearly tell the first Spy is not a nice guy, because, he will not give, as Ms. Pi says "A Natural Human Right". So Spy #1 is representative of an authoritarian regime, where even the simplest human rights are stifled. What happens in the end? That person will pee themselves.
In Spy #2, we see someone who actually seems to care about basic human rights, but is afraid of repercussions from spy #1, and so he denies the basic human right as well. He would be representative of a socialist regime where they want to give people the basic rights, but need the go signal of the higher ups to give it. That person will pee themselves.
In Soo Ho, we see someone who places a bomb between two students, and makes them think that to move would cause them to die. The pin is later placed back in the bomb, but in the minds of the two students, to move is to die. And so in the end they pee themselves. You see, even though Soo Ho is quiet and calm, his intentions are the same as spy #1. He gives the students/hostages a false sense of democracy by being nice to them, telling Spy #1 to allow first aid and etc... But in reality, that's all it is, a false democracy.
One would ask, which of these three spies, would you want to run the country? And the answer is none of them. But you see, that is rarely a choice, in life, and in history, we don't always have the choice of the right choice or the good choice. Often in life, we just have to choose the lesser evil. And the concept of lesser evil is different from person to person. Some people would actually prefer Spy #2, because he is at least transparent. Some would prefer Soo Ho for his false democracy.
In Snowdrop, Soo Ho is alluded to have either indirectly caused, or caused the death of a few ANSP agents. But as you said, if you think the ANSP agents are evil anyway, is Soo Ho instead doing a good deed?
And let's face it, how many viewers both international and local, would accept Soo Ho and Young Ro's romance to continue without Soo Ho defecting? Since both NK and SK sides are shown to be corrupt, why does he need to defect? Why does Young Ro not defect to NK instead? I mean this is after all a work of fiction, and the North Korean's war crimes are not being brought to light here, why would it be wrong for the North Korean peninsula to win in this drama? And it boils back to the fact that as much as people want to claim Snowdrop is total fiction, there is a lot of non-fiction attached to it, it's banking on a lot of preconceived notions as well. And of them being that North Korea is inherently bad, that no matter how bad ANSP is, North Korea is worst. And so I already know that Soo Ho will defect, because we cannot label him as a good guy until he does. Because we as international viewers are already brainwashed that NK is bad, and their spies can only be good guys in our eyes if they defect.
And it's clear that having a character like Gang Moo is suppose to remind us watchers that even with the corrupt leaders, South Korea is the good guys.
I've said this multiple times in this comment section. If they wanted a completely fictional depiction, they should have made the "exaggerations" universally understood. Like give the ANSP laser guns, or give Young Ro psychic powers, or include a time travel plot. Things that will still satire what is happening, but constantly remind the viewers this is complete fiction. A movie that does an incredible job of what I am talking about is Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino. I don't even know much about Nazi history, but from minute one, I didn't need to Wikipedia if anything happening was real or not, it was painfully obvious it was fiction. They even use actual names of the people during that time.
I get the aim of JTBC and Snowdrop writers, and what they are trying to do, I just think they massively missed the mark, and created controversy, when there didn't need to be one. So instead of Snowdrop being seen as a clever, brilliant political satire of the times of 1980, it's just going to have a black mark on everyone working on it.
I also don't think Snowdrop should be taken of, but that is more because personally I don't think it is a big thing to begin with. And I don't believe in censorship.
The trouble with the whole controversy from my perspective is that those who started it don't believe that people…
The confusing part I find is that even during this "Militaristic Regime" of south Korea during the 1980 - 1987, South Korea was actually under the guise of a democratic government. Now, one can argue that it was just an outer shell, and the truth was that the dictatorship of Chun Do Hwan rivaled those of Kim Jong Un and his ilk, but in reality, regardless if you are creating a false pretense or not, there are just lines that this type of government cannot cross. If it was truly a militaristic regime, as is being parroted, there wouldn't need to cover their misdeeds under more nobler causations.
The fact of the matter is that South Korea at this time is only 35 years removed from the Korea War. A global event that drained completely the funds of both Koreas, and as much hate as Chun Do Hwan may have gotten, I have read that during his 7 year regime, South Korea's started it's economic resurgence. Of course I am not attributing the resurgence to him, I am just making a matter of fact statement.
I agree, human being always boast of being able to do better than the predecessors, even going as far as creating complex economic, fiscal and monetary policies, but in the end these people end up doing either the same mistakes, or even up doing even worse. It always easier to criticize than to understand. Easier to find faults, rather than to find solutions. This is a problem endemic of human beings.
Agreed, as much as we may revile, or feel constricted by societal ideologies of ethics and moral standards, the presence of such standards is what allows us to globally empathize with the historical and modern plight of the global community.
I see Hosu Dorm in Snowdrop as the moral effigy many of the rich and corrupt use to rationalize their dark works. It's not surprise that the corrupt father of Young Ro sends her to such a school, because it allows these rich and corrupt to do immoral acts, in their pursuit of power and money, but then they send their children to these exclusive schools to either shield them from the dark industry the father works for, or to make themselves feel better that their spawns are bathing in the light. It's no different when gangster send their children to top private schools.
