# data[].attributes.body
1. What does JSA suggest about the human costs of ideological division through the binary between NK and SK?

2. How might the film speak to global audiences versus Korean audiences?

3. In your opinion, does JSA offer hope for reunification, or does it reveal the impossibility of it? OR ALTERNATIVELY, After watching the film, what are your thoughts on the possibility of reunification as per NK/SK current political standing.

# data[].attributes.body
Lauren: Sophie-Jean is the embodiment of the transnational figure in the film. Representing Switzerland, Sophie’s character speaks English and Korean, a dual identity that also embodies displacement and the cultural dislocation between East and West. Her proximity to the white Swiss soldiers grants her a certain legitimacy, but from her perspective, we as audiences have a purview of how the Western world sees both Koreas only through the lens of conflict, not seeking to understand the humanity on both sides.Her initial failure to get the soldiers to talk in Korean also shows how she is an outsider to the motherland. Ultimately, Sophie’s identity and political affiliation is fragmented, one that ultimately tests her loyalty to both Koreas and leads to her expulsion from the investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hui En: The central figure in the movie, Sergeant Lee Soo-hyuk embodies a complex duality as both a skilled, tough soldier and a deeply emotional figure caught in a tragic dilemma. He is portrayed to be a legendary marksman who wiped out and escaped “aggressive” North Korean commies, yet beneath this strong exterior, Lee reveals intense emotional vulnerability shaped by the illicit friendships he forms with North Korean soldiers—such as when he quotes Sergeant Oh “what matters is not speed...It's carrying yourself with composure and strength.”

Symbolically, Lee represents the human cost of political division—a figure caught between loyalty to his country and personal bonds that defy nationalism. This duality is powerfully dramatised through key visual motifs in the film, especially how Lee is frequently shown lying on the ground in critical moments between the North and South: when soldiers rescue him during theshootout at the border, when Sergeant Oh forcefully pushes him down during the interrogation conference, and most tragically, when he takes his own life. These moments of physical grounding visually manifest Lee's internal conflict where he is literally stuck at the crossroads— a moment that encapsulates the weight of his predicament between the opposing states' politics and the friendships he cherishes. The repeated image of Lee on the ground reinforces his vulnerability and entrapment, underscoring the moral paralysis caused by the political realities he faces.

# data[].attributes.body
Weizi: In the contemporary context of polarisation, the film undermines "enemy" narratives by portraying a sense of commonality that North Korean soldiers possess by humanising them. Pushing back on the idea that "enemy" is natural or given; instead, it is trained, imposed and maintained by political parties to create tension.

# data[].attributes.body
LY: for me, another theme that I identified was the idea of neutrality. The investigative organ tries to stay neutral, but in finding out the truth it prompts more violence. I find it interesting how staying neutral in this film is by lying and 'telling what people want to hear'. To tell the truth is to take a side, which can lead to war.

# data[].attributes.body
They represent the innocent generation trapped by inherited hostility between the two sides. As young and naive characters, they embody untainted humanity before political ideology takes hold.

They are a symbol of purity in the film, exemplified by their friendship despite being on opposite sides. However, Jeong Woo-jin's senseless death showcases the consequences of systemic failure. Symbolising that the youth on both sides who never chose this division but still live with its consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the film, each soldier embodies the cost of serving an idea that negates empathy as their uniform strips away their individuality and reduces them to cogs in their respective systems, bound by their political ideologies.

2. For a global audience, it carries themes of empathy and recognition of a shared humanity whereas for korean audiences, the message hits closer to home as it carries themes of grief mixed with nostalgia and the recognition of a shared wound and longing for reunification.

3. In my opinion, it is unlikely that the North and South will reunite due to the differences in political ideology, and the constant reinforcement of this ideology on its citizens propagates a decades-long divide that has no end in sight.

# data[].attributes.headline
Difficulty and fragility of reconciliation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Difficulty and fragility of reconciliation 

# data[].attributes.body
Teryl: The difficulty and fragility of reconciliation and understanding between divided communities was prominent for me. The film did not oversimplify the complexity surrounding the divide between the two Koreas. Although it does present human connection and empathy to expose the absurdity of war, the characters do collide when politics is brought into conversations. They kind of tiptoe past and around such topics to protect their friendship because human connection is not enough to forgo differences (which also contributes to the shooting at the end). To me the film has a sense of hopelessness for Korean viewers as it shows two sides that perhaps want to put aside their differences but ultimately cannot, which makes their fate tragic

# data[].attributes.body
1. The film illustrates how the rigid political and military separation destroys natural human bonds. The film reveals that though human relationships can still be formed despite ideological training, they are fragile and tragic. The soldiers have to hide their friendships, causing guilt, fear, and ultimately fatal consequences such as violent confrontations and suicides. This suggests that the division inflicts deep emotional wounds on ordinary people by forcing them to betray their personal ties to uphold political loyalty, symbolising the broader societal trauma caused by the nation’s split. Ideological division enforces an artificial barrier that disrupts trust and companionship and leads to suffering and loss among those caught between opposing sides.

2. For a Korean audience, the film engages with Korean viewers' lived experience of the division's emotional and social consequences and their hopes and frustrations regarding reunification. However, some Koreans might feel that the portrayal of the North is too sympathetic. For global audiences, the film offers a universal message about the costs of ideological division and the shared humanity that can exist between enemies. It presents a rare sympathetic portrayal of North Koreans, humanizing a population often stereotyped or demonized outside Korea, especially in Western media.

3. I personally think that the possibility of reunification is very low, especially as the years drag on because those who have actually experienced a time when both Koreas were one become less and less common/active.

