Planned rallies move a film dispute to an actor’s doorstep
A leader of the far-right group New Freedom Union says the group plans to hold rallies outside actor Yu Hae-jin’s home, bringing a growing dispute over the film Assassin(s) into the actor’s private life. The film, released on Sept. 23, concerns the shooting of Yook Young-soo, the wife of former South Korean president Park Chung-hee.
Kim Sang-jin, the group’s leader, wrote on Threads on Oct. 1 that he had submitted a notice for an outdoor rally at Yu’s home. He also posted an image of the filing receipt and a photograph of a building believed to be Yu’s residence.
The rally notice lists Oct. 3 through Oct. 30, with 20 participants, two broadcast vehicles and a temporary folding stage.
A rally notice is a filing that informs authorities of a planned public gathering; the available information does not establish that every detail has received final approval. The group’s stated plans nevertheless raise questions about how a political protest can affect the privacy and safety of a person who is not a political officeholder.
Group leader says he wants to show Yu “ran away”
Alongside the filing receipt and building photograph, Kim suggested that the actor’s management company might move him after learning of the planned demonstrations. He said he would “prove” that Yu had “run away from home,” using language that frames a possible move as an admission rather than a personal safety decision.
The post did not offer evidence that Yu had moved or intended to do so. Nor did the article report a response from Yu or his representatives. The building was described as a place believed to be the actor’s home, rather than independently confirmed as his residence.
Publishing a photograph of a suspected home can intensify attention on a private address. Even when a gathering is presented as political protest, its location matters: a demonstration outside a public institution takes place in a civic setting, while one outside a person’s home can directly affect residents, neighbors and others using the building.
A history of demonstrations and political activism
Kim has previously led demonstrations near the home of former president Moon Jae-in in Pyeongsan Village, in Yangsan, South Gyeongsang Province. In 2020, he also argued for removing the statue of a girl commemorating victims of wartime sexual slavery, located near the former Japanese Embassy in Seoul.
In 2022, Kim drew attention after publicizing a Chuseok holiday gift he said he had received from then-president Yoon Suk Yeol and his wife. After the deadly Itaewon crowd disaster that year, he held a prolonged demonstration near a memorial site, drawing objections from bereaved families. Following the Dec. 3 insurrection referenced in the report, he also organized “Yoon Again” rallies in support of Yoon.
These earlier actions provide context for the group’s latest announcement, but they do not by themselves determine whether the planned rally is lawful or what conditions authorities may impose. The immediate issue is the group’s stated intention to demonstrate at a location it identifies as Yu’s home, while the film controversy continues to draw political attention.
The film has become a point of political conflict
Since Assassin(s) opened, some politicians, including figures from the People Power Party, have argued that the film portrays Park Chung-hee as having been involved in the shooting of Yook Young-soo. They have called for the film to stop screening and have raised the prospect of legal punishment, according to the article.
The film’s director has separately said that the work was not made on the assumption that Park was behind the attack. That distinction is important: claims made by critics about what a film implies are not the same as an established historical finding or a court’s determination.
The dispute illustrates how films about political history can become flashpoints. Viewers may disagree over whether a dramatization fairly represents events, but criticism of the work can also spread beyond its plot to the people who made it, acted in it or expressed a positive opinion about it.
Personal attacks have widened the backlash
The criticism has extended to the production team, cast members and public figures who praised the film. People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo directed a remark at Yu describing his appearance as “North Korean-looking,” a personal comment focused on the actor’s looks rather than his performance.
After the remark was criticized as excessive, Joo said he had used the phrase to mean that Yu was supporting North Korea and defended it as freedom of expression. The exchange added another layer to the controversy: it shifted attention from debate over the film’s historical interpretation to an attack on the actor himself.
The planned home-area rally follows a series of public disputes in which criticism of Assassin(s) has increasingly targeted the people associated with it.
The broader questions: protest rights and private space
South Korea, like many democracies, protects public expression and assembly while also setting rules for where and how gatherings may take place. Such rules can involve practical matters such as traffic, noise, crowd safety and the rights of people who live or work nearby. The report describes a submitted filing and the group’s plans; it does not provide details of any official decision or restrictions.
The location gives the planned event particular significance. A protest outside a government building directs a message toward public officials, while a demonstration outside a private home can place pressure on an individual and affect people who have no role in the dispute. That does not settle the legal question, but it helps explain why the planned venue has drawn attention.
For now, the reported schedule runs from Oct. 3 to Oct. 30, with the group listing 20 participants and two broadcast vehicles. Whether the rallies proceed as described, and how authorities respond, remains unclear from the available information.
What to watch next
The controversy now has several distinct parts: disagreement over the film’s portrayal of a historical event, political pressure over its screening, personal remarks aimed at Yu, and a planned demonstration near a suspected private residence. Treating these as separate questions can help keep criticism of a film distinct from pressure directed at an actor’s personal life.
Key developments to watch include whether the group holds the announced gatherings, whether the location or conditions change, and whether Yu or his representatives respond. Any assessment of the film’s claims should also distinguish between political allegations, artistic interpretation and verifiable historical evidence.
