I just saw "Hero" and it's very right wing.

[AP]

The message is, I need to kill you and millions more to make peace. Oh, and I'll give you this Great Wall to keep others out after I kill millions of you. That's safety!

Dick Cheney could have written that movie.

[Ohio Dem]

1. Isn't that a Tarantino movie?

I though he was one of us. Odd that he would make a RW movie. I'm not doubting your account. It's just odd that he would do that. Maybe I don't know Quentin's politics like I thought I did. That's always possible.

[MirrorAshes]

3. I don't think he wrote or directed it. I've heard that he was involved

somehow but was not really in control.

[AP]

4. He has a deal with Miramax to find movies for M to distribute.

This was one of them.

Zhang Yimou directed it, which is shocking, since Yimou has ALWAYS sided with the indians and not the cowboys. Not this time.

[Ohio Dem]

6. Well, I haven't seen it. But I'm willing to take your word for this,

as I know you're an honest guy. I still want to see it, but not as much as before. I'm sure it'll be on HBO sooner or later, and that's good enough for me.

[AP]

9. It's interesting, and there are some amazing scenes, but it's just

stunning -- the right wing message is in the last 30 seconds of the movie.

If you like Zhang Yimou and you like Jet Li, I'd actually go see it on the big screen. But I'd be ready to have a conversation with your friends about whether it's right wing.

[joshcryer]

30. Yeah, the end is what did it.

Honestly, it was going for a good left wing liberal message, except for that last part. I've read that some say that the end was changed so that the Chinese government would endorse it or some such bullshit.

That end left a very very dirty taste in my mouth. My head almost exploded. Almost.

[Sailorman]

45. I think you are being silly

It is a Kungfu movie...Quentin is a big fan of Kungfu movies...thats all...his next movie is a war movie due out next year...

[AP]

49. Read the articles in my posts at the very bottom.

I don't think people should dismiss this kind of discussion as silliness.

This is important stuff. If my reading is wrong, it's not because I'm silly. And it's not silly to talk about this.

[tinanator]

103. oh come on now, everybody dies in Tarantino flicks

the best and the worst part of them.
Kill Bill is the best movie ever.
Sorry, Orson.

[otohara]

2. I Fell Asleep -

not that I wanted to - one to many sword fights and you had to read fast in the very beginning of the movie - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz then I woke up for the end.

When Snow killed her man - I said, "is this woman happy now"? Sheesh -

[AP]

5. The cowboys won, and apparently the indians should be happy about it.

[Tight_rope]

67. Yeah...they should have a speed reading contest with that movie!

[Bread and Circus]

7. Actually, the message could be interpreted that way...

but there was a lot more going on...

Partly, it did suggest that authoratarian control was a good thing.
But there was a lot more to the message of the movie than that.

I definitely liked the "art" of the movie more than its final resolution though.

[warrior1]

8. What I

noticed. One of the most blood less movies I've every seen. Maybe a drop or two. Certainly the macho gop view is kill, kill, kill.........

[AP]

11. Sure, there was a lot going on, but that last scene pretty firmly set out

the politics of the movie.

There's an earlier scened where the king says that he's going to erradicate cultural differences by making everyone speak the same language. OK, there are good things about all being on the same linguistic page, but you shouldn't have to murder millions to do it. So, in that scene you kind of get a hint about that not being so great. And then there's the scene where the king looks at the caligraphy -- the 20th character for sword, which got him so upset earlier -- and it reveals its meaning, so you get the impression that, yes, differences can be enlightening.

OK. Right direction. But (###############SPOILER################) he kills the hero and, and then conquers all those people (when the lesson from the hero was that it was time to lay down the sword) and then the bullshit about building the wall like it's great to kill millions in order to buiild a wall to protect you from a few mongolians...come on. That's what Bush and Cheney are telling us. We're killing you for peace, and we're going to build this Great Wall around us. It's just absurdly conservative.

[NuttyFluffers]

13. is this about the Qin dynasty?

if so that'd explain a lot of the story. that was the dynasty with the major wall building project that killed so many people, along with the unifying of the people by one standardized written language, and the ending of feudalism into imperial rule.

most chinese would understand this story, understand that it really isn't RW. just historically minded with a different viewpoint take - which is really remarkable leap culturally, old china loving hagiographies and all. besides the Qin empire was a well known warning from history about what not to do to run a country. to create a country, yes, you need to break some eggs (actually a lot of eggs, and heads, and torsos....). but Qin only lasted around 15 years. his mandate of heaven was rapidly lost because of his behavior. it was too harsh on the people.

if it is the Qin dynasty then it'd be a work that would assume the viewer understood the cultural lesson and hence be redundant for the story to continue past the hero's death to explain the ramifications. kinda like Dances with Wolves doesn't need to show the full genocide and reservation outcome that the movie was ending towards. culturally, we know what happens next, we know why it was sad and wrong, we don't need to see the whole thing, just the part that involves the main characters.

that might explain what you saw.

[AP]

14. The potential subject matter for a film is infinite. There's no...

...obligation to make a movie about the Qin. Somebody decided to make this movie now because they felt they could tap into a sentiment that runs through a lot of people right now, and that feeling is about building empires.

Take a film like Crouching Tiger, which is about the weight of tradition, and trying to break that tradition but merely perpetuating it. Crouching Tiger's last scene is a very clear argument that tradition can crush and disappoint. That movie was doing something much more liberal. There was no obligation to make Crouching Tiger, but some people felt that there was something in it that would not only speak to Chinese audiences dealing with things like industrialization and expanding econommic roles for women, but it would say something to Americans and Europeans about class and opportunity.

Now, I'd think the world would be a better place if people were considering the ideas presented in Crouching Tiger rather than Hero.

[librechik]

23. yes, Qin dynasty

I thought that Nameless sacrifuced himself so that China could be united and peace would come at last. The wall was built becasue of the King he failed to assasinate. The part that was right wing is that you would need a "strong man" to accomplish that, but crap it was 2000 years ago!
Of course a strong man is what they needed in those days.

[AP]

26. The assassin wasn't sacrificing himself. He was telling the king that you

could put down your swords, that people could live in peace, and that everyone would be better off, and he proved it by not killing the king. He didn't fail. That was his intention.

The right wing part is that you need to murder people to create an empire which then brings peace. But China today has problems because it is trying to hold a lot of disparate cultures together by force. So this story doesn't have a happy ending in reality, but it did in the movie. That's RW.

[joshcryer]

32. I think he *was* sacrificing himself.

"All under heaven," to me, is akin to saying the Emporer is a spokesman for Heaven, and he gets to decide what's "right" and "wrong." If that makes sense.

[AP]

34. He was taking a risk. But the upside was that the king was going...

...to understand the message, which was to put down the swords.

The downside was that he wasn't, and the hero would die.

When you sacrifice yourself, it's to achieve your goals. His goal was to live and for everyone to live in peace. His goal wasn't to get killed and have the bloody drive for empire to continue. He took a chance, rolled the dice and lost.

