영화 산업을 통해서 본한국의 문화국가원리와 표현의 자유 －광주민주화 운동을 소재로 한 영화 ‘26년’을 중심으로－

• 영문명: The principles of cultural state and the freedom of expressions in Korea through Film industry
• 발행기관: 전남대학교 공익인권법센터
• 저자명: 김민수(Kim, Minsoo) 심정화(Shim, Junghwa)
• 간행물 정보: 『인권법평론』제 10호, 67~99쪽, 전체 33쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2013.02.20

국문 초록

영화 ‘26년’은 광주민주화 운동의 유족들이 세월이 흐른 뒤 그 가해자인 대통 령에게 복수를 한다는 내용을 담은 픽션으로, 투자에 난항을 겪다가 4년 만에 극장에 걸리게 되었다. 그런데 투자가 갑자기 철회되거나 투자가 미비하여 영화가 답보상태에 빠졌던 이유로써, 정치권력집단의 외압에 대한 의문이 제기되었 다. 정치권력집단이 영화산업분야를 자신들의 성향에 맞도록 환경을 조성하는것 또한 기본권인 표현의 자유를 억압하는 것이기에, 이 영화의 제작이 중단되 었던 이유를 고찰함으로써 국가로 대변되는 정치권력의 영향력이 어떠한 방식 으로 적용될 수 있는지를 파악하고, 그 대응방안을 연구해 보도록 한다. 영화산업에 있어서 표현의 자유의 침해는 군사정권으로 대변되는 시절에는 사전검열 제도를 통해 이루어졌으며, 사전검열이 위헌판결을 받은 문민정부 시절 이후에는 그 영화에 대한 다른 생각을 가진 이익집단들이 소송권을 남용하는 방식으로 그 표현의 자유를 위축했다고 볼 수 있다. 대표적으로 영화 “그 때 그 사람들”과 영화 “화려한 휴가”의 사례를 살펴볼 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 침해 방식 역시도, 명예훼손보다는 예술로써의 표현의 자유와 그 공익성을 우위에 둔 판결이 주축을 이룸에 따라 감소하는 추세라고 볼 수 있다. 한편 한국영화산업은 그 상업적 성향이 두드러지게 발달함과 동시에, 그에 대한 수요와 공급이 이루어질 수 있는 멀티플렉스 영화관의 등장으로 제작－투자 －배급이 연결되는 데 있어서 거대자본의 투자가 핵심적인 역할을 하게 되었다.

영문 초록

<26 years> is a fiction film about bereaved family of Pro-democracy Movement in Gwangju trying to taking revenge against the assailant, that is the former president. This movie had great difficulty in getting invest, and it took four years that finally succeed in showing at the theater. And they raised a question for sudden withdrawal of investment, or fundraising problem that make filming standstill. They doubt if there are political coercion. It is also violation against freedom of expression, basic human rights, that political power group create an environment for their own benefit and tendency. So I am going to explore how political power, which is represented ‘Nation’, influences on the film industry and how to cope with this problems by considering the reason this film was discontinued. In the film industry, the violation against freedom of expression is shown as a pre-screening under military dictatorship. After the censorship is found unconstitutional under civilian government, it seemed lawsuits abuse that makes filmmakers cower. The lawsuits abuse is most often by interest group which has different view on the film. The representative example is film titled (2004), and (2007). But this invasion of free expression seemed also decreases, as the most of current decisions is more concerned with freedom of expression and public interest rather than defamation. Meanwhile, as growing commercialism in movie industry and emerging multiplex which could fulfill their needs and supply on the commercial film, it makes big capital play a key role in connecting filmmaking, investment, and distribution in Korea. But even <26 years> is highly acclaimed for both its cinematic quality and its popularity, this movie couldn’t get existing investment. One of the reason is self censorship so that spare themselves and try not to get on nerves of political power groups. So it seemed that shrink investment in the film which apparently has specific political tendency is the very evidence of invasion of free expression, and we could say, coercion. So I am considering how that has changed in cultural industry, and the what is main problems and question has raised in management over the 2008 ~ 2012 under Lee Myungback government. Especially, ‘The strategy for balance in culture power’ has included articles that make left turned film industry to be right turned, and to do so, it will help connecting major companies and the filmmakers. This policy has open to the public in interpolation session of congress on 23 July 2012. It does not support cultural industry but modify for their own interest and their political inclination. And it is found that this policy is unconstitutional, and it is against respect for autonomy, neutrality, and tolerance-these are main principles of Kulturstaat. I will discuss three solutions for preventing violations against freedom of speech and expression. First, it is required to arouse public awareness on freedom of speech. The importance of this right needs highly understanding-so that everyone can enjoy the fundamental human rights. Second, the protection by judicial evaluation could be considered. It is the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes, or appeal for the reason of alleged violation of the constitution. But this is the after-the-fact protection. Third, it is required that compensate the cultural policy making system of government institution so that it help securing autonomy and independence. To be more specific, the proposal is considered that reducing influence of presidential power to designate chiefs or executives of organizations so that policy evaluation committee can be organized with more equal and specialized members. This organization can help state organ keep balance by monitoring them.

목차

Ⅰ. 연구목적

Ⅱ. 한국 영화산업과 표현의 자유에 대한 현황

Ⅲ. 영화 26년을 통해 고찰해본 헌법적 문제

Ⅳ. 한국의 문화 산업의 표현의 자유 보호 방안

Ⅴ. 맺음말

키워드

영화 문화국가의 원리 표현의 자유 기본권의 침해