Korean Couple Weds on a Train

Status: Fake
image About a week ago a touching scene took place in South Korea. A couple boarded a train and then proceeded to get married in front of all the passengers. The groom explained to everyone that he was too poor to pay for a proper ceremony, so he and his bride had decided to get married on a train instead. After the ceremony the crowd broke into wild applause, and pictures of the wedding (taken by a passenger with a cellphone) began to circulate on the internet.

But now it turns out that the scene wasn't quite as romantic as it appeared. The couple were actually actors from the Theatre and Film Department at Hoseo University. Naturally, some people are annoyed by the deception. Mr Shin Jin-woo, who dreamed up and directed the performance, has issued a statement saying: "I sincerely apologise to subway passengers who believed the ceremony was real, as well as many Internet users who posted encouraging messages online. It was not our intention to deceive the public. We felt that it would be rude to the passengers at that time if we told them that the ceremony was not real, but just a play."

The part I don't understand is this: Why would being poor explain why the couple was getting married on a train? Surely it would have been cheaper for them to get married in a civil ceremony at town hall rather than arrange for someone to marry them on a train. I realize it was all an act, but their story doesn't strike me as being logical.

Related Posts:
Aug. 25, 2002: Mock Weddings
Aug. 26, 2003: Mock Weddings II
Feb. 16, 2005: Fake Marriage Proposal
Mar. 6, 2005: Wedding Photos


Posted on Mon Feb 20, 2006


Basically the same as what the improv group improveverywhere did.

Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  02:45 AM
Depends on how expensive it is to get married in Korea - if the family gets involved, even in the civil ceremony, the amount of money they would have to pay could goto astronomical amounts.

Heck, South Korea has 21 obligatory annual equivalents to Valentine's Day where couples should spend money on each other lest their families be embarrassed. Getting married in any way may get even more expensive.
Posted by VL  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  02:57 AM
I should add that improveverywhere did a fake proposal and engagement party, however.
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  05:10 AM
Why didn't this "poor" couple get married in a town hall instead? Maybe in addition to being poor, they also had no friends.
Posted by Captain Al  in  Vancouver Island, Canada  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  08:57 AM
I don't understand the point of using a train due to poverty. There are lots of nice public places to do it at. If's it just short, off the cuff ceremony you could go anywhere and be done and gone before anyone tried to kick you out. What's wrong with being at home too? Or is the subway their home?
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  11:41 AM
Maybe you have to have a certain quorum of people in attendance for a Korean wedding? And the poor couple couldn't afford to entertain any guests????
Posted by Big Gary, on another quail hunt  in  Dallas, Texas, USA  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  05:16 PM
Every wedding is in fact a civil wedding in Korea, all couples are registered (simply by filling in the requisite forms countersigned by suitable witnesses) at the local district government office.

Once the legal part is taken care of, Koreans will then arrange a more symbolic ceremony for families and friends, often similar to a western 'white' wedding to mark the occasion in a more grand and romantic fashion. Not surprisingly signing a piece of paper surrounded by a bunch of strangers in a government building does not register higly on the romance Richter Scale!

So the reason that the actor said he was too poor to afford a wedding was because he alledgedly could not afford the grander symbolic wedding. I speak from first hand experience having married a lovely Korean lady!
Posted by Vagras  in  Seoul, Korea  on  Mon Feb 20, 2006  at  06:06 PM
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.