[NuttyFluffers]

46. but, since it's the Qin dynasty, the emperor also lost.

those who are familiar with the cultural history would then recognize that the hero offered him a way to rule the people through peace and have a long prosperous dynasty.

the king chose not to.

it ended with the "rousing RW message", but anyone who remembers history knows the Qin to be essentially the shortest lived imperial dynasty. 15 years of rule for a dynasty is unbelievably short.

the king chose poorly, great suffering for the people was the result, and his empire lived in infamy.

there's a reason the chinese refer to themselves culturally as the Han people (to the dynasty after the Qin) and not the Qin people. he was a failed ruler because he ignored the lesson of peace.

it's a very oblique message seems like. distinctly in the chinese vain of storytelling. perhaps it really is as bad as you say, i must therefore watch it for myself. but sounds like the lesson was conveyed to those who understood the history, a reading between the lines inside joke if you will. i must see this then, make my own assessment.

[AP]

48. I made that same argument once about Europa, Europa...

...that it was an inside joke, tongue in cheek.

Now I realize that it was, in fact, pretty right wing.

I think you'll probably see from the links below (upon which you commented) that it's probably not tongue-in-cheek.

[FeebMaster]

10. I'd call it more authoritarian than right wing. (nt)

[AP]

12. It was about imperialism.

And it's final argument was that imperialism is good because it lets you build a great natioin arround which you can build a wall.

I'm sure this movie is doing great box office in Tibet.

[Julien Sorel]

15. I thought the same thing.

The message was that the end justifies the means. The end in this case was an empire, and the means was slaughter. Really an unfortunate message at this point in the country's history -- you would have thought the film was made in Israel by neocons, not in China. It is an entertaining film, though. Chow Yun Fat, my favorite actor, and Jet Li each has more charisma than any major Hollywood star out there.

[AP]

17. I think about 30 seconds of editing and a different title card at the end

could have completely changed the message. Or maybe not. I don't know.

I would love to know if there was something going on behind the scenes with final edit, or with the financing, or if Yimou did this film so that he could make some other film.

[gee double you bee]

16. I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on the film itself

But I've heard rave reviews from dems for the exact opposite reasons you've mentioned. Now I'm definitely going to have to check it out!

[AP]

18. I should make it clear that I'm not trying to discourage anyone from pay-

ing to see this movie (and I think Miramax and Yimou are worth every penny they earn).

The movie is visually amazing, and the actors are some of the best in the world.

But I think that it definitely encourages a conversation about politics, and about imperialism specifically.

(Hey, By the way, I don't believe for a second that you've heard rave reviews from Dems for the exact opposite reasons.)

[gee double you bee]

20. .

I most certainly have. I'll try and find some right now. They were either posted here at DU, Daily Kos, Atrios, or Washington Monthly..since those are the dem blogs/sites I visit most regularly.

[AP]

25. Why are you blowing your cover in a thread about a movie?

Wouldn't you get a greater return for you time investment in some other thread?

[gee double you bee]

29. Stop being foolish

I'm not 100% sure what you're implying, but you're gonna feel like an ass when I give you a link to what I'm talking about. Thanks for the warm welcome by the way.

[Tight_rope]

69. Welcome to DU gee double you bee

[Tight_rope]

68. DON'T WASTE YOU MONEY GOING TO SEE IT...IT'S BULLSHIT!

[Bread and Circus]

19. It begs the question then....****** spoiler alert *****

***** spoiler alert *****
***** spoiler alert *****
***** spoiler alert *****
Would it have been better that the assassin had actually killed the emporor at the end?
***** spoiler alert *****
***** spoiler alert *****
***** spoiler alert *****

[AP]

22. No, I think it would have been better if it didn't make the argument

in the last 30 seconds that it was better not to put down swords, and it was better to slaughter more people into submission because then they got one big country (where disent is stiffled, especially in Tibet, but also in Tiennemen Square) and they got to build a wall arround it.

It might have been a completely different movie if they just didn't have that last title card. It was devestating when all the characters die. That should have been enough. The king showed that he was an awful person for going against what he knew was right -- putting down the sword.

Yimou's other movies have much more subtle messages about China. This one was totally unsublte and basically said all the killing was worth it.

Like I said, it's basically an American western saying we're better off for killing all the Indians.

[Bread and Circus]

28. Yeah...I know what you mean....

I think you about got it.

[not systems]

21. I saw it and thought it pro-fascist in the theme.

It was interesting next to Zhang Yimou's other films which
have anti-militerist themes like Red Sorghum.

I heard this his first one to play widely in "communist" China.

It was very striking color wise.

I don't know if Dick could come up with the plot but
any maximum leader would be proud of the sentiment of
the film.

"The ruthless tyrant works for the good of the people"

That was my take on it.

[AP]

24. Message: "we're killing you for peace -- it's for your own good"

Of course, they all wanted to kill him for revenge for most of the movie, but some of them realize that it's ideas and not revenge which are the most powerful weapons. But, oh, well. Guess they were wrong.

[not systems]

27. Kind of like Luke Skywalker joining...

Darth Vader because he keeps the trains running on time.

I did think it was a great movie but the theme was very
pro-government (Chinese government) and will probable play
the same to americans.

[gee double you bee]

31. "Message: "we're killing you for peace -- it's for your own good""

But doesn't the movie show how futile and wrong-headed that logic is though? Like I said, I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure that's the point people were making..comparing it with the situation in Iraq, and Bush's foreign policy in general.

[AP]

33. No. It doesn't. There's a title card at the end of the movie which

lauds the king for continuing the bloody drive for empire.

Without that card, it might have been much more ambiguous (and even critical of empire, since it's founded on betrayal and a rejection of art (as rep'd by the caligraphy)).

But with that card, the movie is very unambiguous about its politics.

[not systems]

35. I would like to suggest seeing it before...

pontificating further.

I really think getting Iraq and Bush in here some how is
a bit of a leap.

It was pro-centralized power through milliterism.

But not really in a Bush related way.

[Kitsune]

36. It's visually very beautiful

but you're right, the message is essentially "Totalitarianism is great! We love you, Xi Huangdi!"

Being the only member of my family who knows anything about Chinese history, I spent a good 10 minutes explaining to my family who the hell Xi Huangdi was after that movie. They ended up agreeing with me, a visually stunning film with a total "WTF?" of a message.


Also, it tries to be Rashomon. :D

[DrWeird]

37. Arguable.

It could also be argued that it's a pacificist picture. The only way to reach peace is through nonviolence and personal sacrifice. Satyagraha.

Kind of like Passion of the Christ, really. Evil imperialists wins, good guy dies for the greater good...

[Orion82]

38. Actually No

From what I understand it is just the legend of how China began. How it united.

[not systems]

39. You mean the story of a bloody tyrant and the victims who love him.

Then your right.

That is the legend.

But choosing to enact this story has more todo
with todays politics than the ancient past.

And how great it is to unite under an iron fisted leader.

[Democat]

40. Hero is pro-Fascism - one of the stars supports the Tiananmen massacre!

Despite whatever reasons there were behind his troubles with the national censorship board it is apparent that Yimou, throughout the years as a director, has been very flexible ideologically and eager to be on good terms with the political rules of film production. He has not left the country, despite the opportunities to do so, or refused to make any films on the terms dictated by the regime. He has, rather, willingly put himself in the service of the Communist regime to become one of its most important cultural export products.

In his latest film, Hero, he goes all the way to not only make an apologetic film for the Communist dictatorship but adapts Fascist aesthetics to do so.

