The People Power Party has decided to send a letter in the names of all its lawmakers asking the Singapore International Film Festival to withdraw the film ‘Assassin(s)’ as its opening film. Rep. Joo Jin-woo said on the 4th that he had already sent a document to the festival’s organizers and that a letter in the names of all lawmakers would be submitted, led by the party’s parliamentary leadership. That same day, Naver said it had detected abnormal traffic related to some films and had requested an investigation. It also temporarily changed the default sorting of audience reviews for ‘Assassin(s)’ to “Most Recent.”

Background and context

One part of the controversy is a political dispute over how the film treats history. Rep. Joo argued that showing a film that distorts history internationally, when most of the public finds it objectionable, is a disgrace to the country and an insult to its national standing. There have also been reports that conservative politicians and groups have criticized the film for distorting history.

By contrast, the filmmakers are reported to have explained that the work is fictional and does not seek to establish a new historical conclusion. Accordingly, “historical distortion” is an assessment being raised by politicians; it is not a settled conclusion based solely on the facts presented in this article. The significance of the effort to send the letter is that the controversy over the film is moving beyond domestic criticism to the question of its screening at an overseas film festival.

Online, allegations about the order in which audience reviews appear and the number of reactions they receive have become intertwined. Rep. Na Kyung-won raised suspicions of public-opinion manipulation, saying that critical ratings of ‘Assassin(s)’ were pushed down when reviews were sorted by likes. Naver said it had detected automated abuse involving this film during a period when an error allowed duplicate likes and dislikes to be registered, but it did not identify any particular group or political motive.

What this news means

The request to withdraw the film from the festival means that a political party’s criticism is extending beyond a domestic public-opinion battle into an effort to influence the programming decisions of overseas cultural institutions. Rep. Joo said he plans to ask other international film festivals, including those in Brazil and Toronto, to withdraw the film as well. However, sending a letter and a festival canceling a screening are separate matters, and the information currently available does not include a response or decision from the festival.

It is also important to distinguish what has been confirmed about online public opinion. Naver has reported abnormal traffic involving some films, automated abuse detected in the process of liking and disliking audience reviews of ‘Assassin(s),’ and a request for an investigation. This alone does not establish that a particular person engaged in the abuse or that the star ratings themselves were manipulated. Notably, the platform’s actions do not, in themselves, prove the allegations of manipulation raised by politicians.

For example, viewers considering whether to watch the film based on audience reviews could also look at the “Most Recent” sorting method temporarily applied by Naver, rather than treating the reviews appearing at the top under “Most Liked” or their high reaction counts as representing public opinion as a whole. This is not a way to determine who was responsible for the abuse or whether the ratings are genuine, but it may help viewers take into account that the display order has changed.

What reports covered differently

Reports covered Naver’s actions from different angles. Political coverage discussed Rep. Na Kyung-won’s allegations of public-opinion manipulation alongside Naver’s detection of abuse and change to the sorting method. Coverage of online ratings more clearly emphasized the limits of what Naver had established: automated abuse involving likes and dislikes on audience reviews. It did not identify those responsible, a political motive, or whether the star ratings themselves had been manipulated.

This means confirmed facts must be distinguished from allegations raised by politicians. Naver’s request for an investigation is a step asking authorities to examine the allegations; it does not mean that the people responsible for manipulation or their purpose have already been established.

What is confirmed and what remains unknown

Confirmed facts

  • The People Power Party decided to send a letter in the names of all its lawmakers asking the Singapore International Film Festival to withdraw the film.
  • Rep. Joo Jin-woo said he had already sent a document to the festival’s organizers and that a letter in the names of all lawmakers would be submitted.
  • Rep. Joo said he plans to ask other international film festivals, including those in Brazil and Toronto, to withdraw the film.
  • Naver said it had detected abnormal traffic involving some films, requested an investigation, and temporarily changed the default sorting of ‘Assassin(s)’ to “Most Recent.”

What remains unknown

  • It has not been confirmed whether the letter in the names of all People Power Party lawmakers was actually sent or what response the Singapore International Film Festival gave.
  • It is not known whether the Singapore International Film Festival will withdraw the film as its opening film.
  • The reports provided do not establish who engaged in the abuse, their purpose, or whether the star ratings themselves were manipulated.

What readers should check

  • Look for an official announcement from the film festival. What has been confirmed so far is a plan to request withdrawal, not a decision by the festival.
  • When reading Naver’s audience reviews, take into account that the sorting method was temporarily changed to “Most Recent,” and avoid drawing conclusions about public opinion based only on a particular ranking or the number of reactions.
  • Check for follow-up announcements establishing who was responsible or what was manipulated after the request for an investigation. Naver’s description of the abuse should be distinguished from the allegations of public-opinion manipulation raised by politicians.

References