MovieChat Forums > Crossing the Line (2007) Discussion > Incredibly Tragic and Touching

Incredibly Tragic and Touching


I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I expected to watch this documentary while cynically laughing at any North Korean propaganda any government minders or Dresnok felt they had to impose on the camera crew.

But after watching the whole thing, I actually feel sorry for James Dresnok - being abandoned by his father, being abandoned by his wife, and being an outcast both socially and in military life certainly took a heavy toll. It is ironic that he would find his life and happiness in arguably one of the unhappiest places on Earth.

reply

I felt sorry for Dresnok too, not just because of his misfortune, but also because he was such a likable character. After watching this film, I have so many more questions then when I started.

Why did the N. Koreans allow the film crew in repeatedly?
Why did all of Dresnok's social interactions in the film seem so fabricated?
Was Dresnok censored, or is he now so deeply routed in their ideology that he doesn't need to be?
Does he really agree with what he's saying?
Why were only the well developed parts of N. Korea shown?

At times it felt more like a N. Korean propaganda film then a documentary, but the viewer is pulled in so many different directions that it extremely difficult to find steady footing.

Either way, it was a very entertaining film.

reply

"Why did the N. Koreans allow the film crew in repeatedly? "

Why wouldn't they? Our western image of North Korea is full of propaganda.


"Why did all of Dresnok's social interactions in the film seem so fabricated?"

I think you mean all the odd sounding terms and words he used. If you've read Marx you can't avoid those words if you want to describe society in an understandable way.


"Why were only the well developed parts of N. Korea shown?"

Why not? Dresnok lives in Pyongyang, why go to the rural areas? That's no relevance. If I make a documentary of say Bill Gates. Would I show off some slums and abandoned rural areas in the US?



It seems like it's "propaganda", because it shows people who have a different opinion than ours. Our opinions aren't opinions anymore, we don't percieve them to be such. Most western movies and documentaries are propaganda in themselves. Even this documentary had a western point of view. You can't escape that.

In NK, NK bash US. In the US, US bash NK. Same propaganda, different sides. The difference is that Hollywood is in the US and that it's a superpower.

reply

"Why did all of Dresnok's social interactions in the film seem so fabricated?"

I look at it more like someone who isn't a native speaker of the language interacting with those who are. Just think of all the people who live in your neighborhood who may speak English well enough, but still have an accent and aren't complete "natives". This situation would probably be even more pronounced in a society like NK where most people are not used to interacting with those who aren't Korean. Even in more open (yet still fairly homogeneous) societies in East Asia like Japan, foreigners are treated as outsiders no matter how well they speak the language or try to blend in. They are still looked at as outsiders. I think Dresnok is probably treated nicely by the people he interacts with, but they don't quite identify with him, so the social interactions come across as more forced and unnatural.

reply

"Why did all of Dresnok's social interactions in the film seem so fabricated?"

They wasn't fabricated, it helps if you have an understanding of North Korean history and their society. Along with a few other countries, North Korea has taken the George Orwell "1984" Big Brother surveillance society to the ultimate level. The tour guides are strictly monitored and hotel rooms are bugged. It is forbidden for ordinary members of the North Korean public to even look foreigners in the eye, let alone talk with them unless they have authorization from the state. To do so (and impart an opinion unfavorable to the government) is an express ticket to a concentration camp or gulag.

All of the people you saw were to a greater or lesser degree somewhat nervous about saying or doing the wrong thing on camera and ending up serving a life sentence in some black hole. I think the most relaxed interactions outside of his family were with the fishing buddies who seemed fairly at ease in comparison to the others.

reply

Ridiculous, smoogy. I might agree with your assertions about perspective and its effect upon our viewing of the story. However, you are trying to equate North Korean propaganda with western documentaries, which is ludicrous. There is a distinct different in the social and government pressure, insistence really, on expressing a particular ideology in North Korea and the expression of the western point of view on the subject.

There have been innumerable documentaries and interviews by westerners criticizing and challenging their own actions, government and ways of life. Name one similar example from North Korea. So, no, it's not "same propaganda, different sides".

reply

"Why were only the well developed parts of N. Korea shown?"

It's because the government strictly controls what foreign cameras can and can't see. In the National Geographic documentary about North Korea, the journalist narrates about this, noting that Pyongyang is a city for the privileged and the government's strongest supporters. She talks about a Dutch documentary that was supposed to show the reality of life in the country but, under the government's guiding eye, turned into a propaganda film focusing on an embelished life of one of the wealthier families. Likewise, she and her camera crew were only able to interview an privileged Pyongyang family, though she did manage to get a better perspective of the government's harshness.

"Does he really agree with what he's saying?"

I often wondered this myself when watching the film. Near the end of the documentary, when he began defending his "willing" tattoo removal to counter the other guy's story, it was pretty obvious that he was lying his butt off. Still, I don't think the guy who went to Japan was telling the whole truth, either... The truth is probably somewhere in between.

reply

It's because the government strictly controls what foreign cameras can and can't see.
Why would the crew have even wanted to go outside Pyongyang for this film? Do you honestly think they even tried? The movie is about Dresnok. They'd have to change the whole subject of the movie. Unless Dresnok went on a trip to the countryside, I can't imagine why they would have shown the countryside of North Korea for this movie.

Sig under construction

reply

I felt zero sympathy for the traitor. There have been people in much worse circumstances than him who have dealt with it uncomplainingly and with more maturity and actually grew up to be HONORABLE people.