At the center of the narrative in Hero are the Leader and the Nation, both of them mythologized according to Fascistt concepts. King Zheng (259-210 BC), later known as Shihuang, China’s first emperor of the Qin dynasty, has in the West been regarded as the archetypal tyrant. Under his regime dissidents and learned men were murdered, all the books were burnt to erase previous history and he created a strong central power with an extensive military presence an intelligence all over the country to ensure his control.

It is, of course, disturbing to find a Fascist film at the cinemas in 2003 and to find that Yimou so whole-heartedly has adapted to the commands of the regime. Actor Tony Leung Chiu-wai even gave his open support to the massacre at the Tiananmen Square in 1989 as necessary in order to keep national stability.

http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/filmreviewhero.html

Much more at the link.

[Nlighten1]

41. I think you completely missed the point of "Hero"

but I suppose it isn't surprising that the Western mind would interpret the way you did.

[AP]

42. I've done a little research, and it turns out a lot of Chinese scholars...

...have said the same things about this movie.

So what do you think we got wrong?

[Nlighten1]

51. Link?

[AP]

59. Two posts down. Mr. Chen, I believe is his name.

[Nlighten1]

84. I read that one already...

The links I would like to see are the ones to the chinese scholars that were referred to.

[AP]

91. Evans Chan is a film scholar

and if you google you'll see more...

[Nlighten1]

96. he is "a" film scholar

You specifically mentioned scholar"S", which is plural. Who are the others? And are there links available?

[AP]

43. ...furthermore, I've been much more generous to Yimou than others.

For example: http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/filmreviewhero.html


Despite whatever reasons there were behind his troubles with the national censorship board it is apparent that Yimou, throughout the years as a director, has been very flexible ideologically and eager to be on good terms with the political rules of film production. He has not left the country, despite the opportunities to do so, or refused to make any films on the terms dictated by the regime. He has, rather, willingly put himself in the service of the Communist regime to become one of its most important cultural export products.
    
In his latest film, Hero, he goes all the way to not only make an apologetic film for the Communist dictatorship but adapts Fascist aesthetics to do so. Here I am not referring to the lazy definition of “Fascism” made by Pauline Kael for her attack on vigilante films such as Dirty Harry (1971) andDeath Wish (1974). What I am talking about is the historical ideology that founded corporative states ruled by almighty leaders such as Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler. This ideology has since,in practice, been adapted by dictatorships everywhere around the world despite what they officially call their ideology, for example Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and North Korea under Kim Il Sung.

[AP]

44. Here's another person who agrees:

The Temptations of Empire


So what does Hero leave us with? Why revise the Emperor Qin myth at this moment in Chinese history? Tony Leung’s pro-Tiananmen crackdown statement, issued in response to queries about Hero, might have given us some clues. <19> However, Hero goes beyond being a merely rearguard defense of the 1989 governmental action. The film resonates with the awakened ambitions of Empire within contemporary China...

http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/heroevanschan.htm

[NuttyFluffers]

47. that's a great link, thanks

still need to see the movie for myself, though

:toast:

[Comicstripper]

50. Love the picture in your signature

Hilarious

[walldude]

52. Have'nt seen it yet

but I just wanted to :toast: the people who marked their posts before they printed spoilers and to :spank: those who didn't.

[KoKo]

53. Good Grief, AP! You and I can't agree on anything! "Hero" was to me an

"anti-war movie." It's a beautiful film which shows in great detail how War is not the answer..." :eyes:

[AP]

60. Read the links in posts 43 and 44 and do a Google search.

Your opinion seems to be pretty far off the mark.

[lazarus]

75. But isn't that the point of opinions about art?

Shall we all just bow to the majority and agree with the majority opinion?

Or shall we each form our own opinion, and be happy with it?

I thought it was a beautiful film, about a completely different culture in a different time.

I got no message of anti-war, pro-war, liberal, conservative, anything.

Mostly because I don't go looking for political messages when I go see a film (Moore excepted). I just sit back and enjoy the ride the director's chosen to take me on.

[AP]

97. These aren't votes. These are arguments.

Either the arguments are well thought out and supported with evidence, or they aren't.

I think Charles Taylor's argument about the film in Salon is very weak. I think Evans Chan's argument is much more interesting, and tells us more about the film and about the world.

By the way, if you want to talk about this like it's voting, the votes for this movie being good entertainment win. It's the highest grossing film in China ever. So the people who aren't so impressed by its politics are losing the votes. Do you think they should bow to the majority?

If you don't go looking for politics in film, that's fine. Enjoy. But I think you're missing out on one of the most enjoyable aspects of watching films: understanding their cultural significance.

[lazarus]

122. For an alternative review

Check out Walter Chaw's.

And not looking for politics doesn't mean I don't look for cultural significance. I may have misspoken, as I didn't get my meaning across. I apologise.

What I was trying to convey is that I don't look for overt political messages in films that aren't intended to convey them. That path leads to things like charges of racism in the Lord of the Rings films, etc.

In my opinion, of course. And that's what art is all about. :D

[AP]

126. Hero is SO MUCH about politics. It's about the formation of the country

and it's about imperialism. It's about political leadership. It's about the nature of resistance. And it's an allegory meant to say something about contemporay Chinese society as China tries to transition into a modern country.

American film went through these same arguments about America begininning about 100 years ago.

Also, Walter Chaw is writing only about style and art. It is so much more interesting to think of these movies as saying something about national identity about this historical moment. Do you really think that these movies can only be discussed aesthetically? I don't really now and discpline involving representation -- whether it's art, radio. TV, or whatever -- that doesn't find the most interesting things to say about its subject matter by looking more broadly and history, culture, politics, economics, etc.

[lazarus]

128. First

Thank you for actually reading the review. Having a debate with someone who follows links is refreshing. :hi:

I agree that he's primarily discussing style and art. My thoughts, however, were also about the national identity concept. I did see the history, the politics, the culture in this film. At least, what little I could interpret from my 21st century Western viewpoint. That's a key to me.

I do see what you're saying about the allegory pertaining to contemporary Chinese society, but I don't see how it's a "right wing" message so much as a nationalistic message.

I think the film as a whole is relatively betrayed by the jingoistic pro-Emperor bit at the end. I'll grant that. But the bulk of the film, I felt, sent a different message.

In actuality, I think one of the most fascinating things about this film is that we can even have this debate. That implies to me that both messages may have been in the film.

I think it's less jingoistic and right wing that a similar film pertaining to America's origins, Gibson's The Patriot. And it's surely not as bad as Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Finally, I think a film can be appreciated for aesthetics regardless of the politics, etc., involved.

[AP]

129. The right-wing part is this:

Quoting from the Evans Chan article:

- In Hero, Zhang Yimou harks back two millennia to reinvent the founding myth of China – not China as an ethnic, cultural entity, but China as an empire. And the impulse behind the film can be called fascist – it promotes a personality cult that claims oneness with the progression of the national destiny, and which inspires willful, bloody sacrifices.

- In this danse macabre, Nameless’s tales are debunked one by one to reveal that all the other assassins are in fact sacrificing themselves for Nameless’s final attempt at the emperor’s life. (Fascism is of course interested in hierarchy – the propping up of Nameless as the top assassin to confront the emperor enacts a stylized succession of action spectacles. And ultimately the greatest swordsman submits himself to the emperor’s messianic Idea by seeking death.)

