Korean Job Discussion Forums

[taobenli]

Hi, bi-lingual friends:

I'm having trouble with an article I'm translating from Korean to English (an article on the TV drama "Fashion 70s"). Can you help me to make sure the English translation reflects the original Korean? This is for a paper due tomorrow (!), so if you have any insight please don't hesitate (I'm not going to be quoting this passage verbatim, but want to make sure I understand it).

Here's the two Korean paragraphs:

결국 우리나라의 정치외교와 패션의 흐름, 패션 철학, 역사 철학, 시대의 센세이셔널을 창조하는 주인공들의 활약을 역동적이고 화려하게 그려가겠다는 의도는 패션계의 대모 �장봉실�의 입에서만 맴돌고 시대극으로서의 장점을 살리는 데 실패하고 말았다.
애초 의도와 달리 패션 70 이 이렇게 용두사미가 된 것은, 남녀 주인공 네 사람이 유기적인 관계를 맺지 못한 채 서로 다른 자리에서 개별화됐기 때문이다. 등장인물의 관계 설정에 문제가 있다 보니 극적 구조는 당연히 개연성을 잃고 방황하게 된다. 한마디로 파괴의 한국전쟁과 재건의 산업화, 여성적인 패션과 남성적인 정치외교 등의 매력적인 �근대화 산물� 들이 제자리를 찾지 못한 채 필요에 따라 돌발적으로 �이용�되는 결과를 가져온 것이다.

And here's my attempt to translate:

In the end Korea�s political exchange and fashion connection, fashion philosophy, philosophy of history, and the magnificent intentions of the characters created in the sensationalism of the era- all are reduced to words spinning on the lips of the fashion world�s godmother, Jang Bong Shil (Yi Hyeyoung): the good points remain, but it�s failing. (??)

In contrast to the original intention, the reason for �Fashion 70s� anticlimax was that the four male and female characters� limited relationships were not connected and each could be individualized in different positions. When it became clear that there was a problem establishing a connection between the onscreen characters the dramatic structure naturally lost its probability and started to drift. In other words, when it wasn�t possible to find the proper place of attractive �modernization outcomes� in the destructive Korean War and reconstructive industrialization, or feminine fashion and masculine political exchange, by necessity (the drama) all of a sudden incurred the label of �profit� (exploitation?).