![A promotional display for "The Assassin" at a movie theater in Seoul [Yonhap]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/10/07/news-p.v1.20261002.1a934f8af78f47469fcd2c06fae63cdb_P1.jpg)
Amid continuing controversy over the film "The Assassin" and its historical interpretation, a movie theater in Gumi, North Gyeongsang Province — the hometown of former President Park Chung-hee — has stopped screening the film.
CGV Gumi dropped "The Assassin" from its lineup starting Tuesday, according to film industry sources. The move does not appear to reflect a nationwide screening suspension ordered by CGV's head office.
Conservative civic groups in the Gumi area have been staging ongoing protests demanding that the film be pulled, arguing it damages Park's reputation. On Tuesday, members of a civic organization held a rally outside a multiplex in Gumi calling for the film's removal.
The timing of CGV Gumi's decision — coinciding with a surge of opposition from political circles and conservative groups — has prompted speculation that the pressure may have played a role.
However, CGV Gumi operates as a franchise location rather than a company-owned branch, meaning programming decisions are made at the discretion of the franchise operator. It has not been confirmed whether the suspension was made in response to demands from political figures or conservative groups.
"The Assassin," which opened Sept. 23, weaves cinematic imagination into the historical events surrounding the assassination attempt on first lady Yuk Young-soo during a live broadcast of the 29th Liberation Day ceremony on Aug. 15, 1974, tracing the allegations and possible forces behind the attack.
Investigators at the time concluded that Moon Se-gwang had acted alone, but the film raises the hypothesis that another individual may have been involved. Some in political circles have criticized the work as a distortion of history, arguing it implies that former President Park Chung-hee and those in power at the time were behind the attack. Others have pushed back, saying cinematic imagination should be treated as a domain of creative freedom, and the debate continues.
As the controversy grew, the filmmakers issued an official statement on Sept. 28 saying the film "was not made to newly establish a specific historical conclusion or to deny or distort existing facts," adding that "nowhere in the film is any specific individual identified as the mastermind behind the incident, nor are the hypotheses and dramatic elements in the film presented as historical fact."
min3654@heraldcorp.com