- By allowing Qin Shihuang to mumble-jumble about the spirituality of the sword, Zhang elevates him to a mystical plane. Here’s a leader who submits himself to a mystical mandate to attain peace; and in recognition of that spirituality, Nameless chooses to let the emperor live at the very cost of his own life. If such glorification of capitulation to a powerful leader is not fascist enough, wait for the final twist of Zhang Yimou’s dagger – the emperor could have spared Nameless’s life, but he does not, as he recognizes the sanity of the surrounding crowd’s pleading that unless the assassin is executed, the rule of law in his kingdom would be compromised. Hence the emperor’s assertion of mind over emotion is complemented by the assassin’s emotion over mind, both an expression of a squeamish aversion to, hence ruthless suppression of, division, differences and heterogeneity. Zhang Yimou’s archeological finding is truly breathtaking.

- I don’t mean China is now embarking on a seriously imperialistic military buildup. But a psychological war has been waged domestically, inflaming nationalist sentiments and superpower fantasies, diverting the public from China’s tough internal problems as it marched bloodily – for the first nine months of 2003, the official figure of industrial deaths at work stood at 11,500—into the global capitalist system.

[AP]

131. One more thing:

I totally agree that you can talk about the aesthetics of a film without talking about its politics (and that's what those main-stream reviewers do in SusanG's links). But I don't think you can say that a movie is so aesthetically pleasing that you can't crticicize its politics. And a counterargument about aesthetcis isn't a counterargument about politics.

It's really hard to talk about movies at DU because often people have already seen the movie and have liked it and if you say something they don't like, or point out something they might not have noticed, they're either ashamed that they didn't catch it (especially if they imagine themselves to be politically savy) or they simply refuse to think they could enjoy something conservative that their response is to deny that talking about the politcs of a film is even legitimate.

[lazarus]

133. Understood

I'm one that can easily admit I enjoyed the film, even if it did have a bit of an imperialistic slant. :D

[adamrsilva]

54. Ha!

I see your point but it was clearly communist propoganda/Chinese nationalist!

Not that I didn't like it. ;)

[KoKo]

55. Did you get that Itzak Perleman played the cello for the soundtrack and

Kyoto drummers are prominently featured in the film? Jews and Japanese in a Chinese "Propaganda film?" Give me a break!

Here's a "fair review." Not the best review...but "fair."
Hero (Ying xiong) (12A)

Dir. Yimou Zhang, 2002, Hong Kong, 107 mins

Cast: Jet Li, Tony Leung Chiu Wai , Maggie Cheung, Ziyi Zhang , Daoming Chen, Donnie Yen

Currently being previewed at the Edinburgh International Film Festival

Martial arts films have been a dime a dozen since the genre enjoyed major western mainstream success in 1999 with the release of The Matrix and in 2000, with Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Westernised 'wire-fu' atrocities flooded the world market (Romeo Must Die, Cradle to the Grave, Invincible) and it seemed that audiences couldn't get enough of them. In 2004, audience appetites appear unabated and after two years (and rather unnecessarily under the auspicious banner of 'Quentin Tarantino presents.') US distributor Miramax has seen fit to finally release to western audiences one of the finest martial arts films to be made in recent years, Yimou Zhang's Hero.

Hero is set in ancient China, when the country was divided into six kingdoms: Qin, Zhao, Han Wei, Yan, Chu and Qi . The Kingdom of Qin is governed by a megalomaniac Emperor (Chen) whose desire for dominance over all of China poses a major threat to the other five kingdoms. Subsequently many assassins have been dispatched and have tried (and failed) to dispose of the Emperor. Of them all, the three deadliest assassins' remain alive and as a result, the Emperor lives in fear of his own demise. He decrees that anyone who defeats the three assassins will be rewarded with gold, land and the privilege of sitting within ten paces of him (one hundred paces being the minimum for mere mortals). The story begins as Nameless, (Li) a mysterious county sheriff, enters the palace to report of his defeat of all three of the rogue assassins. Displaying the trio's beloved weapons as proof, he sits solemnly before the Emperor and in deference to Kurosawa's Rashomon, tells of how he vanquished the master killer's: Long Sky (Yen), Flying Snow (Cheung) and Broken Sword (Infernal Affairs' Leung Chiu Wai)

The Emperor questions Nameless in order to uncover a suspected deception and offers his own theory of how Nameless came to defeat the three great assassins.

It's in these flashbacks that the film takes full flight and leads to an unexpectedly intricate tale of sacrifice, love and loyalty.

Director Zhang (Raise the Red Lantern, The Road Home, Not One Less) Yimou presents each of Nameless' confrontations in strikingly vivid primary colours and incorporates a variety of elements (water, wind) to stunning effect, most notably Nameless' battle with Long Sky which propels forward to the sound of metal on metal, dripping rain and an old man's thrumming of an ancient Chinese lute. It is here also that the brilliance of Tan Dun's & Itzak Perlman's music comes to the fore, permeating the atmosphere with the spare, lonely strains of a Chinese violin. Christopher Doyle's sublime cinematography lends fluidity and grace to the films dynamism and in combination with the superlative costume and production design, creates an intoxicating visual tour-de-force.

The fact-based story of Emperor Qin and his would-be assassins was given a more realistic (but just as visually sumptuous) treatment in 1999 by an equally great Chinese filmmaker: Kaige (Farewell my Concubine) Chen.

Nevertheless, Hero's interpretation of this age-old story is vastly different in atmosphere, tone and aesthetic and ultimately this films inherent unreality is its greatest asset. The gentle stillness of the character interplay, the exquisite choreography and ferocity of battle, the seamless melding of the otherworldly wire work and the beautifully integrated computer effects create a spell that once cast, will hold the audience till its wonderfully unexpected conclusion.

Jarrod Walker

[Democat]

63. One of the stars of the movie supported the Tiananmen Square massacre!

Actor Tony Leung Chiu-wai even gave his open support to the massacre at the Tiananmen Square in 1989 as necessary in order to keep national stability.

http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/filmreviewhero.html

The movie is anti-individual!

[lazarus]

76. So?

So now all films represent the opinions of the actors involved?

I seriously don't want to have to check the politics of every actor in every film I intend to see from now on.

[Democat]

85. The person I replied to was talking about the cello player!

I responded with a comment about one of the actors. If you don't want to have to look at the actors backgrounds, then what does the cello player on the soundtrack have to do with it? :)

[lazarus]

123. I misunderstood

Apologies on that point. :hi:

[AP]

95. The point isn't that an actor in the film had this opinion.

The issue is that someone who really understood the material made a comment that sort of naturally follows from the film's argument.

It's not like he said, "I'm thinking about oreos. Because I love them."

He's familiar with the material and he made a statement which very naturally follows from the argument the film made.

[Northwind]

56. Utter Bullshit

Exactly how is the central message, of laying down personal grievance and acting for what one percieves as the good of the whole society, a right wing message? Since when do right wingers ever think of anyone but themselves, and maybe their immediate family.

And the cowboy and indian thing is just ludicrous. There is no cowboy, and no indian, in this film. Before Qin, tyhe 6 kingdoms were constantly at war. Yes, he was brutal, yes, he was ruthless, but you cannot judge the actions of such a mna by the standards of your own time. At that point in history, you could not lead if you were not brutal and ruthless, period.

