[deanis45]

I am an English teacher in China and my job involves encouraging my students to talk about a variety of topics.

When I reach the topic of films I invariably will talk about Chinese films and that will invariably bring me to the movie "Hero" by Zhang yi mou.

Almost none of my students like Hero or its sister "House of flying daggers".

But from this forum and other sources it seems apparent that unlike the Chinese many foreigners really love these movies.

So my question to you Hero afficionados before I reveal any of my own opinions.

WHY?
Why do you like this movie?

The question is are movies like Hero opening up Chinese culture to the international public or are they representative of everything bad about Chinese cinema?

Please reply anybody who has an opinion.

[gato]

What didn't your students like about "Hero" or "House of flying daggers"?

[ala]

House of Flying Daggers was too sappy (like daytime Korean soaps) and had a plot as predictable as a $1 love triangle paperback; and the shameless political message in Hero was too strong for many Chinese with a little bit of intelligence to swallow. Most Chinese today just want movies that provide entertaining daily portrayals of modern life (focusing on its instability and alienation, including the modern relationship). In many cases, American blockbusters achieve this better than a lot of the over-the-top artsy or "magical" (flying in bamboo trees) Chinese films lately.

IMO, Zhang Yimou is a subpar director who got famous through portrayals of Chinese exoticism.

[Song You Shen]

Hero, is by far my favorite movie of all time. The cinematography alone is, hands-down, the best in any movie that I have ever seen. I don't agree with people that get all paranoid about the political jargon that is portrayed through the movie. Every movie that is out there has it's own political agenda (as can be seen in EVERY single american made movie). The main theme of Hero is that it is better than one man suffer, than an entire nation (at least that's what I gathered from it). Which I feel is correct. Now, if you're looking through that in an American Political view, it's not correct, because we are very egocentric (meaning we think everyone must be equal.... which is simply not true, and will never be [there will always be someone stronger, smarter, richer, etc]). If you're looking at this from a Communistic view, it's correct, because of certain "ideals" of communism (it's better that the minority suffer, rather than the majority)... which is a twisted form of what the movie is conveying.

The word choice that is used in Hero was great. It was simple, slow, but very effective in communicating what needed to be said. The movie was made well, and the sequence of events were great to watch. While some might disagree, I felt that the storyline was great. It had so many aspects to it: strategy, honor, disgrace, revenge, forgiveness, loss, etc. All of these feelings could be felt (if you were able to watch the movie without objection). I have watched so many American movies in my life, and I get sick of the "american" propaganda that is portrayed through the movies... this seems to be the same kind of stuff that Chinese people feel about Chinese movies.

I thoroughly enjoy watching chinese movies, and I feel like I see something new about the culture with each movie I watch (some are more direct than others). I am not sure why you would show a Chinese movie to a chinese class... I would imagine that American movies would be more benifitial to their development on learning english.

just my 2 cents

Youshen

[deanis45]

I suppose my students think that these movies are just plain silly and I am inclined to agree with them.

Well its not just they are silly. There are many silly Chinese movies which I do respect(though not so much enjoy) such as "Kung Fu Hustle" but this is a comedy.

The problem is that they are silly, absurd but take themselves so seriously.
How can you have one very slightly built Maggie Cheung demolishing an army of well armoured soldiers and then try to make a serious political statement.

And house of flying daggers was reminiscent of the worst kind of Korean love drama.

The cinematography in the movies may be attractive. But isn't this the sort of thing we can find in any shampoo commercial. Beautiful cinematography alone does not make a good movie.

The greatest Far Eastern fighting movie remains "Seven samurai" and why? Because it has believable battle scenes which really grip the viewer. I would like to see such movies made in China.

But I must say I was once a great admirer of Zhang Yi mou's work and I would always defend him against his detractors when I met them(And in China there are many).

There is a lot to be said for such movies such as "Raise the red lantern" "Ju Dou" "Shanghai triad" these movies were moving and real.

The movie "Happy times" encouraged me to think that Zhang yi Mou was changing his film making style to deal with contemporary topics.

But ever since the sentimental stew that was "wo de mama baba" his movies have degenerated into everything bad about Chinese cinema.

And when people say for example that he is "an exploiter of chinese exoticism" I have difficulty defending him.

Deanis45

[gato]

I liked Zhang's earlier movies. I don't think they were trading on Chinese exoticism any more than any of your usual Kungfu fare, but it's probably true that many in the Western audience wouldn't be nearly as enthusiastic if it weren't for the exoticism. Many of his early movies like "Ju Dou" and "Raise the Red Lantern" were banned in China, I heard. He may be watering down his movies to make them more politically acceptable and, in doing so, tilting too much in the other direction, making moralistic movies reminiscent of the old days.

