You've seen through my nefarious plot. Well hopefully when I show up at the PRC Consulate in a Yao jersey that might win them over too. Good call on the other Miyazake movies. The only one's I've seen are "Princess Mononoke" and "Spirited Away" but I have heard good things about the other ones. I liked "Spirited Away" more. "Princess Mononoke" is definately good but not exactly a family movie and with a lot more complicated plot.
No kidding. Why did you quote her to say something that has no relation to what she was talking about?
are you really mad? because A) i apologized and B) she said that no one has mentioned they liked the film despite the genre, and i said yes people have it was just lost in the BS political diatribe. i'm sad it's come to this. my apologies again to your wife.
that's cool. how did you get her to join the board? my girlfriend is always trying to get me to spend LESS time on it.
I'm glad you don't need the last word, so I'll happily be the one to put it in. The film surely does have an inherent political message that is difficult to miss by anyone paying much attention, as JuanValdez made note of it before I entered the fray. It's sad you're unable to carry on a thoughtful discussion without walling yourself behind irrelevant charges amounting essentially to "I'm more Chinese than you." I AM Chinese, and proud of it, yet I'm not so closed-minded and provincial as to say that ONLY Chinese people can evaluate the moral decisions of the characters in this movie. Furthermore, I'm not the one who claimed this movie represented "authentic" Chinese values, nor am I saying MY position represents Chinese values either; YOU are the only one who painted with that broad brush. Suffice it to say that the movie represented YOUR values--not Chinese values, not necessarily anyone else's values, and certainly not my values, and we'll leave it at that.
Don't take my not wanting to fuel the debate as not able to respond. Deciding not to kill Qin I does not automatically makes the assassin, who is from Qi, a traitor. Qi, just like Qin, was technically a kingdom under Zhou dynasty, although the central power had been long gone. It's conceivable that the assassin had a view of for the good of broader China, of a higher calling, not just loyal to the princess of Qi, which had been conqued at the time. The film also suggests he struggled on the issue. It's not the same as Wu Shangui, as you suggested. The mainstream version of the story is different. The film takes its own unique artistcal interpretation. As JV said, whether you agree with it or not, you don't need to slam unwarranted lables around. It calls for alternative perspectives, not stereotypical oversimplification.
I may not agree with the theme of the film, but I've long learned there are much in between black and white.
Yeah I thought it was something like that. I honestly think mainland films are underated, ppl in the states (even chinese americans) are to busy following the pop and action stuff coming out of hongkong, japan and korea while the more artistically films with more substance out of mainland are being very very overlooked. Just recently got hold a copy of "cell phone" and I can't wait to watch that.
I didn't think the presentation of Hero was very original. Plot structure screams Rashomon. Visually it was totally Ashes of Time. Obviously Doyle had something to do with it (he was the DP for both). But it goes beyond cinematography, even Tony Leung's and Maggie Cheung's characters are visually, practically the same. About the debate about the politics and history, I want to chip in with an alternative reading of the film. One could argue it is trying to ask, "Who is the hero?" The hero is the nameless(note the pun on Jet Li's char's name), the unsung. Much like the last scene, the faceless form of a body at the city gate that was not covered with arrows. It took the sacrifices of many people to build the country into what it is today. And it took more than one man/empror to unify the nation.
i can't really argue about the rashamon comparisons. but having re-watched ashes of time recently... there's absolutely no connection for me. ashes of time was more... i guess you would say blurry while hero is much more vivid.
DVD... no, I rented it from Blockbuster. It's Wong Kar Wai's style, the lighting is darker, and during the fighting scenes, everything is blurry and disjointed.
Yep, ashes is darker, but I get the feeling that the use of strobe was more of a budget constraint. If it had the same budget as hero (was it $20 million?! for a chinese film! can't remember the exact figure) I think they'd look even more similar. Watching hero for me was like looking at a polished, shiny version of ashes. Both are very pretty though. Another film reference I guess would be Colours... with its use of colour...