Stop the knee-jerk bullshit and start using the reflexes inbetween your damn ears.

[AP]

61. Read the links in posts 43 and 44. They go into more detail and are

less generous to Yimou than I am.

[Northwind]

88. Read 'em, so what?

They are simply more detailed bullshit.

Did you think quoting a film review by an obvious twit would somehow bolster your own knee-jerk, ill-thought, reactionary opinion?

[AP]

94. I'm going to guess from that nonesense...

...that it does.

If you have a problem with Evans Chan's argument, or any argument, why don't you make your own argument about what the film is about.

And, psst, labeling it 'knee-jerk, ill-thought and reactionary" isn't REALLY and argument.

[InfoMinister]

57. Are You Serious?

It's a freakin' movie!

[not systems]

58. Very ironic statement given your name.

You don't think movies made in highly censored societies
that carry authoritarian messages are an accident do you?

[AP]

62. Excellent comment.

Ha ha.

[InfoMinister]

73. I Think Some People Take Films Too Seriously

IMO it's just a movie and it's probaby one I'll go see because I like martial arts films. I think that taking things like this so seriously to the point that you feel the film is propaganda is pretty silly. If you haven't noticed several right wing sites use quotes directly from this forum in order to discredit the Democratic party.

[not systems]

74. I thought it was a pretty good film...

but had a very unvarnished pro-authoritarian message.

I also liked Ivan the Terrible Part 1 but I don't
pretend that it was not a pro-Stalinist film.

As for right wingers using quotes to discredit the
Democratic party, give me a break.

Film is a medium for political propaganda and
has been for about 90 years or more.

Read up on it. It is a fact.

I should watch what I say?

Please.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305090211/002-0726450-4724010?v=glance

[AP]

92. and Battleship Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky are also great movies

but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to talk critically about their politics.

[AP]

93. Right wing sites aren't going to use cultural criticism to discredit...

...democrats.

It would cut a little too close to what they're trying to do in the first place.

[InfoMinister]

99. Conspiracies Are What I'm Talking About

Several sites have used quotes straight from here to talk about conspiracies people here have talked about. Also, they used a comment from this site where an individual hoped that more American soldiers would die in Iraq in order to make Americans support the Democrats.

Personally, I don't care that much for movies or TV. I'd rather read a book so I don't take movies seriously in the first place. I guess that's why I think these comments about some movie are kind of odd. IMO it sounds like you're trying to make a conspiracy of how someone is trying to indoctrinate people with some political view through a film.

[Ms. Clio]

107. And I could take quotes from the freepers or Lucianniacs

to bash the Republicans--so what?

And historians would tell you that you are dead wrong about the importance of movies--above all, they reflect and provide important information about the period in which they were made.

[InfoMinister]

110. It's Subjective

I'm tired of going to these sites or talking with a friend who starts bashing my party based on what one idiot says on a message board. To say that it doesn't matter is absolutely ridiculous. People like the individual who wanted US troops to die in Iraq make me absolutely sick and that quote went all over the place on blogs and other Republican sites.

Some people like to watch movies and reflect on their "deep" messages. Other people don't and don't find them as important as other people.

[Ms. Clio]

111. Some people are trained historians

Others clearly are not.

Your arguments demonstrate a certain lack of logic--if movies are subjective, then so is some right wing cretin's interpretation of a post on DU.

[InfoMinister]

113. That Doesn't Make Any Sense

A movie is entertainment. A post with an opinion isn't. Anyway, I care so little for looking at some deep meaning in some kung-fu movie I haven't even seen I don't want to argue about it anymore. Learn how to settle down and just let people like and dislike what they want.

[Ms. Clio]

114. A movie is not just entertainment, is the point

Was Uncle Tom's Cabin just "entertainment?" Was The Jungle simply entertainment? Was the movie To Kill a Mockingbird simply "entertainment?" Of course not.

Those authors and filmmakers were presenting OPINIONS.

No different, really, than a post that presents an opinion, especially if it's done in a clever or funny manner.

[InfoMinister]

115. I Read The Books

I didn't even watch the movies. Watching a two hour movie is the worst way to get what the authors were going for. It's not the best medium to really do something very deep. IMO most movies made now are junk food for the mind anyway.

BTW, I'm pretty old and set in my ways. I'm probably not going to give most movies the light of day anyway.

[Ms. Clio]

117. I don't know why you are determined to separate movies from other

cultural productions--books, movies, poetry, music--all are specific to the time and place where they were made, and all reveal important information about the culture that produced them that may have nothing to do with the actual content of the art itself.

[InfoMinister]

118. Why Do You Feel It's So Important To Change My Mind?

It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. I don't care for movies. They're not that important to me. Obviously, they're very important to you. I know several people who just don't like music at all. It has no importance to them and they absolutely cannot understand why so many people find music so important.

[Ms. Clio]

119. I'm not trying to change your mind, just pointing out flaws in your logic

You just seem to fail to realize that what you think is important may or may not have any relevance to what actually is important, from a historical and cultural perspective.

[InfoMinister]

120. I Say It's All Based on Perception

What is important is based on the individual and what they perceive as important. Everything you see is a part of history. Doesn't mean it's important to everyone.

[Ms. Clio]

121. Well, that's very postmodernist, isn't it?

And again I say, that what some freeper nutcase thinks about a post here on DU is also about perception, and is not important at all.

[cosmicvortex20]

64. Funny, Ive heard it describe as sympathetic with commies.

[AP]

71. Michael Tapper might say it's sympathetic with some of the fascistic

inclinations of the Communist gov't in China:

In his latest film, Hero, he goes all the way to not only make an apologetic film for the Communist dictatorship but adapts Fascist aesthetics to do so. Here I am not referring to the lazy definition of “Fascism” made by Pauline Kael for her attack on vigilante films such as Dirty Harry (1971) andDeath Wish (1974). What I am talking about is the historical ideology that founded corporative states ruled by almighty leaders such as Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler. This ideology has since,in practice, been adapted by dictatorships everywhere around the world despite what they officially call their ideology, for example Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and North Korea under Kim Il Sung.

http://www.filmint.nu/netonly/eng/filmreviewhero.html

[cosmicvortex20]

72. I think their is a better term for these type systems...

I use totalitarian... that covers both communist AND fascists.

[amjsjc]

65. Actually it's (probably) very Chinese...

This is a Chinese film based on a VERY old Chinese story, so the story reflects a worldview that's a bit alien to most Americans, who, after all, are schooled in the notion that liberty is a supreme virtue.

[AP]

70. See post 44 for Mr Chan's argument about that issue.

[amjsjc]

80. Yes, perfectly plausible

Though I'd just mention that the underlying argument being made by hero is one that's totally alien to American sensibilities. As someone else noted Qin's great failing wasn't that he was attempting to unite the kingdom, but rather that he failed to rule virtuiously.

[Tight_rope]

66. I saw that stupid movie today too...Totally BULLSHIT!

It was my damn sister that wanted to see it. So she had to pick me up, buy me dinner, pay for the movie ticket and buy all snacks. And I still pissed off that I had to sit there in the damn freezing sub-zero theater and watch fucking people flying in the air, and on water trying to kill each other with swords. And the really bad part that the people stab themselves several times in different times during the movie. At the end of the movie, I said in a very loud voice "Damn...it's about time they die".

