[Review] 1987: When the Day Comes: All Coincidence, You Know It

1987: When the Day Comes has finally opened in Hong Kong, boldly presented as the finale of the "The Attorney" trilogy. In contrast to its predecessors, 1987: When the Day Comes is almost entirely serious, and its ending will undoubtedly resonate deeply with many Hong Kong audiences.

First, thanks to Golden Scene for inviting me to a preview screening a few weeks ago. I haven't watched many Korean films in the past, but fortunately, in recent months, due to work, I've gotten to know a Korean friend. Before watching the film, I briefly learned about Korea's democratic movement history, and the June Democratic Uprising depicted in 1987: When the Day Comes was an event he specifically highlighted, showing its importance and impact. I believe one of this film's strengths lies in its multitude of characters and their vivid portrayals. Even though the two-hour film involves characters from various social strata and professions, each one still manages to draw the audience in, clearly conveying their values and the contradictions and conflicts between them.

Audiences familiar with Korean history know that their democratic development has faced many setbacks, and the process has been very dark. 1987: When the Day Comes tells the story of a university student who was tortured to death by police during an interrogation in 1987. The film narrates the events from the perspectives of several characters, including a reporter, a prosecutor, a university student, and a prison guard, recounting their pursuit of truth, justice, freedom, and democracy. In the 1980s, South Korea was under military dictatorship, and the military and police justified their oppression of dissidents by claiming to be combating espionage and North Korean communist forces. In that era, the public was both terrified of the military government and reluctant to resist too much. They were also influenced by the prevailing ideology, hoping to eradicate communist forces, and thus generally did not raise many objections to the military government's actions. However, when the government's actions became excessive, attempting to bury the truth, violate justice, and suppress all dissenting voices, the public finally could no longer endure in silence and decided to unite against authoritarianism.

In the film, reporters were constantly suppressed, forced to follow government directives and unwritten rules, unable to report overly sensitive news. Prosecutors and prison guards, though familiar with laws and regulations, were still part of the government, enduring immense pressure from other departments and those in power. Students, while passionate about their country, freedom, and democracy, found their demonstrations repeatedly met with violent suppression by the police and military, powerless to change the status quo. As for anti-government and democracy leaders, they were even wanted by the police and government as communist spies, forced to organize movements in secret. Basically, the military government and police had complete control of the situation, and all resistance seemed impossible. But after enduring the government's and police's atrocities and injustices, seeing innocent students lose their lives as the government attempted to cover up the incident, citizens finally decided to stand up. They resisted not because they were communist spies; not because they received benefits from foreign powers to cause disruption; not because they were brainwashed; but out of compassion; out of a pursuit of freedom and democracy; out of love for their country and nation.

I'm generally not too keen on Korean films because I don't particularly like their tendency towards over-sentimentality. Compared to other Korean films, I found 1987: When the Day Comes to be very restrained, with not many overtly emotional scenes, and a subject matter that I believe would naturally resonate with audiences without needing excessive artifice. Before watching this film, I had just finished The Post, which deals with the Pentagon Papers in the US, and I felt there were many similarities between the two films regarding themes of press freedom and judicial independence. However, I found 1987: When the Day Comes' most unique and interesting storyline to be that of Yeon-hee (Kim Tae-ri), a Yonsei University freshman and the prison guard's niece, and Lee Han-yeol (Gang Dong-won), the victim who died from a tear gas canister during a protest. The film begins with the torture death and gradually shifts to the storylines of the reporter, prosecutor, etc., maintaining a relatively serious tone and a quick, tight pace. However, when it comes to Yeon-hee and Lee Han-yeol's storyline, the film takes on a slightly romantic comedy feel, and the pace begins to slow, making me worry that their love story would ultimately just be for sentimentality. Later, after watching the entire film, I learned that Lee Han-yeol was a significant real-life figure in the events, and his death was a turning point in the June Democratic Uprising. I'm not sure if Yeon-hee is a real character, or if her uncle truly played such an important role in the events. If these two are fictional characters, I truly admire the production team's creativity in adding a touch of fictional plot to reality, which both tightly links the film's characters and deepens the film's theme of mass awakening and resistance.

I believe audiences watching this film will also think of the current situation in Hong Kong. Although the situation in Korea back then was far more severe and dark than Hong Kong's current situation, the control the Korean government had over the media, public opinion, and the government system still bears many similarities to Hong Kong's current situation. I even feel that some lines of dialogue in the film perfectly align with Hong Kong's present circumstances. I wonder if the lines themselves were intended this way, or if it's the art of translation? "The government and police arresting and oppressing dissidents on the grounds of endangering national security, treason, secession, and incitement to subvert the state?" Isn't this precisely the fear many Hong Kongers have about Article 23? "The Western model of democracy is not suitable for implementation here? The quality of the people and culture are insufficient to adapt to these democratic systems?" Aren't these the arguments often spouted by some pro-establishment figures? After watching this film, I truly feel that its message is not at all obscure. There's no need for "all coincidence" or "you know it"; all audiences can easily understand its intent.

The film's title is "When the Day Comes," and its Taiwanese translation is "The Day the Dawn Arrives." In Korea, after a series of resistance and sacrifices, that day finally came in 1987. The film's ending offers hope to the audience. The protagonist walks on the street, hearing the crowd's singing and shouting, experiencing that passion. Then, the camera follows her climbing onto a bus, slowly capturing the rising sun and the tens of thousands of people in the square. This shot will undoubtedly remind many audiences of the scene at Admiralty three and a half years ago, recalling the passion of that time, enough to bring tears to their eyes. However, while watching the film, I felt that in addition to those who participated in that movement, the silent group and those who held opposing views should also watch this film. As I watched the film's plot, I kept thinking: When will that day come to Hong Kong? Does it really have to wait until students or citizens lose their lives? Or will everyone continue to believe in the logic of "such and such a year, four years ago, when the first film of the Unbowed trilogy, The Attorney, was released in Hong Kong, all coincidence, you know it"?