If Ashes was the movie I had in mind (Dong xie xi du), then I don't see the connection with Hero at all. The choreography was very well coordinated in Hero and the dialogue fits better. Ashes seems to try to hard to me. I guess what I would like to say is that Ashes was a poser where as Hero was more real.
yep its dong xie xi du, the sort of prequel to condor heroes. i'm saying that on a purely visual level, hero borrowed heavily from it, not story wise - hero gets that from rashomon. scenes that stick out are the running down corridor scenes, and maggie cheung under a tree... Its been a year and a half since I watched hero, and I don't even remember when was the last time I rewatched ashes. but i distinctly remember going - it looks like ashes! when watching hero. hero vs ashes. i actually prefer ashes. in terms of poser-ness, i think hero tried pretty hard too. remember all the hype? it was trying really hard to win best foreign film at the oscars. some of the stuff in hero just came off really silly. besides the corny "very fast sword" lines, maggie cheung's multiple slow motion spinning deaths came off as being hilariously melodramatic. but i still like hero Oh yeah, and besides the pretty pictures, the soundtrack and sound effects were awesome too. listening to the different sounds the different swords make, and the howling arrows in a good cinema makes it a real treat.
see you need to watch it in Cantonese, the original release, then the dialogue seems smoother. it always bothers me when the words and lips don't match up. ashes of time isn't really trying too hard... the visual stuff is just wong kar wai's style. but hero has an entirely different style. but i mean i guess different people can interpret it differently.
Maybe, I just remember some of my American freinds wanted to watch a Chinese flick, so I was like how bout this movie, I heard good things about it. Since these friends like indy films and such, and I heard that Ashes was a kung fu movie that I heard was very well done artistically that I haven't seen. I just remember the movie getting weirder and weirder. It's like he was trying to do more with the movie than he needed to (the poser comment). It was like he was trying to be ambiguous and mysterious just to be ambiguous and mysterious. But I'll leave it at that. To each his own. Personally, I think Hero was fine, there were still scenes in there that I think were superflous but over the flow was great. As far as the hype, when's the last time a Chinese movie cost $20 million with the lead actor taking a huge paycut?
You are a moron and I doubt you've actually studied any history. Yipeng can take the high road but I am not one who allows ignorance to blemish history. First of all, during the time of the Qin unification, China had already been under war for over 550 years. Several hundred kingdoms (yes several hundred, maybe more, if we get more technical) was conquored undering the Spring and Autumn Period and finally unified under the the Qin during the Warrinig States Period. I find it pathetic that you can pretend to be knowledgable and lecture others on Chinese values without knowing too much about history. How many more people would die from 6 centuries of warfare than even compared to living under a tyrannical emperor (which is in fact debatable, I'll elaborate later). For example, Qin general Bai Qi buried alive 400,000 surrendered Zhao troops after the Battle of Changping (before your rants go any further, the first emperor had nothing to do with this). Logic dictates that war times causes more civilian casualties than peace time. On top of that, despite all its flaws, the Qin were remarkable. Economic and technical advances, social improvement, centralized governance, unified language, measuring units and above all, being the first feudalist state in the world. Qin empire is built under the rule of law (and lawful they were indeed). Without this it would never have unified the country. They stressed that the prince commits crime will receive the same punishment as common citizens. This led to the first time that Chinese peasants dared to challenge lords in a civil court which perhaps was not true during any other period except the Tang Dynasty. The only problem is Qin went too far and made their laws much too harsh, which is the reason for the Chen Shen and Wu Guan rebellion, not because the First Emperor wanted to massacre them. As for the massacre of civilians, I am not going to sugarcoat for the first emperor, he did it, but not nearly to the scale as morons like you claim. His burning the books and killing scholars also occurred at a time that he was arguably going crazy. If you really want to bash somebody about this, bash the Qing Dynasty, which is well documented to have done it on ten times the scale compared to the Qin (and which you've defended during your previous post). As for Wu Sangui, how about comparing the living standards of late Qing Dynasty to late Ming Dynasty. The existance of the Qing Dynasty open the gate for China to 200+ years of humiliation. As for all your rants on the First Emperor, the Qings forced Han people to wear their ridiculous hair style (at the punishment of death of course) and publically banned Han people from positions of power. I won't even bother to go into detail your rants on the Japanese invasion. Under Qing and Jap occupation, Han Chinese were treated as second class citizens at best with laws set against them where as under the Qin (a state of law), everybody is treated equal. Btw, Qin Empire (although prior to the unification) is also the one that abolished slavery in China. If you had half a brain you would have known this. Yipengzhao is right in saying that the First Emperor is only ONE of the heroes. How do I know? The director Zhang Yimou said it in an interview. I should think he knows more than you. Finally, I doubt you are Chinese (at least not born there). No Chinese (even Taiwan Chinese) spells it the Chin Dynasty.