[lazarus]

77. That's a shame

You're welcome to your opinion, but I thought this was one of the most beautiful films I've seen in years.

Did you read the subtitles? Did you catch that you were being shown the story from several viewpoints?

And you haven't experienced the wu xia school of film, apparently. Think of it as an American fantasy or superhero film. A very stylised and artistic form, it strives for something pure realism to find a deeper meaning.

I think I caught about three levels on this one, but there were assuredly more. I want to read up on the relevance of colour in Chinese art.

[Ms. Clio]

78. Review from the Asia Times

China's Hero, or maybe anti-hero
By Li YongYan

(snip)

Director Zhang provides a revisionist reworking of history that is an insult to the collective intelligence of historians. Now we know that according to Zhang, one of the most blood-thirsty emperors in China's history was the biggest hero of them all. After establishing his absolute reign by sword and arrow, Qin went on to vanquish the enemies in people's mind by burning books he didn't like and burying alive more than 400 scholars who dared to differ. That doesn't seem to bother Zhang. He is telling us that regardless of how unification comes about, and regardless of how it is maintained, a unified frontier is better than coexistence of smaller, different countries on the same planet. Perhaps then Adolf Hitler should be given a role in the sequel - the Fuhrer was a great unifier, too. Most of Europe was "unified" by his Panzer tanks at one time. By the same token, the Japanese Imperial Army was doing China a great favor when it marched into the warlord-infested country in the 1930s.

Of course, it may be unfair to criticize Zhang YiMo for toeing Beijing's party line pertaining to the Taiwan issue; the "hero" coincidentally eulogizes a unified but blood-tainted centralization system. Beijing is adamant against an independence-minded government in Taipei. Unification by any means is therefore holier than independence.

So director Zhang gets it and applies his ample talents to advocate the cause of the motherland. He takes the 2,200-year old story, kneads and prettifies it for a visual banquet of political correctness. To say Zhang is a political sycophant may be too harsh, but he surely has plenty of political smarts. He enjoyed international renown when his movie Red Lanterns won top awards at the Cannes Film Festival many years ago. But when the same event rejected his movie Not One Less as a mouthpiece for the government in 1999, he boycotted it. A Chinese film critic described his decision as a "praiseworthy patriotic action".

The rest here:

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/FI04Ad03.html

[not systems]

81. Exactly spot on.

"Perhaps then Adolf Hitler should be given a role in the sequel - the Fuhrer was a great unifier, too."

That was exactly the message that the film sends.

I'm guessing it is very in tune for the American mind also.

[Susang]

79. From the Salon.com Review that does not share your view

Another controversy has been brewing since the movie's 2002 release in China (where it is not only the most expensive movie ever made but the most successful) and Hong Kong. Zhang's detractors accuse him of everything from making a movie that kowtows to power to one that embraces fascistic nationalism. In the film, the King explains that he intends to conquer all of China's provinces for the purpose of uniting them, and he says that sometimes the happiness of the individual has to be sacrificed for the good of the many.


Apart from the offensiveness of charging a filmmaker whose films have been banned by the Chinese government -- and who has been prevented from traveling to collect the honors those films have garnered -- of suddenly licking the government's feet, the anti-"Hero" arguments don't take into account that the film ends not in a surge of patriotic feeling but on a pronounced mournful note of contingency and skepticism. And they ignore how the movie forces the King to live up to the ideology he so glibly spouts about sacrificing the happiness of the individual for the good of all. In our final glimpse of the King, the man has been dwarfed by the trappings of his power.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2004/08/27/hero/index_np.html

[AP]

90. That is an incredibly weak argument, and very circumstantial evidence.

He's basically discounting everything in the film just because he thinks it's not possible that the director's biography is one that would lead him to make a piece of propaganda (and, as noted below, he skips over a few biographical details to make that argument).

The letters to Charles Taylor following the publication of this review make this point well:

The notion that an artist, oppressed by his government, might turn out works in honor of that government is no insult -- it's a common theme of history. What's Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony if not a "response to just criticism" by Stalin?


"Hero" is both a beautifully filmed movie and a really frightening piece of fascist propaganda. (No contradiction there -- one can admire the aesthetics of a Leni Riefenstahl film and loathe the message.) It tells us that the highest ideals are peace and country, and for that reason, the King should be spared. That the King is a violent, paranoid thug, bringing peace and unity only by the sword, is all but forgotten in the movie's rush to judgment that a unified China is a great goal regardless of the cost in human life (ironically, even the hero's own).



A second letter says this:

The most damning thing about this fable and this movie is that it pushes the argument that to have peace in China, there needs to be a strong, autocratic figure. It supports and validates bloody and oppressive regimes that are in power. Better this, goes the reasoning, then to have chaos.


What this movie does not do is point out that this kind of peace is temporary. Futhermore, it closes any avenues for discovering whether it's even possible to have peace without all-centralized power and mass suffering. Because the filmmaker is pushing party lines, he is tacitly acting as an instrument of the government. The ambiguity that Taylor alludes to simply does not exist.


There is one and only one way to understand what the movie's about. While the story style may seem elliptical, the message it conveys is clear. The primary hero in the movie is Jet Li's character, who gives up his chance to kill the emperor, and therefore sacrifices his own life. He represents everyman, or rather every Chinese person. The emperor, as portrayed in the movie, must also thus be considered a hero because he must continue fighting against enemies in order to keep China united and therefore can never experience peace. Both men (supposedly) do this because of love for the country. To be Chinese is to love one's country. To be a hero, one must sacrifice for the country. If you do not act in accord with this, you are not Chinese. It's not just a good yarn. It's dangerous propaganda.

http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2004/08/31/walsh/index1.html

[Susang]

101. I can play the "support my point of view" game too

At the movie's heart lies the idea that one man's cause (or woman's cause, since this film, like "Hidden Dragon," gives women equal status) is another's folly. One assassin has reservations about killing the king, seeing altruism in the Qin leader's desire to unite the nation. This stance, which leads to unnecessary bloodshed, never quite resonates from a storytelling standpoint, since the picture has established the king as mad with power. Yet it works in a broader ideological context. People kill and are killed for dubious beliefs every day. "Hero" takes a wide-angle view of heroism, one in which dying for a lost cause is just as noble as killing for a winning one.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/27/DDG478DLQJ27.DTL

In the past, Zhang's films have been publicly censured in his homeland, and he was refused an exit visa to attend the Academy Awards when his sumptuous 1990 drama "Ju Dou" was nominated for best foreign language film, the first film from mainland China to be so honored. (The ban against showing "Ju Dou" and 1991's "Raise the Red Lantern" in China has since been lifted.) But unlike those films, which did in fact disguise contemporary concerns in historical period garb, the politics of "Hero" remain in the eye of the beholder. All of it will remain in the mind's eye of anyone who sees it for a very long time

http://ae.freep.com/entertainment/ui/michigan/movie.html?id=165025&reviewId=15941

