민족주의에 기반한 전체주의적 통치는 근대적 개인을 민족으로 재구성하는 과민족화 프로젝트를 추진한다. 민족주의는 민족/정당성을 결여한 국가에 대해 감정적 애착을 갖게 만드는 데 효과적인 문화적 구성물이기 때문이다. 영화가 이러한 과민족화 프로젝트의 감정정치의 일환으로 동원되는데, 가장 전형적인 사례가 파시스트체제와 그것의 성공한 영화정책이다. 이런 맥락에서 이 연구는 민족주의에 기반한 과민족화 프로젝트를 추진한 1970년대 박정희체제에서 등장한 호스티스영화를 분석한다. 호스티스영화는 섹스묘사가 중심이 된 영화장르로서 동원체제의 민족문화론과 정면 배치된다는 점에 주목하고 체저와 문화현실 사이에 발생한 이러한 괴리 또는 모순이 박정희 동원체제 헤게모니와 지배메커니즘의 불안정성과 균열을 표출하는 문화지점임을 주장하는 것이다. 박정희 동원체제의 감정규율을 수반한 정신주의, 검열의 부조리한 작동 메커니즘, 금지된 리얼리티와 그것의 필연적 결과로서 주체의 사사화와 파편화, 섹스표현에 대한 동원체제의 이중적이고 모호한 시선, 호스티스영화에 대한 도시 젊은층 대중의 호응을 분석하고 박정희체제가 파시스트 대중독재체제가 아니라 군사적 관료체제임을 드러내고자 한 것이다. 그리고 호스티스영화의 대중적 인기를 대중의 유신체제에 대한 저항적 에너지가 데카당스로 월경했음을 시사하는 임상적 문화현상으로 해석하였다. 이를 위해 대중의 퇴폐로의 월경은 호스티스영화가 전복적 에너지를 품게 되는 과정 및 의미화의 맥락과 연관이 있음을 분석하였다.
This paper attempts to reveal and show the hegemonic instability of Park Chong-Hee’s military conscriptive regime by doing contextualization of factors that articulated Hostess Film, a popular subgenre of the 1970s. A so-called Hostess Film emerged and had enjoyed high popularity among young audience with higher education and income of middle and upper level since the mid-1970s when the Park's regime was getting aggressive and decisive in dealing with peoples by the rules of martial laws. I argue that Hostess Film focusing on graphic description of sexual relationships and love affairs of female protagonist who was used to be hostess, prostitute, and college girl is a cultural phenomena worthy to be inquired into as a clinical episode reflecting contradictions and fissures of the regime. I suggest that Hostess Film is an awkward cultural product of the regime which had tried to oppress the expression of bodily desires and pleasures and sentimentalism under the flag of nationalism and anti-communism. Rather, the regime had presented strength, sincerity, wholeness and cheerfulness as ideal personality types of the countrymen which was called by the regime as facing poverty, communists, and self-destructive attributes stemming from the past histories. It is unfitness and awkwardness of Hostess Film to the authoritarian military regime that indicates that it can be the symptomatic and clinical cultural text, as Geertz said, very effective for discovering the regime's totalitarian nature of the way of controlling film business which was overtaken and conceived as a powerful ideological apparatus from the beginning of the regime. To bring the totalitarian nature of the Park’s conscriptive regime up to the surface, I compared its film policy to that of Fascist regimes in 1930s, because Park’s film policy itself was one that originated and learned from the Fascist cinema laws and practices, especially from Japanese colonial version of Nazi’s. I discussed that film policy was executed by the regime as a part of hypernationalization project that aimed to arouse strong emotional support among peoples toward the anti-democratic regime. In other words, mobilization of film was needed to transform the emotional structure of the peoples into one that fit for maintaining the regime. I called it emotional politics, even though, in the end, it turned out failure as we saw the prosperity of the Hostess Film genre over the years from the mid-70s through the late 70s. There are several factors worked in articulating Hostess Film. I discussed some of factors and forces in this paper such as totalitarian spiritualism, management of emotions, censorship and its actual operation with contradictions and confusions, severe prohibition from describing social and political reality without exception, privatization and reduction of the reality into a private subject’s sexuality with fragile psyche, measures and responses of authority against sexual expression in film business starting from the late 1960s. There was ambiguity of censorship standards which treated domestic films more rigorous and severely than to foreign films, anti-communism films, and so-called art films that were voluntarily produced to get a permission required to import foreign films seeming as having high probability of profit. This devide-censorship worked in giving authority a room for negotiations between censors and film business about sexual description. Hostess film had enjoyed high popularity among masses and appreciated as convening young generation to the domestic films that had been neglected by them for a while since the late 1960s. Some critics labelled it as pornographic low graded melo-drama, but others appreciated it as films that reflected contemporary sexual morals of urban youth and young women. And some other critics went further to call it as a film of implicating messages of sexual modernism that was considered as being subversive to the establishment. Such interpretations of the 70s can be called in my view, as a sort of signification practice that incites and realize the subversive energies of masses up to the conscious level. But, in my view, such kind of subversive energies was one that already lost its rebellious power and then led to transgression to the consumption of decadence that was, at the moment, used to be identified and mixed with political incorrectness by the regime.