DRAMA REVIEW | One Dollar Lawyer (2022)
One Dollar Lawyer wastes no time: we jump right into the tale of our low-fee lawyer, and see his eccentric ways play out first-hand. The drama excels at random offhanded moments of comedy, and that’s totally what I’m here for.
Namgoong Min, of course, is just having a grand old time and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by Kim Ji-eun, and their interactions when they start working together is superb. On the other hand, Park Jin woo is mostly known for his more serious roles but here you get to see him in full comedy, delivering some a very funny performance. Choi Dae Hoon plays the prosecutor dork trying really hard to be cool without realizing his honesty and hard work are exactly what make him one of the best characters in this show. Finally, Gong Min Jung shines as the smart and cool as a cucumber prosecutor, the perfect fold to her colleague and our lead's eccentric ways.
All in all, this was a drama full of nuance comedy, that really excelled when it decided to get more into the drama or thriller genre. Far from boring, dragged out, or overly violent, the cases were more about helping people in need (mostly people who society discriminates against), but we also have a bigger plot related to our hero's tragic origin story.
The standout guest roles go to Lee Chung ah and Nam Myung Ryul is what's probably the most heartbreaking performances of the entire drama.
I recommend it !
3 notes
·
View notes
When My Love Blooms
I must admit this story is one of those where I don't connect fully with the characters.
Yoon Ji Soo is a divorced woman with a son in a boarding school (sponsored through scholarship). Her ex-husband is vigilant, looking for a moment she falls and he can fight for full custody of their son. She lost her job and keeps taking odd jobs to make ends meet. And her son hides how he is bullied at school to protect his mother.
Han Jae Hyun just stepped out of prison after 4 years paying for his father-in-law's white collar crimes. He returns to a loveless marriage where his wife has taken a lover in a desperate move to feel human connection. His son is at a boarding school, bullying his way through middle school.
What do Yoon Ji Soo and Han Jae Hyun have in common? Their past. And we learn about their story through flashbacks that take us back to the early 90s when college students protested and fought for justice. But Han Jae Hyun has changed and their current situations are not ideal.
I feel for the young Yoon Ji Soo and Han Jae Hyun. Their innocent love, their beliefs and fights for justice. . . That future that crumbled to pieces when her father imposed his ambition over the happiness of his child. . . Their youthful story was beautiful, but the people they became were so full of grayish spots, their decisions, their relationships with their children. . . It's hard for me to fully sympathize with them whole heartedly. They are realistic characters, imperfect, people that make decisions based on their selfish desires, sometimes forgetting their children and how their actions affect them.
It was a good series, it wrapped things nicely at the end, but even then, I wasn't completely happy for them. I always felt bad for Lee Young Min because he loved his mother and even when she said she loved him, he always got the short end of the stick. Even at the end, we don't know what happened to him, and I think that this is the main reason why I can't be completely happy for this couple as grownups.
Anyway, is not a bad story. I think it is good because it made me question things. It made those characters feel real, 3-dimentional.
Poster from AsianWiki - https://asianwiki.com/When_My_Love_Blooms
0 notes
President Park Said to Direct Lobbying (1978)
From the Washington Post, by Charles B. BabcockWashington Post
March 16, 1978 page A1-27
by Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
U.S. Intelligence agencies reported during the early 1970s that South Korean President Park Chung Hee was personally directing a broad-scale covert lobbying campaign in the United States, according to summaries of secret documents released yesterday.
Rep. Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.), chairman of a House International Relations subcommittee investigating U.S.-Korean relations, said the intelligence reports show that President Park once considered, but rejected, a plan placing businessman Tongsun Park in charge of all the Korean lobbying in Washington.
Instead, President Park and his top advisers set up a special “foreign policy review board,” Fraser said, to coordinate a variety of lobbying operations.
The lobbying was aimed at ensuring the flow of U.S. military and economic aid to Korea.
Though U.S. intelligence agencies were sending detailed reports of the meetings in the Korean presidential mansion, the Blue House, to Washington as early as 1971, the Nixon administration failed to take adequate steps to stop the improper lobbying, Fraser added.
Yesterday’s hearing was the first of several in which the subcommittee seeks to document how much the U.S. executive branch knew of the Korean effort. Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former Attorney General John N. Mitchell are among those the subcommittee hopes to call as witnesses next week, Fraser said.
