As a resident of Dallas, I feel a strange sensation watching the controversy surrounding the film 'Assassins.'

What kind of place is Dallas? It is the very city where President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

When passing through downtown Dealey Plaza, tourists still discuss where the bullets came from and whether Lee Harvey Oswald had any accomplices.

However, in Korea, a film based on the 1974 assassination attempt on First Lady Yuk Young-soo has sparked a significant clash between the left and right.

Director Hur Jin-ho's 'Assassins' was released on September 23.

It stars Yoo Hae-jin, Park Hae-il, and Lee Min-ho, depicting the story of detectives and journalists investigating the incident.

During the four-day Chuseok holiday, over 1.4 million people watched it, and within 11 days of its release, it surpassed 2 million viewers.

Rather than failing due to the controversy, it seems the film has ignited a box office success.

But why is this film causing such a stir? The core issue is simple.

On August 15, 1974, during a Liberation Day event, Mun Se-gwang aimed a gun at President Park Chung-hee, resulting in the death of First Lady Yuk Young-soo.

The investigation concluded that Mun Se-gwang was responsible for the crime.

However, the film does not stop there. It delves into the bullets and the questions surrounding the incident, introducing hypotheses about other potential assassins or the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency.

This has led to implications that the Park Chung-hee regime might have been involved, igniting the controversy.

Naturally, the conservative camp reacted strongly.

They argue, "Portraying real historical figures and making unverified conspiracy theories feel like facts is not artistic freedom but historical distortion."

The People Power Party and the Park Chung-hee Memorial Foundation have criticized the film harshly, even calling for its screening to be halted.

On the other hand, some view it differently.

"The film does not state that Park Chung-hee is the perpetrator; it dramatically reconstructs questions and hypotheses based on actual events. Can't we even imagine such scenarios in a film?" they argue. The production team also maintains that the film does not definitively claim Park Chung-hee was behind the events.

Director Hur Jin-ho explained that he did not approach the film as one that uncovers hidden conspiracies. As Korea's unique ideological war intensified, the story grew larger.

Some label it a leftist film, while others claim that conservative forces are suppressing freedom of expression.

On the extreme end, accusations of being pro-North Korea have emerged, while the opposing side argues that it sanctifies past power.

After watching a single film, the audience transforms from moviegoers into modern history commentators.

The actual audience reactions are also interesting. Initially, the CGV Egg Index was 92%, but the Naver user rating plummeted to 2.4 out of 10.

This is amusing, right? ㅎㅎ.

The fact that the ratings diverged so drastically indicates that the film's quality is not the only factor being evaluated.

It even spilled outside the film. Actors and critics received malicious comments, and some events were canceled.

There were allegations that Chinese capital was involved in the production costs, but the production company refuted this, stating that it was entirely funded by domestic capital.

As a resident of Dallas, I can't help but think of JFK.

Oliver Stone's 1991 film 'JFK' also raised strong questions about the possibility of a conspiracy that contradicted the official explanation from the U.S. government, causing immense controversy.

Interestingly, that controversy led to issues regarding the release of government records. Subsequently, the U.S. Congress passed legislation for the release of records related to the JFK assassination.

Of course, we cannot equate 'JFK' with 'Assassins.'

However, the questions posed by both films are similar.

How far can we allow cinematic imagination based on historical facts?

I believe this is the essence of the current controversy.

Even if a historical film has a subtitle stating, "This is fictional," when actors wear the actual president's clothing and reenact real events, at some point, fact and film blend in our minds.

Thus, while creators need freedom, audiences also need the ability to distinguish "what is confirmed fact and what is cinematic hypothesis."

If we start labeling every interpretation we dislike as a leftist film, rightist film, or pro-North film, then, well, at least the marketing is successful.

Interestingly, while fighting over this, audiences continued to flock to the theaters. It surpassed 2 million viewers in just 11 days.

However, there is also an analysis suggesting that a significant number of those 2 million had already watched it before the political debate escalated, so it would be unreasonable to conclude that "the controversy led to 2 million."

Ultimately, this box office success seems to be a complex mix of the film's inherent strength, curiosity about the actual historical event, the presence of famous actors, the Chuseok holiday, and the belated political debate.

Every time I pass through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, I have one thought.

The assassination is not an event that ends when the gunfire stops.

Questions about who shot and why, whether they acted alone, and whether the government's announcement can be trusted linger for decades.

Just as the assassination of Kennedy has captivated the imagination of Americans for over 60 years, the incident involving Yuk Young-soo is also layered with political memories in Korea's modern history.

Therefore, the real battle surrounding 'Assassins' is likely not just a matter of star ratings for a film.

It has emerged as a reflection of how differently Koreans remember the same history, all bursting forth in a single screen.

Thus, I see this controversy as quite Korean.

The film lasts just over two hours, but it seems our modern history still has not rolled the ending credits.