You have very interesting takes, I am learning a lot!
The trouble with the whole controversy from my perspective is that those who started it don't believe that people…
Just reading some of the comments, there are people asking "Whos are the good guys"
It's that inherent human need to be rooting for the good guys. They do not want to be sympathetic to the side that is "bad". To do so would invite judgement, ridicule and public shaming.
You would think that history has shown us that throughout history, many actions that were deemed good, can in fact be bad, and vice versa, but it hasn't stopped that need for people to label actions, organizations or people as either good or bad.
What makes our judgement flawed is that they are vulnerable to bias from many different sources, which include our own personal experience. There is an argument that the people who actually experienced these injustice may be the worst POV to measure the evil of ANSP or not.
I have only ever seen this done with movies that were comedies like Bounty Hunter.
Is this really any different than a man who falls in love with a woman after her plastic surgery, but detested her when she was ugly?
With the conflict that normally breaks up the main couple happening as early as EP. 4 where will the writing go now with little avenues left open?
Also, I haven't watched many kdramas, but is this the first time the ML holds the FL hostage?
To be fair, almost all the characters are single toned. Si maybe not her fault.
But it's basically 2-3 faces being recycled per scene.
With one of the faces being a constipated one.
Which is why it's going to happen.
They may have just used a popular actress like Yoon in Na to get clicks.
I suspect that too many strong and interesting female characters would diminish the role of the FL, thus the limited screen time.
Does this sound familiar?
Yes, this is the plot of Harry Potter.
Correction: The legality of keeping that so called innocent is blurry, since technically, that innocent is harboring information about an actual NK spy. If that innocent didn't know Soo Ho at all, and he still went through that, then yes you would be correct.
Correction: The men who attacked the dorm, actually did it AGAINST the orders of the corrupt politicians from the North and South. And in fact, given what the ANSP is suppose to be for, they were in fact doing their actual jobs, which is to capture spies.
Correction: The only thing Kang Moo is guilty of, is being Hot AF. If being drunk on power means disregarding orders from corrupt directors, and doing what is right? Then I hope more men like him become drunk with power.
The show gives a brief background in the form of snippets of what the ANSP used to do, but in Snowdrop, they are showing that there is a change in the guard, and ANSP staffs are starting to do the right thing, which in fact shows that there are good people in the ANSP. A thought the Korean public does not agree with.
Not hating, just being matter of fact.
I understand the point you are trying to make. JTBC and the writer has made a plot so incredibly exaggerated that no one should be able to see the whole drama as anything more than satire. But there lays a few problems in the use of the word "Exaggerated", which I will be detailing more.
For us internationally fans that are not privy to South Korean history, nor are intimately connected to the events between 1980 - 1987, we are getting our information mostly from Google, Wikepedia, and some articles here and there. So we don't really know what is and what is not exaggerated. In fact, the plot of Snowdrop about a handful of Korean politicians working with North Korean generals to secure the election may very well be true, because in real life, a member of Chun Do Hwan actually does win the 1987 elections, and all though reports have been shown that he won it fair and square, a drama like Snowdrop at the very least brings up the question whether he cheated or not.
Now, let's add to the fact, that admittedly there are just some things that are lost in translation, even with the best of English subtitle translator, and what we get is an international audience that is trying to find the blackness in this particular political satire. I am not a native South Korean, so I cannot comment if the satire is incredibly obvious, but as an international audience who has seen her fair share of black comedies and political satire I can tell you, it is not hitting the mark, nor is it very obvious that they are satiring the ANSP.
One could argue, "Obviously it's satire, since the ANSP is not that incompetent". But it's not, I cannot speak on the competency of the ANSP agency because I was not there at the time. Maybe to you certain things seem very obviously satire, but to me, it just reeks of poor writing trying to use the word "Satire" to shore up weaknesses in the plot.
Actually, the plot, and the 5 episodes shown so far has shown us, or given us an alternate taught that all the crimes produced by the ANSP is due to the actions of Two men only. It doesn't paint the government as corrupt and "Evil", but rather it paints two ambitious and greedy men, who will do anything (including drinking a glass of blood), to rise in the ranks and to be the next presidential party nominee. In fact, the clarifications of Ep. 5 has shown that there is a distinct possibility, that the leader at the time, is not aware that all this is happening. And it's a very possible scenario, as the CIA/FBI may not tell the president everything, to foster Plausible Deniability. So in essence, the plot is emphasizing these corrupt actions are really the actions of a few men, rather than the whole organizations.
I don't believe the plot is making us question who is good, or who is bad. But rather it ask another critical question. What is the lesser evil? And for this particular question, I want to posit what I affectionally call The Three Northmen. You see, I don't think the writing is particularly smart to intentionally write them this way, but I will use these three North Korean spies to show my point. They raided Hosu Dorm and are taking the college hostage. This is a bad situation, we can even call it "Evil". Then we have the three spies, note how although the action itself is bad, the people in this situation are on different ends of the spectrum. In this scenario, we will be using wanting Pee as our controlled situation.
