In this blog post, I’ll summarize my reasons for choosing the documentary ‘Non-Fiction Diary’, analyze its sequences, and share my thoughts on it.
Reasons for Choosing the Film
I particularly enjoy crime films. I have a strong interest in works based on real events—such as ‘Memories of Murder’, ‘Children’, ‘The Voice’, and international films like ‘Zodiac’. From that perspective, the Jijonpa incident—which left a profound impact on modern Korean history—was an intriguing subject even before I watched the documentary. When I learned that this documentary also covered other tragedies that must never happen again, such as the Sampoong Department Store collapse and the Seongsu Bridge collapse, I naturally felt a strong desire to watch it.
Sequence Analysis
Sequence (1). The documentary explains the historical context of the 1990s and the overview of the Jijonpa incident using news footage and subtitles. Through an interview with Detective Ko Byeong-cheon, who was in charge of the Jijonpa case at the time, the director reveals the group’s objectives and ideology. Additionally, through the testimony of another detective, Oh Hu-geun, the documentary explains the informant, Mr. Lee, and recounts how the detectives initially did not believe the tip. It then details how the detectives showed enthusiasm upon discovering the tip was true, believing they had landed a scoop, and provides a detailed account of the process by which the two detectives apprehended the Jijonpa.
Sequence (2). The arrested Jijonpa members are presented to the press, and news of their activities spreads rapidly through the media. The detectives describe the poor investigative conditions at the time and say that, through contact with the detained Jijonpa members, they came to see their human side. Meanwhile, experts appearing on a late-night talk show analyze the social reaction sparked by the Jijonpa case, raising seemingly off-the-wall points such as the need to reestablish the principles of humanity, righteousness, etiquette, and wisdom, or issues regarding the formality of police uniforms.
Sequence (3). Through news reports and expert commentary, the assessment that the 1990s were a period of turmoil is repeatedly emphasized. While explaining the migration of people from rural areas to cities, the Jijonpa case and the Sampoong Department Store collapse are interpreted as products of the social changes of the time. This period is also viewed as a time when youth culture was maturing.
Sequence (4). Detective Ko Byeong-cheon’s testimony appears alongside footage of the Sampoong Department Store collapse. Recalling the scene, he says, “Before I felt fear, I felt bewilderment.” Experts analyze the cause of the collapse and point to the negligence of the store’s operators and managers in their management and operations. Detective Ko Byeong-cheon compares the responsibility of the Sampoong managers to the Jijonpa’s murderous acts, making a strong argument that indirect murder and direct murder are essentially no different.
Sequence (5). The death sentences handed down to the Jijonpa and the chaotic social atmosphere of the time are explained. A nun and a pastor who lived with the Jijonpa testify that they were “innocent and receptive,” noting that some religious groups even formed “Jijonpa evangelism task forces.” The Jijonpa members’ pasts, in which they were loved by prison guards, reveal their family histories and unstable backgrounds.
Sequence (6). The fact that the execution took place just one year later is presented, along with an insider’s recollection of the event. The executioner at the time expressed regret that the execution had been carried out so quickly, and it is suggested that former President Kim Young-sam was highly sensitive to media scrutiny, which may have contributed to the rush to carry out the execution.
In the debate surrounding the death penalty, the executioner confesses the emotions he felt while in the position of having to carry out the execution, and Detective Go Byeong-cheon points out that the Jijonpa murders are linked to their social context, sharing his conclusion regarding the retention of the death penalty after much deliberation.
Sequence (7). The documentary introduces the cases of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, who received special pardons, and contrasts them with the 23 criminals who were executed, revealing the social imbalance. The documentary concludes with an interview stating, “We must not hate human beings. However, strict measures are necessary to ensure that such crimes do not happen again.”
Analysis and Reflections
The documentary style of this work transports the audience directly back to the 1990s. The director himself stated in an interview that while the film might appear to be a social critique, he actually hoped to create a “mirror effect,” encouraging viewers to confront the 1990s and the present. Indeed, roughly half of the film consists of archival footage from that era, while the other half is composed of interviews with people who were present at the time.
The director’s voice is barely heard, and the way the interviews and archival footage present the facts actually instills a sense of trust. Rather than offering active interpretations, the director guides the audience to form their own judgments through testimonies and evidence. This approach appears to be a deliberate directorial choice to prioritize concrete evidence and testimonies.
The greatest strength of this documentary is that it does not merely look at the “surface” of the events but reveals what lies beneath. While the director stated that he intended to prompt us to reflect on our present situation through the events of the 1990s, I found it even more compelling that he sought to capture and expose the deep-seated problems within society. Although condemnation is clearly directed at the criminals on the surface, the film also exposes the underlying social structures, institutions, corruption, and indifference.
The Jijonpa case is one where anyone would point fingers at the suspects. However, the underlying historical context, the death penalty system, and the relationship between the media and politics—issues hidden beneath the surface—are not easily visible and thus struggle to attract attention. The documentary brings these elements together, raising questions about the responsibility of the social system.
Regarding the Sampoong Department Store collapse, while the documentary highlights how the management and operators’ negligence claimed 502 lives, it also exposes the social irony and corruption evident in the fact that legal punishment was limited to charges of negligent homicide, and some of those managers went on to continue their careers abroad. The documentary presents these structural issues in a calm yet incisive manner.
The reason this work feels particularly harrowing is that the problems already evident in the 1990s continue to recur or remain unresolved to this day. The message in the final interview—“We must not hate people. Strict measures are necessary against their sins. so that it never happens again,” resonates deeply with our current reality. Yet in reality, neither the hatred toward people nor the concrete measures taken seem sufficient. In that sense, this film offers an uncomfortable yet crucial reflection.