Chen Kaige seems to be continuing to be making the morally complex movies that he made in the 1980s and 90s. I liked his "Yellow Earth" and "The Emperor and the Assassin" (same story as "Hero", but closer to actual history), but not "Farewell My Concubine" because I thought it was too over-the-top. We'll see how his new $35 million "The Promise" (Wu Ji) is.

Have you seen Wang Xiaoshuai's Shanghai Dreams (青红)? http://www.chinese-f...read.php?t=5115

His last movie, "Beijing Bicycle", was banned, but this one apparently has been showing in theaters around China. It won the Jury Prize, the third highest prize, at Cannes this year.

The directors Zhang Yuan ("Green Tea", "Beijing Bastards"), Lu Xuechang 路學長 ("How Steel is Forged"《鋼鐵是怎樣煉成的》), Lu Yue 吕乐 ("Mr Zhao"《赵先生》) and Tian Zhuangzhuang ("The Blue Kite", "Delamu") are interesting, too.

[rockytriton]

I loved Hero for it's amazing use of color to help tell the story from different angles. It was a very artistic movie. If you want to watch a movie just to see people jumping around and karate chopping each other, then you should stick to old bruce lee movies I think.

[Outofin]

Zhang Yimou is by all means a film master. The story of Hero is artificial, but I can’t say the director is not a good story-teller, because he made other movies with great story-telling. But the problem is, he doesn’t understand Kung Fu movie, maybe even now. He mixed his sense of art with Kung Fu and created Hero, which was… totally odd. If you didn’t see enough Kung Fu movies before seeing this one, you perhaps wouldn’t understand how I felt. Many of my friends don’t like the movie. I think it’s a rarely seen movie. I guess if more and more movies like Hero are produced, Chinese will get used to them and start to enjoy them. (And the Crouching THD? No, we could easily identify its Hollywood origin. It was not very popular among Chinese.)

[Song You Shen]

"Over-the-top" is a relative term. Let it be known that I am only defending Hero here... (the other movies were ok, but nothing special). In Hero, the movie did not centralize around martial arts (hense the few, and far between martial arts sequences). If you were more focused on this being about how well the fight seens need to be choreographed, then go watch "Fist of Legend" (in my mind, one of the greatest choreographed movies ever). The cinematography in Hero was not "over-the-top" in any sense. It's purpose was to be thought provoking... which it was. The whole movie was about flashbacks, as seen in the mind of the narrator... each flashback having it's own distinct feel and touch.

As far as realistic, it's not supposed to be, in the sense of what might happen on a day-to-day basis. However, this was legend. As with most legends, characters and events are portrayed with wide-eyes (many things becoming much more fantastic than really happened). Making an argument that says it is totally unrealistic for Maggie Chueng to rage through an entire army of soldiers is the same type of argument I could make about how everyone in the movie is beautiful (i'm sure back then, people weren't ALL that pretty). These types of things are over-exaggerated on purpose.

Youshen

[in_lab]

I tried to find some info about CTHD's performance in Chinese markets. Outfoin's reaction was typical. Chinese audiences love Hollywood blockbusters, but don't want to see "Western influences" in a Chinese movie.

Quote

Critic Reeve Wong mentioned that the film actually lost some 4 million dollars in the Chinese market and attributed this to a "structural crisis" within the Chinese distribution system. In addition, the film also represented something of an "identity crisis" which the Chinese distributors or the Mainland audience could not work out.

from another source

Quote

The film "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," for example, has been criticized by some domestic audiences as being "not really Chinese" because the director modified the film's style to suit Western tastes.

Other comments: I agree with Youshen about Fist of Legend. And as for the cinematography of House of the Flying Daggers, I think cinematographer Christopher Doyle deserves a lot of the credit, just as he deserves a lot of the credit for the success of Wong Kar Wai's films.

The original comment in this thread was why do people like the movie, not what makes it a great film. I don't think any of these movies have it all, but if you can't see past the flawed storytelling and appreciate the cinematography of Hero and House of the Flying Daggers, then you're missing out.

[gato]

in_lab said:

I tried to find some info about CTHD's performance in Chinese markets. Outfoin's reaction was typical. Chinese audiences love Hollywood blockbusters, but don't want to see "Western influences" in a Chinese movie.

Some may say that they don't like it because it's not really Chinese, but what makes a movie "Chinese," anyway? There's one formula for a Chinese movie.

