9
37
15
unterwegsimkoreanischenD
unterwegs-im-koreanischen.de
This review may contain spoilers
A disaster movie, yet using emotional + vivid suggestive power in the tradition of anti-war-movies
"Pandora" is a disaster movie.
I don't really consider myself a fan of this genre, which focuses on mass panic and adrenaline.
However, I consider this KMovie particularly valuable.
In this case I think the makers have succeeded in doing something similar to what anti-war movies try to achieve: deterrence by vividly conveying the threatening horror. In respect to the scenario of a nuclear catastrophe the movie applies emotional and vivid suggestive power, at the same time making people think and possibly question the sense and usefulness of highly dangerous nuclear power plants.
In view of the consecutive radical change of South Korea's nuclear policy six months after "Pandora" was released, one could say: the project was worth it. (It would probably be too daring to talk about causality, but it could be considered a noticeable correlation...)
The 2016 KMovie picks up on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and, against this background, develops a story that is comparable by South Korean standards. South Korea is the country with the highest population density in the immediate vicinity of its nuclear power plants. However, due to its insular position, a realistic evacuation plan in the event of a disaster is a major problem. With the movie "Pandora" the lid of the legendary box is shaken. In this case, a nuclear power plant on the East Coast suffers earthquake damage and radiation leaks, similar to Fukushima 5 years earlier. The film fictionally exercises the processes in the event of such a catastrophe (or a comparable one) and comes full circle with a deliberately touching scene in which Kim Nam-gil makes an emphatic plea against nuclear power in his usual impressively passionate way.
Regarding such critically oriented material, the production obviously had difficulties with its financing - in South Korea the lobby of the nuclear industry is as powerful as anywhere else. Nevertheless, the ambitious project could be realized through crowdfunding.
------------------------ SIDE NOTE: --- Sobering facts/outlook on nuclear power plants in South Korea ---
"Pandora" was released in December 2016.
In early summer 2017, as one of the existing South Korean nuclear reactors was actually scheduled to be shut down, President Moon Jae-in announced that the country's nuclear-focused energy policy would be stopped and that the country would instead steer towards a nuclear-free era. Accordingly, plans to build new reactors or extend the life of existing ones have been abandoned. A sign of hope?
However, by the autumn of the same year already, the government's political commitment was no longer valid. The nuclear lobby has actually been able to exert such pressure (the President's faction not having a majority in Parliament....) and prevail that new power plants were going to be built again.
South Korea's nuclear companies make a lot of money by exporting their self-developed reactors. The companies want reference projects in their own country... it is as simple as that...
As far as the people are concerned: According to a survey by the polling institute Realmeter in 2018, 61 percent of adult South Koreans still firmly support their president’s original nuclear phase-out course. Another 10 percent tend to do so. Yet, the lobby as so often has more to say...
... To date, South Korea covers a third of its electricity needs with 24 nuclear reactors.
... There are always earthquakes on the peninsula...
------------------------
I don't really consider myself a fan of this genre, which focuses on mass panic and adrenaline.
However, I consider this KMovie particularly valuable.
In this case I think the makers have succeeded in doing something similar to what anti-war movies try to achieve: deterrence by vividly conveying the threatening horror. In respect to the scenario of a nuclear catastrophe the movie applies emotional and vivid suggestive power, at the same time making people think and possibly question the sense and usefulness of highly dangerous nuclear power plants.
In view of the consecutive radical change of South Korea's nuclear policy six months after "Pandora" was released, one could say: the project was worth it. (It would probably be too daring to talk about causality, but it could be considered a noticeable correlation...)
The 2016 KMovie picks up on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and, against this background, develops a story that is comparable by South Korean standards. South Korea is the country with the highest population density in the immediate vicinity of its nuclear power plants. However, due to its insular position, a realistic evacuation plan in the event of a disaster is a major problem. With the movie "Pandora" the lid of the legendary box is shaken. In this case, a nuclear power plant on the East Coast suffers earthquake damage and radiation leaks, similar to Fukushima 5 years earlier. The film fictionally exercises the processes in the event of such a catastrophe (or a comparable one) and comes full circle with a deliberately touching scene in which Kim Nam-gil makes an emphatic plea against nuclear power in his usual impressively passionate way.
Regarding such critically oriented material, the production obviously had difficulties with its financing - in South Korea the lobby of the nuclear industry is as powerful as anywhere else. Nevertheless, the ambitious project could be realized through crowdfunding.
------------------------ SIDE NOTE: --- Sobering facts/outlook on nuclear power plants in South Korea ---
"Pandora" was released in December 2016.
In early summer 2017, as one of the existing South Korean nuclear reactors was actually scheduled to be shut down, President Moon Jae-in announced that the country's nuclear-focused energy policy would be stopped and that the country would instead steer towards a nuclear-free era. Accordingly, plans to build new reactors or extend the life of existing ones have been abandoned. A sign of hope?
However, by the autumn of the same year already, the government's political commitment was no longer valid. The nuclear lobby has actually been able to exert such pressure (the President's faction not having a majority in Parliament....) and prevail that new power plants were going to be built again.
South Korea's nuclear companies make a lot of money by exporting their self-developed reactors. The companies want reference projects in their own country... it is as simple as that...
As far as the people are concerned: According to a survey by the polling institute Realmeter in 2018, 61 percent of adult South Koreans still firmly support their president’s original nuclear phase-out course. Another 10 percent tend to do so. Yet, the lobby as so often has more to say...
... To date, South Korea covers a third of its electricity needs with 24 nuclear reactors.
... There are always earthquakes on the peninsula...
------------------------
Was this review helpful to you?