Some of the documents released yesterday indicate that the FBI either was not aware of or ignored some of the intelligence reports on Tongsun Park’s activities.
A subcommittee investigator said yesterday that coming hearings would establish that other, very specific, intelligence information was available at the time but not acted on by federal investigators.
The subcommittee is studying the Korean lobbying as a sort of case history of a failure of U.S. foreign policy. Its approach has been scholarly at times, since its aim is not to punish wrongdoers.
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is conducting an investigation of members who may have violated ethical standards by accepting cash or favors from Koreans.
William J. Porter, U.S. ambassador to Korea at the time the lobbying campaign was initiated, testified that he witnessed the lobbying grow to a point where “everyone was talking about the lavish way the Koreans were approaching the legislative branch. Tongsun Park was cutting too wide a swath.”
But the U.S. government, he said, was “very permissive” in its attitude toward the lobbying. “It must have been [permissive], voluntarily or by oversight, for the thing to grow as the Tongsun Park thing did from 1972 to 1975 or 6.”
Porter said Tongsun Park was spending so much money and had so much freedom of action that he thought some group, probably the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, was subsidizing Park.
Tongsun Park has been indicted for conspiring to bribe members of Congress and for failing to register as a foreign agent, and is now back in Washington to testify before congressional investigators and at the bribery trial of former Rep. Richard T. Hanna (D-Calif.).
It has been reported that Tongsun Park made more than $750,000 in payments, mostly in cash, to members of Congress during the early 1970s.
The Korean government has consistently denied that Park was its agent.
The Washington Post reported in October 1976 that the Korean lobbying effort was initiated by President Park in meetings at the Blue House, and that U.S. intelligence reports “apparently” included tape recordings of those meetings.
In releasing the summary of U.S. intelligence reports on those meetings yesterday, subcommittee investigators said the source was considered “highly reliable.” There was no evidence it was a bug or wiretap on the Korean president’s residence, however, they said.
Porter said he was skeptical about the reliability of the reports and strongly implied they had come from a Korean official in Seoul. “They didn’t tell our people any more than they wanted to say,” he said. “They know how to keep secrets.”
“I wouldn’t bet on that, necessarily, as a useful report on what went on at those meetings,” he said.
Porter backed off, however, when Fraser challenged him because he, as ambassador, was responsible for the intelligence reporting sent from the embassy to Washington. He said he didn’t know the source.
The intelligence summaries of the Blue House meetings said that among those considered to be placed under Tongsun Park’s control were Lee Sang Ho, the KCIA station chief in Washington (whose real name is Yang Du Won); Pak Bo Hi , head of the Korean Cultural and Freedom Foundation in Washington, and Kang Young Hoon, a former Korean Army general who headed a research Institute on Korean affairs in suburban Washington.
Pak, who is now the chief aide to Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon, attended the hearing yesterday and denied in a hallway interview—as he has before—that he has ever acted at the direction of the Korean government.
The subcommittee also released yesterday a 708-page book of documents that includes a variety of FBI, CIA and other investigative reports. Among the records are:
A February 1963 CIA report that says Moon’s Unification Church was organized by high-ranking government official Kim Jong Pil while he was head of the KCIA.
The report was labeled as unevaluated, however, and it is generally believed that Moon founded his church in 1954, before President Park came to power and the KCIA was founded.
Exchanges of correspondence between the State and Justice departments in 1971, including a “secret” June 1971 memo in which State passed on CIA references to Korean intelligence connections involving Tongsun Park and Pak Bo Hi.
Justice responded by conducting what the documents show to be only a cursory investigation that didn’t include any interview of Tongsun Park. In one Justice memo, he is referred to as Mr. Sun.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, meanwhile, Tongsun Park continued to answer questions in a closed session of the Senate Ethics Committee, which is probing senators’ possible involvement in the influence-buying effort.
Park’s performance yesterday, his second day before the Senate panel, raised doubts about his credibility, according to Sen. Harrison Schmitt (R-N.M.).
“He is extremely good, apparently, at anticipating what we know,” said Schmitt. “He remembers everything we already know, but not some other things. So there still is a question of credibility.”
Schmitt said it is “too early to say” whether the committee will uncover evidence leading to disciplinary action against any present or former senators.
0 notes