I think a couple of factors are at play here, at least for Crouching Tiger. The first is that the Chinese audience has seen a lot more kung fu movies and aren't so easily impressed by fancy fighting. The second is that its dialogue was pretty cheesy and didn't have much sense of humor, unlike many successful HK kung fu flicks. Michelle Yeoh had difficulty saying her lines in Mandarin, which didn't help. Without the acrobatics, would you have been impressed by the old-fashioned feminist story underneath? Since the fight scenes were nothing new for most Chinese, that's the kind of movie they would have seen.

[in_lab]

In the heyday of kung fu films, audiences had seen plenty of kung fu films, but still wanted more. The problem now isn't just that Chinese audiences have a higher threshhold for kung fu excitement, it's that they can't take kung fu seriously. When Zhang Yimou and Ang Li made their kung fu movies, they were capturing the excitement they felt for kung fu movies in their youth, but which Chinese audiences today don't have. I don't know if that's changed since CTHD was released. I think that the rest of the world's enthusiastic reception of it must have had some positive effect.

As for the feminist story underneath, the story's ending is vague enough to allow for whatever interpretation you please, but I intrepreted the story as illustrating the futility of the naive independence of Zhang Ziyi's character. My favorite part of the movie was Michelle Yoeh. But considering how she breaks down when her love dies, I don't see her as portraying feminism.

[Song You Shen]

in_lab said:

In the heyday of kung fu films, audiences had seen plenty of kung fu films, but still wanted more. The problem now isn't just that Chinese audiences have a higher threshhold for kung fu excitement, it's that they can't take kung fu seriously. When Zhang Yimou and Ang Li made their kung fu movies, they were capturing the excitement they felt for kung fu movies in their youth, but which Chinese audiences today don't have. I don't know if that's changed since CTHD was released. I think that the rest of the world's enthusiastic reception of it must have had some positive effect.

Ding, Ding, Ding.... in_lab nailed it on the head... these movies are all very serious movies, and if you can't watch these movies with that serious-ness in mind, then they will not be enjoyable, because they will never meet your pre-conceived expectations. I really agree with what in_lab said, and I think that is why the rest of the world loved these movies... because the rest of the world still has an excitment of watching these types of movies.

in_lab said:

As for the feminist story underneath, the story's ending is vague enough to allow for whatever interpretation you please, but I intrepreted the story as illustrating the futility of the naive independence of Zhang Ziyi's character. My favorite part of the movie was Michelle Yoeh. But considering how she breaks down when her love dies, I don't see her as portraying feminism.

And this is one way that western culture is penetrating into the eastern culture... I just hope that feminism doesn't get too out of wack in China, like it is here in America.

Youshen

[Outofin]

The discussion is going more deeply. I saw some misunderstandings between us. Let me write my second post here. I’d like to take it less politically.

Before I say the parts I don’t like about Hero, I’d like to say I give the movie a A in general. I’d recommend everyone to see it even for those who probably won’t like it. It’s worth seeing. And I think we all have reached a consensus that the cinematography is astonishing.

I loved watching it until the end. The end ruined the movie. Surrenderism! The movie is titled Hero. But the hero in Zhang Yimou’s story surrenders to a ferocious dynasty and has himself killed. That is NOT our hero. There is a discrepancy between foreign and Chinese audiences. It’s quite technical so no one is wrong here. Foreigners could buy the story that it happened in ancient time and the emperor was a great ruler and protected his people after what happened in the story, like what the movie said in the end. But, Chinese know Qin was one of the most ruthless dynasties in our history. To those who don’t know about the history, the story is a well written story. To me, Zhang Yimou made up the story. This is what bothers me the most. This is not my hero!

There are still many things that Chinese audiences would get different perceptions. For example, the inner connection between martial art and calligraphy (or anything else) has been over-stated by too many books. It’s a dull point that the movie tries to make to me. Some friends said, when they saw that the king said he got the true meaning of the calligraphy of Broken Sword was peace, they laughed.

I agree that many of us can’t take Kung Fu movies seriously. But meanwhile, there’s another opposite trend. The fiction novels of Jin Yong, which to me are equivalent to Star Wars fictions in America, are taken too seriously. A noticeable number of people insist he’s the greatest writer of the century. If he is, it would be a shame to all intellectuals.

Once again, I think Chinese didn't like it was mostly because it came from nowhere. It kind of created a new sub-genre on its own. But I guess peole will start to love this kind, slowly.

