Soojeong Ahnhave been selected for the prime “Opening” and “Closing” sections of the festival (Ahn 2012).^17
The opening section is often the most prominent slot at non-competitive film festivals, as it
attracts the most attention from the media, including from foreign critics and the public at
large. Peppermint Candy (2000), the first Korean film to open the BIFF, at the fourth edition, is
a particularly interesting example as the film offers a discursive site to demonstrate the substan-
tial transformation of the Korean film industry. Director Lee Chang-dong’s film garnered such
plaudits from both local audiences and foreign critics and guests, that the festival and the wider
Korean film industry were confident that Korean films could have global appeal. It was a turning
point for the BIFF’s programming and subsequent direction.
The years leading up to Peppermint Candy’s opening were crucial to the development of the
Korean film industry. When the first Korean blockbuster, Shiri, was released in 1999, its com-
mercial success and the ensuing large amounts of capital available for filmmaking quickly trans-
formed the structure of the national film market. The emergence of the BIFF thus became
an important part of a local film industry looking for a route into global markets. Peppermint
Candy was, significantly, the first coproduced film between Japan and Korea to be followed by
a theatrical release in both countries. Notwithstanding the restrictions in cultural exchange and
collaboration that remained at that time, a new finance initiative from NHK, Japan’s public
television station, determined the film’s distinctive position in the local industry. Despite geo-
graphical contiguity, there was little cultural exchange among East Asian countries, especially
with Japan, before the 1990s due to the colonial history. The position and success of Peppermint
Candy should be considered within this political and historical context as there was growing
attention from the public on this sensitive issue.
Lee’s film was also closely associated with the Screen Quota movement. When the United
States demanded the removal of this system, it provoked outrage from Korean filmmakers.
Following a dramatic demonstration in Seoul, the fourth BIFF in 1999, provided a climac-
tic moment for this nationalistic campaign; Shoot the Sun by Lyric (1999), a documentary film
dealing with this very issue, was also spotlighted at the festival. BIFF Square on Nampo-dong
Street, was even occupied during the festival, and local filmmakers fervently supported the quota
system. Newly emerging members of the local film industry, including Lee Chang-dong and the
film’s producers, Myung Kae-nam and Moon Sung-keun, were always at the head of the protest
march. As the nature of a Screen Quota arguably indicates a strong nationalistic agenda, this was,
ironically, the same place where Japanese films—now able to be shown—were enthusiastically
received by the young audience. Consequently, the BIFF is located within a complex space
inhabiting contradictory interplay between the local and the global.
Despite its global prominence and remarkable expansion, the BIFF struggles to construct a
cohesive festival identity. In a recent interview with a global trade magazine, Lee Yong-kwan,
the festival director, said “the issue of identity is something that BIFF has thought long and
hard about” (Kim 2013). An example for this continued struggle for identity is evident in the
opening and closing films of the eighteenth BIFF in 2013. Vara: A Blessing by Bhutanese direc-
tor Khyentse Norbu opened the festival and the closing film was The Dinner, an independent
feature by Kim Dong-hyun. While the choice of Va r a demonstrates the BIFF’s commitment to a
broader Asian cinema, the festival announced that this low-budget independent film was chosen
in efforts to help it gain distribution in the global market. No Korean independent film has ever
opened or closed the BIFF, and the choice reflects the festival’s determination to support its own
growing local indie film sector (Lee 2013). However, the confusion and lack of consensus in
selecting these films illustrate that the BIFF still has difficulties in establishing its own aesthetic
norm (Bechervaise 2013).