Dan's comment on my last post reminded me of something. In it he brought up Hero, a Chinese movie which came out in 2002.
From a Western standpoint Hero follows in the footsteps of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (even though Crouching Tiger wasn't the first of its kind in Asian cinema, it was the first successful [undubbed] Chinese fight movie in the U.S. in nearly a decade and it opened the way for movies like Hero and House of Flying Daggers.)
I had mixed feelings about Crouching Tiger. On the one hand, it was gorgeous. It had incredible music, scenery, and cinematography. Its acting was superb and its fight scenes well done. On the other hand, the fights were too long and the movie's message ambiguous.
For this reason I approached Hero with trepidation--only worsened since the movie starred Jet Li. I'm sure Jet Li is a great martial artist, but you'd never know since he uses wires to do his stunts. Whatever appreciation you have for his fighting abilities is downplayed by the way he flies around like Mary Martin playing Peter Pan. Even so, Hero was marvelously choreographed. I'll give it that: Hero was better for its fighting while Crouching Tiger was better for its plot.
My real hang up with Hero was that its director was Zhang Yimou. Yimou was, I once felt, one of China's most important directors. He made a number of impressive movies prior to Hero, including Ju Dou, Raise the Red Lantern, To Live, and Not One Less. Each of these had an underlying political message critical of the Chinese government which led to him being punished and censored in China. Despite this he continued making political movies.
Hero also had a political message...only this time it came to the opposite conclusion. Jet Li, the nameless "hero" of the story, has the opportunity to assassinate the brutal warlord, the King of Qin who was fated to unify China. Only Jet Li doesn't carry out the assassination. He sees that the warlord's bloodshed is necessary...that even his own death is necessary...and that China's unity is more important. Applying this message to modern China, where dissidence is brutally crushed, it would seem that Zhang Yimou is advocating that his countrymen overlook their Chinese government's faults for the purpose of nationalism. He's backsliding on his previous revisionism: that a Chinese individual is important.
Maybe China's censors eventually got to Yimou or maybe he's become Hollywood-ized. I haven't seen House of Flying Daggers (also by Zhang Yimou). I'd be interested to hear if it comes to the same conclusion.
7 years ago
5 comments:
You bring up an interesting point, though I think you’re simplifying it when you say he's "backsliding" on his idea of the importance of the individual and that his reason for this must be that either the censors got to him or he's been Hollywoodized.
Though you might be correct, this is another way of looking at it:
Obviously, his message changed. This movie does show the other side of the argument he’s been making for years: that nothing is as important as each individual’s life, rights, and happiness. But what if his reason for this change is because he looked deeply into the eyes of his enemy, an enemy he has justifiably hated for many years for it's crimes against the individual, and found instead, understanding in their reasoning (perhaps what they saw was a necessary sacrifice for a greater good for all - not just for power or wealth)?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not actually trying to defend the Chinese government as much as to say that the issue at hand could be Zhang Yimou's personal journey (as an indivual and as a filmmaker) to try to find peace, understanding, and unity in an issue that has previously brought only hatred, confusion, and separation of his country.
Some will want to simplify this kind of personal journey and say that he's selling out on his ideals. However, this also sounds a little like those who argue: "Don't forgive your enemies...that’s weakness! Don't compromise when you’re right! If you are right, then stand firm, even to the death of yourself or myself or anyone else who stands in the way." We've seen this kind of thinking destroy life on both sides of any issue. (Case in Point: the Middle East)
I am not arguing that people shouldn't stand up for what they believe in. However, it’s a balance between that and trying to avoid this “But I’m right and they’re wrong!” attitude that can lead us into such terrible warfare throughout the world (both on a grand scale between peoples and countries and on a small scale between individuals)…even when we ARE right. I don’t necessarily believe in “Peace at any price”, however…so, where to find that balance? I haven’t figured it out. Not even close.
However, we have here what could be Zhang Yimou trying to find a more compassionate, wiser view – which includes trying to see through his governments’ eyes -- being simplified into weakness due to pressure from the censors, or from enticement by the glamour and money of Hollywood, and I'm uncomfortable with that simplification.
Of course, in the end, you may be right about his motivations. And in that case...the I think you're justified in your disappointment. I guess I just prefer to look at it this way.
Another evidence for this is, for me, how much heart there was in this movie. It wasn't a cold argument for the case of "individual's not important". We had a variety of interesting, rich characters who were vastly important - we saw their love, their courage, their integrity, their wisdom, etc. These were noble characters. To me, that feeling contiued throughout the entire show - on through to the end as we strained with "nameless" in order to find the forgiveness and understanding which kept him from following through with the assassination (which is, only more murder, isn't it?). To me, this reflects depth, rather than the simplicity of selling out or being intimidated by the censors.
An interesting argument. One, I admit, I hadn't even considered.
I totally agree that -- even if he's reversing his politics -- Yimou does it in a very deep manner. His characters only arrive at their final decisions through great introspection and wisdom.
I'll have to put more thought into it...
Great comment.
An interesting point about Hero, Phee, and an interesting rebuttal, Marci.
I don't think that the idea of Nameless's vying for a united China shows Yimou "backsliding" on his position. It is possible for Yimou to have a deep love for his country and its heritage without condoning the present administration.
There is a strong parallel with that sentiment over here these days, after all. I sure don't agree with a lot of what Bush and Co. are up to, but that doesn't mean I don't think the U.S. is a great country with a wonderful heritage ... and some missteps. Yet I can celebrate the democratic achievements of the founding fathers without simultaneously condoning what was done to the Native Americans.
And what's up with the constant criticism of the wire work? Am I the only gweilo who thinks that the superhuman flying around is cool? Man, I love that stuff!
Re House of Flying Daggers: pretty, good fights, but not as good as Hero or Crouching Tiger.
To keep it short: in every respect I think Hero is the better picture.
I was moved by it in a way few pictures, and certanly not by Tiger, accomplish.
Post a Comment