[gato]

This article is interesting.
http://www.thatschin...t/20053-p31.htm

In the years following his death, Qin Shi Huang suffered something of a smear campaign by the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.), which rejected the Qin Legalist system in favor of Confucianism. Accounts that place Qin Shi Huang as the illegitimate son of Lu Buwei are most likely fabrications designed to vilify the emperor, and others, such as the story of the emperor burying alive and beheading 460 Confucian scholars, are likely exaggerations. Tales of divine anger against Qin Shi Huang (tablets carved with condemnations falling from heaven) also come from Han sources....

Communist opinion of the First Emperor was initially less favorable. Historiography from the 1950s identified Qin Shi Huang as acting against the interests of the working classes, ultimately resulting in the demise of the Qin Dynasty at the hands of peasant uprisings.
In 1972, however, during the turmoil of the "Cultural Revolution," Qin Shi Huang became a heroic visionary who realized the divisive nature of feudalism and set out to abolish it. This placed the emperor in the role of revolutionary, whose lack of compassion when dealing with "counter-revolutionaries" (feudal lords) was applauded. His only fault was that he never fully rooted out his feudal enemies; hence the collapse of the empire following his death.

Qin Shi Huang's legacy has benefited from the recent boom in the Chinese economy and the imminent arrival of the Olympic Games. This is perhaps best exemplified in Zhang Yimou's 2002 blockbuster movie, Hero. Set before the final victory of Qin over its rival states, the movie portrays Qin Shi Huang as a king who uses war only to achieve the goal of peace and unity for the Chinese people....

The Emperor's Most Famous Assassin

The Records of the Grand Historian, written by Han Dynasty scholar Sima Qian, is one of the authoritative sources on Qin Shi Huang's life. In it, Sima Qian details the most famous of the many attempts on the First Emperor's life, that of Jing Ke.

Prior to the establishment of the Qin Dynasty, the state of Yan faced imminent defeat at the hands of encroaching Qin soldiers. Dan, the crown prince of Yan, was once a friend of the king of Qin but was now a victim of the king's drive to conquer the feudal states. Desperate for a means to stave off the attack, Dan consulted with one Tian Guang, who introduced the prince to Jing Ke. Jing Ke was from the state of Wei, which had already fallen to the Qin advance. The two conspired to assassinate the king of Qin.

Also in Yan was a Qin general named Fan who had fallen from the king's favor and fled to Yan. Needing a way to get near the king, Jing Ke asked the general to commit suicide so that he could bring the king the general's head. Fan willingly complied.

Along with a map of Yan, in which was concealed a poisoned knife, Jing Ke brought the general's head before the king of Qin. When the king took the map, Jing Ke seized the moment, grasping the king's sleeve and thrusting the knife. But the king's silk sleeve tore off, and Jing Ke's blow missed.

The court erupted in chaos as the assassin chased the king about the hall, where no one save the king was allowed to carry a weapon. The king, too panicked to properly pull his sword from its sheath, finally listened to the shouts of his advisors and removed the sword properly, striking Jing Ke down. In a last ditch effort, the assassin threw the knife at the king, but missed again. Jing Ke was killed, and the king of Qin went on to unify China.

[wushijiao]

Qin Shihuang was a brutual, cruel emperor, by any account. I've read that burying alive the 460 Confucian scholars was true, and if anything, there were more incidnents.

The problem is, Mao once compared himself to Qin Shihuang, so any historical drama after that has had a fairly explicit link to assessing Mao's role in history. Some critics say that "Hero" was the first Zhang Yimou movie to get the full support of the Communist press and backing of the party due to the film's portrail of Qin ("Hey, that Mao guy wasn't that bad!") In other words, Zhang sold out his principles to make a buck with both the Commies and the Laowais.

I think this line of reasoning might be going a bit too far perhaps. There were other more important parts to the movie, like the cinematography, like In Lab said. Zhang was trying to do something subtle with the emotions of each color, and I think that maybe this did create an odd sub-genre, like Outofin said. Of course, that's not to say that the effects necessarily worked.

In any case, I really liked the Chen Kaige movie 刺秦 (The Emperor and the Assassin), and I especially liked the Zhou Xiaowen movie 秦颂 (The Emperor's Shadow). Both of these are also about Qin Shihuang.

[peeyuwu]

July 6, 2005

Dear Friends:

I may be "diverging" from the topic about the movie "Hero", however, a few postings back some comments about Qin Shihuang Di were made and I'd like to followup on this line of thought. Please bare with me.