For a quarter-century, from early Bruce Lee to late Jackie Chan, martial arts was the pulse to which Hong Kong films ticked and kicked. Those were expressions of the industry's vital adolescence. Hero shows how the same vitality can serve a thoughtful, resonant, mainland maturity. This is a story of noble insurgence against noble fidelity, and of the ways love may find its fulfillment only in death. Zhang Yimou may have dipped his cinematic pen in "mere" genre, but in doing so, he has inscribed a masterpiece.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021223-400044,00.html

Hero is alive with Chinese history, electrified by the dizzying sensuality of its convoluted love triangle, and ennobled by its acknowledgement of basic Taoist principles (indeed, trust is the film’s weapon of choice). Heavily psychological, the color-coded set pieces are paced like musical numbers and suggest the film’s art department and superstar cinematographer Chris Doyle are feng shui enthusiasts, and while green curtains seem to exist solely so they could fall deliriously to the ground, there’s still an overwhelming sense here that the power of the sword is inextricably linked to the forces of color and nature. Hero is elliptical, primal, radically disjointed, and female-empowering. Everything a wu xia should be…and then some.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=659

While comparisons to Crouching Tiger might be expected, this is an allegory with its own integrity, told with a spirited and accomplished ensemble, and it should be regarded on its own terms. It includes a political polemic Yimou is pushing, and one might hope the right people receive the message about the comparative efficacies between tyranny and governance… a provocative thought to pose in such a contentious framework.

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/0/53a1e5c313d19bdc88256cdd0007f8bc?OpenDocument

[AP]

102. What's your argument about the film?

These reviews are all simply descriptive and don't take on the cultural context or significance at all (except for Terry Lawson who merely aludes to controversy vaguely in the last paragraph).

I think to respond to the arguments made about the politics of the film, you'd need to find someone who takes on the politics directly.

[Susang]

104. "Simply descriptive"?

Every single one of those paragraphs I posted voices an opinion regarding the politics or moral "message" of the movie. I'm quite surprised that you can call them "simply descriptive", particularly the ones from the SF Gate and the Detroit Free Press, as they seem to address the issue quite directly. I apologize if those aren't direct enough for you.

My argument regarding the film is that from everything I have seen and heard, the individual viewer seems to take away exactly what they want to from the ending, as determined by their individual ideological bent. You stated that the message was "very right wing". A Catholic review thought it was very Christ-like. Pacifists have claimed it for their own, as have authoritarians. Pro-Bush supporters point to it as an example of what this country needs to do. Anti-Bush reviewers have regarded it as a cautionary tale. To me, so many diverging viewpoints indicates a complex and meaningful piece of work that deserves a much more in-depth review than was initially given here on this thread.

[AP]

106. That isn't really a counterargument.

You're basically saying that everyone's entitled to interpret the movie as they please, but then you're having a very hostile reaction to me interpreting it as I please.

I acknowledge that others have other interpretations. Are you saying mine is less legitimate? If you are, then that sort of undermines your argument that everyone can see in it what they please.

As for relative merits of different interpretations, that depends on the strength of the individual arguments I guess. And saying that different people have different interpretations doesn't really say much about the relative merits of the different arguments.

As for the SFChron and DFP reviews, I still don't think those are very sophisticated analyses of the politics of the film. They spend every paragraph but one describing colors and fight scenes, and in the single paragraphs on message, they say little.

[Susang]

109. Interpret as you will

As for my having a "hostile reaction" to your interpretion, I would challenge you to point out at what point I have been hostile to you in any of my posts. I do not consider posting information and opposing views as being "hostile". Challenging, perhaps, but certainly not hostile.

Also, if you could point out where I said that your viewpoint was less legitimate than others, I would greatly appreciate it, as I do not believe I said or implied any such thing.

I am not merely saying that people have different interpretations of this film, I have shown it. The relative merits of their different arguments are up to the individual to interpret and judge. Discussion, controversy and interpretation is the very nature and essence of art. You see one thing, I see another, DUer X sees an entirely different film. Who knows, the crafty director may have just intended it this way, maybe not. Very sly and subversive, these artists, often working under the radar to accomplish their goals.

[AP]

116. I think what those reviews show...

...is that some people can enjoy the film and comment on it without addressing the politics of the film. Hey, that's fine. But they don't address the argument that the film does take a position on empire and on contemporary Chinese politics.

Incidentally, even if Yimou was trying to be subversive, he may have made a mistake and encoruaged a completely different reaction. And that's worth discussing too.

[Susang]

124. Then you and I disagree

I've pared down the paragraphs in the snippets of reviews I posted to the sentences that dealt with the political message of the film, both in the specific and the general. I think these sentences do address the politics of the film. The reviews, however, review the entire work, not just one aspect of it.

As far as the director, his next film is based on Wang Shuo's book "It Looks Beautiful", which is about the author's experiences in a state-own kindergarten in the 60s. Shuo is a very controversial author and his books are wildly popular. He pionneered the Beijing "hooligan"style of fiction when he began writing in the late eighties. His books were banned in China in 1996 and his material is hardly right wing. http://www.asianweek.com/081597/arts.html

For anyone requiring specific links, please see my post above:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2311758&mesg_id=2317038&page=

"It includes a political polemic Yimou is pushing, and one might hope the right people receive the message about the comparative efficacies between tyranny and governance… a provocative thought to pose in such a contentious framework."

"This is a story of noble insurgence against noble fidelity, and of the ways love may find its fulfillment only in death"

"But unlike those films, which did in fact disguise contemporary concerns in historical period garb, the politics of "Hero" remain in the eye of the beholder."

"Hero is alive with Chinese history, electrified by the dizzying sensuality of its convoluted love triangle, and ennobled by its acknowledgement of basic Taoist principles (indeed, trust is the film’s weapon of choice)"

"At the movie's heart lies the idea that one man's cause (or woman's cause, since this film, like "Hidden Dragon," gives women equal status) is another's folly."

""Hero" takes a wide-angle view of heroism, one in which dying for a lost cause is just as noble as killing for a winning one."

[AP]

125. I just don't think that's much of an argument.

Saying "the politics of "Hero" remain in the eye of the beholder" doesn't really say much about the various arguments about the politics of the film. Is there any mention of imperialism or about the government in that review. No. It's mostly about style and about "heroism."

And I think that where we're disagreeing is that you seem to see this movie as primarily art, and I'm more interested in the way it address politics and culture.

This is actually a debate that goes on in film studies, if I understand correctly.

There are a lot of prominent film scholars who are in love with the art of film so much so that they're very criticial of people who try to talk about the politics of films. I think they feel as if pointing out conservative arguments in films makes them feel guilty for loving the films on a more aesthetic level. There's room for both arguments. An aesthetic argument doesn't preclude a political argument.

[KoKo]

108. Thanks Susang...The movie has incredible symbolism. I'm planning on

seeing it again. Thanks for pointing out that other reviewers have mentioned the complexity of the movie and symbolism...in that one can read to an extent what one wants to into it.

I particularly liked, as I mentioned in a post above, the use of the Kyoto Drummers and Itzak Perleman's cello. That was incredibly symbolic to me of a "reaching out" to find just the right score to reflect a message in the movie.

I could probably watch it several times, there's so much there that's interesting to ponder...:shrug:

[Susang]

112. It usually takes me several viewings

Before I can truly form my opinion. The first time, I just enjoy the movie, letting the film kind of wash over me. The second time, I get very critical, looking for plot holes, errors, wrong notes, what have you. Its kind of my "bashing" viewing. I also find that even though I'm specifically looking for problems, I usually end up noticing nuance as well. All subsequent views usually just force me to notice things I didn't in the first two viewings. In great movies, this is wonderful. In bad movies, excrutiating.

