K-Buzz

King and the Man is director Jang Hang-jun's 2026 period drama.
It expands two short historical notes about Danjong and Eom Heung-do into a human-centered story.
It opened at number one at the box office on its first weekend and surpassed one million viewers.
By imagining the gaps in the record, the film asks what success, justice, and loyalty mean.

"How do we fill the gaps in the record?"

Beginning of the story

Reads differently.

Set during the 'unrecorded months' of Danjong's exile at Cheongryeongpo in 1457, the film imagines a human bond between the deposed king and a village leader

After the 1453 Gyeyujeongnan (a coup by Prince Suyang, later King Sejo), the boy king Danjong (born Yi Hong-wi) was demoted and sent into exile at Cheongryeongpo in Yeongwol, in what is now Gangwon Province.
Director Jang Hang-jun starts from the brief notes in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty and later anecdotal records, then reconstructs the private months that sit between those lines.
The film enlarges the role of Eom Heung-do (a local leader recorded as attending Danjong's final moments), balancing documentary detail and imaginative invention.
At 117 minutes and rated for viewers aged 12 and up, it aims for wide accessibility.

Aesthetics of the film

It focuses on feeling.

Visually, the film asks how personal emotions and choices are recorded—or distorted—within the institutions and power structures of the time

Scenes are cool and restrained in tone.
Performances by Yoo Hae-jin and Park Ji-hoon fill narrative gaps through small, decisive shifts in expression.
Cinematography and production design recreate the era while inserting devices that draw the audience into the characters' interior lives.
The film revisits failed justice and asks viewers to confront the politics of history and memory.

Director's intent

It follows the gaps.

Jang Hang-jun aims to turn the grandeur of historical power he has explored before into a focus on personal decisions and emotions

The director took the risky step of dramatizing two short lines in the historical record because he wanted to do what others had not.
That decision exercises creative freedom to fill historical blanks, while leaving room for tension with academic rigor.
The film also keeps educational uses in mind, offering material that can provoke classroom debate.

In favor: the value of reinterpreting history

It revives meaning.

Reinterpretations rooted in real events can fill omissions and prompt contemporary reassessment of forgotten choices

First, the film brings forgotten acts of justice and loyalty into public discussion.
A short official record cannot capture private moral choices, but drama can invite viewers to empathize with those at the center of a story.
This does more than entertain: it stimulates reflection and moral imagination around historical events.
Second, the actors' chemistry and the director's staging demonstrate how a period drama can expand its narrative range.

Yoo Hae-jin's portrayal of Eom Heung-do is not just an avatar of loyalty; he is presented as a person choosing between vested interest and conscience.
That portrayal invites viewers to reconsider the meaning of loyalty and offers an emotional register distinct from standard hero tales.
The film's commercial success also suggests a revival of interest in the period-drama genre: opening weekend number one and more than one million viewers have sparked broader cultural conversation.

Against: the line between history and fiction

Facts differ.

Cinematic imagination can simplify or distort historical motives

First, the characterization of Eom Heung-do is controversial.
The official annals and some chronicles describe him as a figure who sacrificed status out of principle, whereas the film emphasizes a poor village leader's emotional bond with the exiled king.
That shift troubles some historians. Second, scenes of intimate rapport are matters of invention not recorded in sources.

Imagination is essential to storytelling, but if audiences cannot distinguish between film and documentary, educational misunderstandings may follow.
Schools or the public might accept dramatized moments as historical fact.
Third, when the film ties its critique of historical power to modern institutional problems, broad interpretations can spill into contemporary political debates in unintended ways.

Where institutions and memory cross

It's the trace of institutions.

When power is reshaped, records tend to reflect the winners' perspective, and individual stories easily disappear

History is not just a list of facts.
It is a composite of record, transmission, and interpretation. The film exposes the empty spaces within that composite.
As a result, it should be read not merely as entertainment but as one act in the construction of public memory.
In this sense, the film can serve as material for history education and a prompt for institutional reflection.

Audience reaction and cultural ripple effects

Public opinion is divided.

The film highlights a striking gap between critics and general audiences and has sparked lively online debate

General viewers praise the film's human drama and the actors' rapport.
By contrast, historians and some viewers point to the limits of imaginative reconstruction and historical accuracy.
Neutral observers, meanwhile, treat the questions the film raises as a cultural asset.
Ultimately, the film both broadens public historical awareness and risks creating misunderstandings.

Practical perspective

It promotes discussion.

The film provides resources suitable for classroom debates or cultural forums

Teachers and presenters can use the movie as a starting point to design activities that help students separate historical fact from cinematic invention.
Local museums and cultural centers could develop programs about Danjong and Cheongryeongpo to bring the period's history to life.
In these ways the film can move beyond consumption to become a public educational resource.

Conclusion

It leaves questions.

Jang Hang-jun's film fills gaps in the record while asking viewers to reflect on the ethical and educational responsibilities of that act

In short, the film restores the feelings of forgotten people and fills historical blanks with creative storytelling.
Along the way it asks the audience about justice, loyalty, and the wounds left by power.
At the same time, it stresses the need to draw a clear line between historical fact and dramatic invention.
Do you agree that this film can be used as source material in history education?