A historical figure was confronted with the problem of fractured domestic factions and a need to restrain the the power of the nobility. His aim was to transform the country into a strongly centralized state consolidating political power to the "Emperor". Towards this end he enacted the strategy of "Far Negotiate, Near Attack". After his success, he stripped the princes, dukes, and lesser aristocrats of important defences that could have been used against the "Imperial" armies during rebellions (similar to making 12 great bronze statues out of swords and armour). As a result, he endured the hatred of most of the nobility. He was ruthless in suppressing opposition. His harsh measures were designed to intimidate his enemies. He ensured his political security by establishing a large network of spies. He raised taxes on salt and land in order to pay for his excesses for publicly funded projects (wars). Centralized tax collectors were so efficient that the oppressive taxes caused unrest amongst the peasants; there were several uprisings. He crushed the revolts violently and dealt with the rebels harshly. However, his tenure was a crucial period of reform. Earlier, the nation's political structure was largely feudalistic, with powerful nobles and a wide variety of laws in different regions. The nobility raised private armies, and allied themselves and battled each other. This haphazard system gave way to centralized power under the "Emperor". Local and even religious interests were subordinated to those of the whole nation, and of the embodiment of the nation—the Emperor. He was notable for the authoritarian measures he employed to maintain power. He censored the press, established a large network of internal spies, forbade the discussion of political matters in public assemblies, and had those who dared to conspire against him prosecuted and executed. He believed that "the ends justified the means". He was known as the "father of the modern nation-state, modern centralised power [and] the modern secret service." His motives are the focus of much debate among historians. Qin First Emperor? No, he was the great French Minister Cardinal Richelieu villified by Dumas in his historical fiction, Les Trois Mousquetaires (The Three Musketeers). The novel depicts Richelieu as a power-hungry and avaricious minister. A 1993 version of the film with the same title depicts him as a prototypical villain, devoid of any redeeming qualities.

The language in the above paragraph is halting because I did a lot of cutting and pasting (with a minor amount of editing) from the article about Richelieu in the Wikipedia free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia....dinal_Richelieu

In France Cardinal Richelieu is honored and has "battleships" named after him. An aircraft carrier was almost named for him as well, but at the last minute the name was changed to the "de Gaulle".

Hero or Felon? Go Figure.

P5

[carlo]

Quote

I loved watching it until the end. The end ruined the movie. Surrenderism! The movie is titled Hero. But the hero in Zhang Yimou’s story surrenders to a ferocious dynasty and has himself killed. That is NOT our hero. There is a discrepancy between foreign and Chinese audiences. It’s quite technical so no one is wrong here. Foreigners could buy the story that it happened in ancient time and the emperor was a great ruler and protected his people after what happened in the story, like what the movie said in the end. But, Chinese know Qin was one of the most ruthless dynasties in our history. To those who don’t know about the history, the story is a well written story. To me, Zhang Yimou made up the story. This is what bothers me the most. This is not my hero!

You could also think of it as a tragic ending: the fact that the assassin unjustly dies does not necessarily mean that the moral of the story is that Qin Shihuang is 'right'. Leaving aside the question of who really is the Hero, the audience watches the entire film identifying totally with the four assassins. The 刺客 are really flawless and likeable (as opposed to Chen Kaige's version, or many stories from Three Kingdoms, where the assassins are almost as ruthless as the King), so their defeat can be seen as a reminder that 一统天下 comes at a very high price -- tyranny.

Stretching things a bit, you could say Zhang managed to make a subversive movie under everybody's nose and nobody noticed.

BTW, the typical accusation leveled against Chinese directors who are successful abroad is that they are 'exploiters of Chinese exoticism'. I wonder what they should do then, go to Hollywood and direct 'Gladiator' or 'Men in Black"? (Ang Lee did just that with Hulk btw). Pretty much *every* film set in China would be seen as exotic in Hollywood. So should Chinese directors stop trying to communicate with non-Chinese audiences? Ironically, claiming that one's own culture cannot be understood by outsiders is one of the trademarks of 'exoticism'.

[Outofin]

carlo said:

BTW, the typical accusation leveled against Chinese directors who are successful abroad is that they are 'exploiters of Chinese exoticism'.

Zhang Yimou is not the only one who is successful abroad, but the accusation is mainly pointing to him. I didn't hear people blame, say Chen Kaige or others, for this. It's a fact that Zhang Yimou made up some bogus Chinese customs and tranditions. Those things are totally imagined.

But, saying him "exploiting exoticism" is a reasonable guess but not logically correct. We can talk about his works but I don't blame his intentions behind his works. How can you know it if he doesn't say it in an interview? Maybe, he really is an exotic director.

[rockytriton]

The main thing I like about Hero and House of Flying Daggers is that they speak mandarin and it's easy to understand. All of ther chinese movies that I have seen have been usually cantonese with mandarin dubbed over it, so they speak extremely fast and it's very hard to understand. I would like to see more movies in mandarin.