And why wouldn't they go outside Pyongyang? Because the government won't let them. Simple as that. The rest of the country is absolute crap compared to the city and they don't want you to see that.



All wish to possess knowledge, but few are willing to pay the price.

reply

The film is about the defector not about North Korea as a whole.

reply

it was pretty obvious that he was lying his butt off.


I strongly disagree with this. What the hell would North Korea care if he had a US tattoo? He was a giant white American man who became nationally famous portraying Americans in film.

He was given a cushy life of privilege. As described in the film, he eventually embraced it and at some point in your own existence the line blurs between "propaganda" and "reality". His reality was a gifted life in North Korea. He would be compelled to fit in, and as is normal and observable among all humans, he would himself feel obligated to remove his own tattoo.

The idea that he was forcibly put under surgery and is now lying about it suggests nothing he is saying is believable, which is suspect in itself considering how obviously privileged his life actually was. It would also lead one to suspect he endured more tortures and oppression. But do you really think so? It doesn't fit with reality.

The reality is by having him pampered his whole life, he presents an undeniable mark of North Korean success. His entire life becomes a valid testament to North Korean propaganda. For even himself cannot see the blurred lines as the propaganda became his life. 40 years down the road he is literally incapable of not praising North Korea, not because of brain washing or fear of retribution, but because he has actually lived the charmed life.

reply

Why were only the well developed parts of N. Korea shown?
Because that's where Dresnok lives. This documentary is about him, not about North Korean farmers.

Sig under construction

reply

Why did the N. Koreans allow the film crew in repeatedly?

North Korea allows tourists and film makers. This isn't the only documentary on North Korea.



Why did all of Dresnok's social interactions in the film seem so fabricated?

Everyone here has focused on Marxism, or that he's a foreigner. You're also not taking into account that Dresnok is a nationally famous film star and glorified American oddity since the days of The Great Leader. He is a national icon. Everyone he interacts with knows this, and so the interactions would be with that in mind. If you happened to find yourself fishing next to Tom Hanks (to toss out a name) you might act a little weird.


Was Dresnok censored, or is he now so deeply routed in their ideology that he doesn't need to be? Does he really agree with what he's saying?

I would imagine given the film's tone, if he had been censored, they would have mentioned it. I don't think he could be censored anyway. He is a poster child for their ideology. I'm sure there were handlers there for the crew, and had something been said they might have steered the conversation, but I think he fully believes everything he said. And I don't see why he would have much reason not to.


Why were only the well developed parts of N. Korea shown?

There are two answers to this, both are correct. 1. The documentary was about Dresnok, so there was no point in showing much else than his life and his locations. 2. North Korea steers visitors with press passes away from such places and from other docs I've seen they attempt to make sure no recordings are made.

reply

this is one of the best documentaries ive ever seen, very touching.

reply

I felt no sympathy for him at all. Do you have any idea what's happening over there? Concentration camps the size of cities. Whole families tortured and executed because a relative managed to escape. Little children quietly starving to death by the thousands. When that place opens up, the world will feel a shame and horror we have not known since 1945. And he's over there living in his giant apartment in Pyongyang, feasting and drinking and smoking, receiving extraordinary health care, completely instrumental in the regime. I'm sorry America failed him as a child, but even at its worst, his childhood would be the envy of most North Korean children.

reply

I agree, but do feel some measure of compassion for the man, even though I think he is a lying, lazy creep.

His defection makes sense--what did he have to return to in the USA? No family, a possible court martial, jail time, no wife, no job. With no education, he would doubtless have had to work very hard to support himself in the U.S.

His protestations at Jenkins's accusations are amusing. Dresnok is a tool who could easily have been manipulated to do anything the N. Korean state wanted. He even admitted to groping Jenkins's wife in front of him, and he was proud of it!

He is just another dumb, uneducated loser who found an easy way to live off the government without having to expend any effort. Now he is trying to justify it, knowingly or not.

reply

I think he knows he's privileged. It's shows at the end where he gets upset that he was fed when many people starved to death. He knows that the North Korean government couldn't risk anything happening to him.

reply

Having just watched this, i'm not that impressed with this man. He seemed to be a smug character who was rather chuffed with his own relative importance. Instead of being just another nobody in the US, he's definitely had a charmed life in the DPRK since his desertion, as he freely admits near the end of the film. Through mass starvation and famine, to this day, he's clearly one of the chosen ones who live off the backs of the rest of the people that continue to endure the living hell that day to day existence constitutes for so many unfortunates in the north.

For that very reason, he should be despised.

It makes me wonder how willing a participant he would have been in making anti-western propaganda and I have to conclude that they probably didn't have to twist his arm too hard. It's impossible to know for sure, as to the truth in Jenkins' allegations as he may well have his own angle that he's playing, perhaps to mitigate his own tratorous acts. But, i'm not willing to fully accept Dresnok's statements at face value either. He comes across as being fully indoctrinated with his numerous references to "The Great Leader" and every word that comes from his mouth should be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. So, I wouldn't trust this guy as far as I could through him.

If I was to use one word to describe this person it wouldn't be "tragic", or "touching". It would be the word: ugly.

reply

I think the only Tragic thing is that James Dresnok had a horrible mother and father. I understand why he defected. He had no family, his wife left him and he would probably wind up in prison. He really had nothing to lose. But i get the feeling that during the interviews he wasn't telling the whole truth.

reply