We can clearly tell the first Spy is not a nice guy, because, he will not give, as Ms. Pi says "A Natural Human Right". So Spy #1 is representative of an authoritarian regime, where even the simplest human rights are stifled. What happens in the end? That person will pee themselves.
In Spy #2, we see someone who actually seems to care about basic human rights, but is afraid of repercussions from spy #1, and so he denies the basic human right as well. He would be representative of a socialist regime where they want to give people the basic rights, but need the go signal of the higher ups to give it. That person will pee themselves.
In Soo Ho, we see someone who places a bomb between two students, and makes them think that to move would cause them to die. The pin is later placed back in the bomb, but in the minds of the two students, to move is to die. And so in the end they pee themselves. You see, even though Soo Ho is quiet and calm, his intentions are the same as spy #1. He gives the students/hostages a false sense of democracy by being nice to them, telling Spy #1 to allow first aid and etc... But in reality, that's all it is, a false democracy.
One would ask, which of these three spies, would you want to run the country? And the answer is none of them. But you see, that is rarely a choice, in life, and in history, we don't always have the choice of the right choice or the good choice. Often in life, we just have to choose the lesser evil. And the concept of lesser evil is different from person to person. Some people would actually prefer Spy #2, because he is at least transparent. Some would prefer Soo Ho for his false democracy.
In Snowdrop, Soo Ho is alluded to have either indirectly caused, or caused the death of a few ANSP agents. But as you said, if you think the ANSP agents are evil anyway, is Soo Ho instead doing a good deed?
And let's face it, how many viewers both international and local, would accept Soo Ho and Young Ro's romance to continue without Soo Ho defecting? Since both NK and SK sides are shown to be corrupt, why does he need to defect? Why does Young Ro not defect to NK instead? I mean this is after all a work of fiction, and the North Korean's war crimes are not being brought to light here, why would it be wrong for the North Korean peninsula to win in this drama? And it boils back to the fact that as much as people want to claim Snowdrop is total fiction, there is a lot of non-fiction attached to it, it's banking on a lot of preconceived notions as well. And of them being that North Korea is inherently bad, that no matter how bad ANSP is, North Korea is worst. And so I already know that Soo Ho will defect, because we cannot label him as a good guy until he does. Because we as international viewers are already brainwashed that NK is bad, and their spies can only be good guys in our eyes if they defect.
And it's clear that having a character like Gang Moo is suppose to remind us watchers that even with the corrupt leaders, South Korea is the good guys.
I've said this multiple times in this comment section. If they wanted a completely fictional depiction, they should have made the "exaggerations" universally understood. Like give the ANSP laser guns, or give Young Ro psychic powers, or include a time travel plot. Things that will still satire what is happening, but constantly remind the viewers this is complete fiction. A movie that does an incredible job of what I am talking about is Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino. I don't even know much about Nazi history, but from minute one, I didn't need to Wikipedia if anything happening was real or not, it was painfully obvious it was fiction. They even use actual names of the people during that time.
I get the aim of JTBC and Snowdrop writers, and what they are trying to do, I just think they massively missed the mark, and created controversy, when there didn't need to be one. So instead of Snowdrop being seen as a clever, brilliant political satire of the times of 1980, it's just going to have a black mark on everyone working on it.
I also don't think Snowdrop should be taken of, but that is more because personally I don't think it is a big thing to begin with. And I don't believe in censorship.
The fact of the matter is that South Korea at this time is only 35 years removed from the Korea War. A global event that drained completely the funds of both Koreas, and as much hate as Chun Do Hwan may have gotten, I have read that during his 7 year regime, South Korea's started it's economic resurgence. Of course I am not attributing the resurgence to him, I am just making a matter of fact statement.
I agree, human being always boast of being able to do better than the predecessors, even going as far as creating complex economic, fiscal and monetary policies, but in the end these people end up doing either the same mistakes, or even up doing even worse. It always easier to criticize than to understand. Easier to find faults, rather than to find solutions. This is a problem endemic of human beings.
Agreed, as much as we may revile, or feel constricted by societal ideologies of ethics and moral standards, the presence of such standards is what allows us to globally empathize with the historical and modern plight of the global community.
I see Hosu Dorm in Snowdrop as the moral effigy many of the rich and corrupt use to rationalize their dark works. It's not surprise that the corrupt father of Young Ro sends her to such a school, because it allows these rich and corrupt to do immoral acts, in their pursuit of power and money, but then they send their children to these exclusive schools to either shield them from the dark industry the father works for, or to make themselves feel better that their spawns are bathing in the light. It's no different when gangster send their children to top private schools.
You have very interesting takes, I am learning a lot!
It's that inherent human need to be rooting for the good guys. They do not want to be sympathetic to the side that is "bad". To do so would invite judgement, ridicule and public shaming.
You would think that history has shown us that throughout history, many actions that were deemed good, can in fact be bad, and vice versa, but it hasn't stopped that need for people to label actions, organizations or people as either good or bad.
What makes our judgement flawed is that they are vulnerable to bias from many different sources, which include our own personal experience. There is an argument that the people who actually experienced these injustice may be the worst POV to measure the evil of ANSP or not.