# data[].attributes.body
Although JSA isn't technically a piece of accented cinema, I think we can consider the characters through the lens of home-seeking. For Lee Soo Hyuk, he seeks a 'home' where the two sides can live peacefully together. As the person who reached out to the North side and established a friendship (even calling them 'brother'), he represents a desire for peaceful reunification, for a united Korea. In the bunker of the NK lookout station, he has sought a small home in which he can reconnect with the part of Korea he grew up separated from and learnt to be wary of. He (and Sung-shik) take the risk of crossing the border every night, a strong indication of their desire to connect with a past they grew up antagonising. There is a naivety in him that believes the two sides can live peacefully.

# data[].attributes.body
1. JSA suggests that ideological division ultimately ends up in bloodshed. While the film does beautifully portray a 'forbidden' NK-SK friendship, the differences causes betrayals and fatalities. The ideological division is so entrenced that brotherhood cannot transcend it.

2. For a domestic audience I think it hits close to home as it portrays how North and South Korea they are technically one people, but living in two very different nations. Meanwhile for a global audience it shows the struggles of reunification, and as an outsider myself, I realised how difficult and tough it is to be 'neutral'. I feel like my neutrality is what's keeping both nations alive (so they don't tear each other apart), but also keeping them separated. I am simultaneously an enabler of peace, but not enabling reunification in any way. It's quite a tough spot to be in.

3. I honestly think the possibility of reunification is nearly impossible given how extreme both ends are. The political and ideological differences are stark and to merge asks the messy question of how they can navigate such conflicting ideologies, or worse - which one they should give up for a united Korea (which nobody would) It's quite tragic because in a sense, both Koreas are displaced from each other, but neither seems to be willing to adapt and take on the other's cultural (and political) identity at the risk of losing their own.

# data[].attributes.body
bernice: When we think of neutrality, we think about the bridge between SK and NK bc it's a no-man zone, a neutral territory, and the DMZ bc of the presence of clear lines and boundaries, as well as neutral peace commissions. However, the Swiss neutral party commission, the very peace organisation that symolises neutrality, failed their mission - I think the failure to resolve the murder issue represents how there's no such thing as neutrality between SK and NK. This echoes what one of the SK generals said at the start of the film when he first meets Major Sophie, foreshadowing the tense fun scene. What also foreshadowed this was the scene where Soohyuk and Sgt Oh played a chicken fight game but it transitioned to a standing arm wrestle - this arm wrestling symbolised and foreshadowed both sides pushing back and forth to maintain their political boundaries later on during the gun scene. This never ending tension symolises how there really is no such thing as neutrality between both sides.

# data[].attributes.body
1. JSA suggests that the ideological division led to the impossibility of genuine human connections between people from both sides. The friends hung out and even celebrated birthdays together, but the military system and national ideology tore them apart. Both sides were emotionally shattered by the death of Private Jung and felt guilty and torn over their loyalty to their countries but also affection for their friends, and yet they couldn’t reconcile. The ideological division thus forces ordinary people into impossible moral conflicts that remained unresolved till the end (when Soohyuk shot himself).

2. To the global audience and SK viewers, they might think the film is being a bit too sympathetic to the North especially from how portrayed Sgt Oh differently from the usual stern, antagonistic, brainwashed NK soldier portrayed in global media; instead, he’s quite goofy, light-hearted and also easygoing. The typical NK soldier would’ve abandoned Soohyuk at the minefield or even shot him at the get go but he saved him while holding true to his beliefs about his nation. This new portrayal of NK soldiers could be met by skepticism esp by SK viewers.

3. I think JSA showed us how the possibility of reunification is pretty low. It did give us some hope as we witnessed the brotherhood between both sides, but at the same time, the soldiers from both sides still held on to their political beliefs while hanging out together (Sgt Oh refusing to go to the South bc he remains ideologically tied to the North), dashing whatever little hope we had left…

# data[].attributes.body
1. the film uses the binary not to contrast political systems, but to show us how identical the people on both sides are. the human cost of ideological division is the brutal severing of innate human connection.

2. the film seems to function as a universal tragedy and an anti-war statement. while international audiences may not know the intricate history of the Korean war, but they understand the themes of:

brothers forced to be enemies, a common trope we see in media

the absurdity of borders and how an arbitrary line can turn identical people into mortal foes

the story of individuals crushed by impersonal, rigid political systems

as for a Korean audience:

the trauma of division is a national wound that separates families and defines their national identity

the humanisation of North Korean individuals and their portrayal as humorous, sentimental, and compassionate humans instead of fanatical robots was a radical and emotional act

the concept of minjok (a shared ethnic nation) is the idea that all Koreans are one people, and the film simultaneously affirms this kinship and laments the political forces that rend it apart; the emotional impact of this is something that can only be fully understood by a Korean

3. i think the film does both, but also lands on the note of tragic impossibility. (if i'm not wrong) the older South Koreans, reunification is a cherished, emotional goal. but for many younger South Koreans, it's seen as an enormous economic burden that could lower their standard of living and bring social instability. the question for them is no longer "when will we be one family again?" but "what would a merger with a bankrupt, malnourished, nuclear-armed state of 25 million people mean for my future?". the current reality makes the film's premise almost fantastical. with extreme border security, propaganda blaring from the North, and no people-to-people contact, the chance for the kind of fraternisation shown in the film is virtually zero. the border is no longer just a line on a map but rather a hardened reality in the minds of the people. as the years go by, the two Koreas are no longer siblings separated by a war, but two distinct nations shaped by 70+ years of radically different evolution.