I agree with you regarding the score, it is phenomenal. :-)

[otohara]

130. I Need To See It Again, Because It Read So Damn Fast

instead of washing over me like you say, it flew over my head...

[NewJeffCT]

137. Chinese culture is a lot different than US culture

It has long been regarded as normal for parents & grandparents to sacrifice on behalf of their children & grandchildren with the unwritten rule that the children then take care of their aging grandparents. They will sacrifice their well-being for the greater good of the family. A few years back, during the anthrax terror, a woman from Connecticut died - I think she was like 87 years old. She lived alone despite having a daughter. My wife (originally from China) was shocked that a woman that age would live alone when she had living relatives. I explained to her that Americans value their independence and often do not like it when relatives visit for more than a few days. However, my wife's mom thought nothing of leaving her job, her husband, her grandson & other daughter to fly halfway across the world to help us take care of our newborn daughter for the first year of her life, despite barely speaking any English beyond "hello" when she came here. I don't think my parents would have done the same had I moved to China with my wife.

I saw 'Hero' 18 months ago, so my memory could be a bit fuzzy. My interpretation of the movie was that Nameless was persuaded by Qin to give up his quest to kill him in the hope for a chance at peace. He was asked to sacrifice himself and his country for the greater good of one China - a relative being asked to sacrifice for the greater good of the Chinese family. If the kingdoms stayed divided, they would continually be at war and not strong. Together, they had a chance at peace. I don't remember the movie interpreting events that came after the failed assassination attempt, but I am guessing that many Chinese would then say that Qin abused his chance at peace by killing so many after he had his great chance at peace.

[Susang]

82. For those who care, some biographical info on the director

Born in 1950 to a Xian family on the wrong side of the changing political tide, he was sent to do factory work during the Cultural Revolution and made so little money that (yes, the legend is true) he had to sell his blood at a clinic to buy his first camera. In the late 1970s, he somehow wangled his way into the Beijing Film Academy, even though he was past the cutoff age, and graduated as part of the prestigious Fifth Generation, China's oddly-named first post-Cultural Revolution class of filmmakers. He proceeded to make his mark initially as the cinematographer for "One and Eight" and the brilliant "Yellow Earth," and then as a renowned director beginning with 1987's bold "Red Sorghum." Only, no one in China actually saw his most famous works initially, because "Ju Dou," "Raise the Red Lantern," and "To Live" were all banned by censors at home.


Labeled a dissident early on, he missed many international events at the insistence of his government. Then, just as unfairly, he was accused of toeing the party line in films such as "The Story of Qiu Ju." His extended extramarital affair with actress/muse Gong Li lost him character points. And these days, because films such as "Not One Less" and "Happy Times" have delivered less bite, he's increasingly called a sellout -- a criticism he chafes at through measured remarks.


"The view that I've changed in the last few years is quite a widespread opinion," he begins patiently, speaking through his friend and occasional interpreter, filmmaker Carma Hinton. "Because people read political messages in my films, they expect me to be a political fighter who's always on the front lines. So whenever they cannot read into my works a kind of dissident view or political interpretation that they read into earlier films, they become disappointed.


"I keep saying that I'm the same director. I'm an ordinary film director, I'm not a political fighter," he continues. " is so prone to having political concerns, with so little real concerns for individual human beings."

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2004/08/22/heroic_journey?pg=full

"My motivation for the film came out of my love for classical Chinese literature," Zhang said in an interview earlier this year while in Boston to accept an award. Soft-spoken, with closely cropped black hair and dressed in khakis and sneakers, Zhang, 54, speaks through an interpreter. She is Carma Hinton, an American who is a Chinese scholar and who has directed several films about China through her Long Bow Group of Boston. (Hinton was instrumental in getting the travel-shy Zhang to agree to the U.S. visit.)

Classic Chinese martial arts literature, he explains, has little to do with Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. "It concerns a higher realm, a spiritual realm; in literature, the battle is often between the highest masters, and the outcome is not one killing the other but one withdrawing and abstaining from killing," he explains. "It is about overpowering the other side not through force but through moral and spiritual principles. It is about peace, not war."

http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-0408210377aug22,0,3579937.story?coll=mmx-movies_heds

[Democat]

86. Other biographies note that he eventually gives in to the powers that be

Read some of the links higher up in the thread - some other biographical info points to the director giving in to the wishes of the government when he is challenged.

Would you think it was ok to make Hitler into a hero?

[Bat Boy]

98. You lose!

First person to bring up Hitler loses.

Sorry.

[Democat]

127. The movie makes a hero of another murderous megalomaniac leader

I was not the first to bring up Hitler, either - check the quotes from some of the articles listed above. :)

[DrWeird]

136. Actually, it makes a hero of a murderous assassin.

The Emperor remains the villian throughout the movie, it's just that, unlike ever Hollywood movie, the villian wins in the end. For crying out loud, he's completely in black.

[Susang]

100. Yes, obviously this director is exactly the same as Leni Riefenstahl

:eyes:

Are there no shades of gray to you at all? This is a piece of art, flawed by the director's own admission, and yet you want to crucify him because it does not appear to say exactly what you want it to say. You also seem to believe that because he did not sufficiently stand up to his communist masters, at least enough for your tastes, that supports your point of view, even though some of his films were banned in his own country.

If you read the director's words and history, yet still believe that he intended to make a pro-facist, pro-war movie, then you are deliberately choosing to misinterpret his art, which is your right. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you blindly.

[sir_captain]

138. You have to remember

that most of the posters in this thread have zero knowledge about Zhang Yimou (who I consider to be the finest director in the world today) and are, to put it crudely, talking out of their ass.

The idea that he is in any way similar to Leni Riefenstahl, is, as you have said, ridiculous.

[Columbia]

83. Hate the politics, but love the art

That's how I see it.

[0007]

87. "Hero" is not as mainstream as "Crouching Tiger"

[Capt_Nemo]

89. Usualy I'm at odds with you on other subjects, but

You are absolutely right on this one, AP.
I saw it in Lisbon some months ago, and I totaly agree with you
that it is an apology of totalitarian rule.
Basicaly it says that dissidents should "get over it".
The chinese communist leaders should be very pleased with Yimou...

[jpgray]

105. Does it feel tacked on? Some sort of Beijing influence on the film?

I don't know much about how free the Chinese film scene is these days to lay out indirect criticism of the government.

[RedDragon]

132. I heard

F911 was left wing....

[Vickers]

134. How so? I would say it is more anti-Bush, who just happens to be

a Republican. Oh, and a dumb shit (I almost forgot!!!).

MM does not even try to give the impression of being "fair and balanced," silly!

:crazy:

[RichardRay]

135. Assumptions about who the Hero is?

When I saw it I came away with the question about just who the 'Hero' was supposed to be. Certainly there's one argument that it's supposed to be the Emperor, but it could equally be Nameless, or Broken Sword, or Snow. I thought that if the movie had a message (in addition to the gorgeous cinemaphotography) it was about the ambiguous nature of heroism.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY