Movie: Hero starring Jet Li

Okay, we've obviously got some posters that know much more about Chinese culture/history than I do. So, let me check to see if my argument between myself and a friend about this movie holds any water.

I argued that the movie is a political piece, symbolizing China's yearning for reunification with Taiwan. I thought that Nameless symbolized Taiwan, and that Snow and Broken Sword represented Hong Kong. Am I even close? I realize that subtitles often offer a subpar movie viewing experience, but I might have also totally missed on the culture and history angles.

 

It took you 4 months to come up with that?

 

Nahhh, I don't come to Hangout too often, besides, it's the offseason. But still *hangs head in shame*

 

To be quite honest with you, I doubt this movie was politically motivated at all, as it was adopted from a novel. Unless the book was government sanctioned I have no reason to believe the commies had anything to do with it.

 

I may be a moron, but you obviously need to take up Reading Comprehension 101:

I defended the Qing Dynasty? By saying that the Ming general largely responsible for the Qing's ascendacy is rightly considered a traitor? I'll be the moron, but you, sir, are an imbecile. But I guess if you can defend mass murder by saying "Well, the First Emperor was arguably going crazy," I suppose I can cut you some slack on the basis of stupidity.

 

Nobody ever argued that the First Emperor is any sort of a saint. The typical Chinese view (of which you wouldn't undertand) and the correct view is that he is a tyrant that was at the same time, very important in Chinese history (and in fact, to China in general). It is believed, and rightfully so that he is a person of questionable characters at best but who also did some very nice things, to say the least. The general concensus is however, that his contributions far outweigh his crimes.

And the First Emperor WAS going crazy, just another thing I didn't expect you to know. And not to mention that he did NOT start slaughtering people until he did, although I do not use this to defend his action.

But while we are at it, why don't you prove to us how many million civilians he masscared. As a matter of fact, why don't you prove to us your knowledge by telling us, because even in Sima Qian's ShiJi, he wasn't arrogant enough to make a claim. Not that of course I expected you to have read ShiJi at all.

Oh yeah, I'm the imbecile, of course. I mean, hey, I'm only a grad of history at Beijing University and my grandmother was a Chinese historian. I mean, I only went on archeological digs all over China, read 50,000+ Chinese history books and read ShiJi in its non-translated version. But hey, what do I know about history.

I mean, by being involved in a debate, one generally presents EVIDENCE, which you have none. Such as when you claimed that the director made the First Emperor to be the only hero which I have proven false. All of this making your posts nothing but worthless drivel.

Idiots and conspiracy theorists (the two not being mutally exclusive) like you can find faults with just about everything. Honestly, what the hell do you know about Chinese values?

PS. The Kingdom of Zhao defended pretty much until the last man, not that I expected you to know that.

 

I think Juan should be banned for starting this mess.

 

Can we move this thread to the D&D so people don't get confused and post about the purdy colors in this thread.

 

General consensus huh? Among whom?

So what's your point in mentioning it? "He was going crazy, not that I'm using that as a defense." If you don't mean to claim that it was a mitigating factor, then what's your point?

At which point does the number make him a murderous tyrant? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Or is it insignificant until we get to Mao-like numbers in the tens of millions? Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be?

I'm so impressed. And now it's clear where you arrived at your "general concensus [sic]." Did they teach you that Mao's contributions also "far outweigh his crimes"? I mean, he was only responsible for 20-40 million deaths, what's the big deal? And yes, I can give you a long list of citations for that figure.

I see, as long as the murderous tyrant was just one of the heroes of the movie, and not the only hero, that makes it OK. You're so right.

Reading Comprehension 101 again; try reading the following from an earlier post I made to yipeng: "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."

I never made any claims about "Chinese values"; I did (and do) vehemently object to anyone claiming that the movie represents "Chinese values." I ask you: What the hell do YOU know about Chinese values? Who the hell are you that you think you can speak for a billion+ individuals?

Those men were heroes. Not that I expect you to agree.

 

1. General consensus among Chinese historians, none of which you know, about Chinese history, of which you know nothing about.

2. You really are funny, even British and Americans don't claim that Mao killed 20-40 million Chinese any more, not to mention that is a figure in fact, never substantiated by anyone. It's kind of funny that you draw a Mao comparison, considering that Mao's mistakes (early at least) were mostly a lack of understanding of economics, never a KGB style dragging people of the streets and shooting them until the Cultural Revolution.

I also find it funny that you are the one that claim "what's wrong with Japan then just conquoring China and creating a larger empire" when using your idiotic logic especially considering Japan murdered a well documented (by all other than Japanese sources) over 40 million Chinese, at a rate unrivalled by any nation at any point of history. I'm also guessing you missed the part where Japan looted China, torched villages after village (as part of a large ethnic cleansing policy), forced people to use opium to fund its war. To even mention Japan and the Qin Empire in the same sentence is a slap in the face of all Chinese.

3. Why was the First Emperor's mental case significant? Why gee, if you knew something about Chinese history wouldn't you have known that? Before he went mental there isn't a single history book which mentioned he slaughtered any civilians except maybe his altercation with the Zhao Kingdom. He had a natural hatred for the Zhao growing up as their prisoner and hostage. The question is, had he not gone crazy would he had slaughtered all those scholars? I am not going to attempt to answer that question because I don't claim to know what he was thinking. Nevertheless, the question should have been asked. Now the homework for you is, do some research and find out WHY the First Emperor killed all those scholars.

4. You are the one that started this "hero" mess by insinuating that the film was political in the first place, and by talking out of your ass and saying the director intended the First Emperor as the sole hero, of which I have already disapproved twice already. Even you cannot be stupid enough (I hope) to revisit this topic a third time.

5. No movie in the world can represent all of Chinese value, nor do I claim to speak for any Chinese other than myself, let alone billions. I do not necessarily agree with Yipengzhao about this movie representing Chinese value, nor did I ever insinuate so. What I did point out is that whatever "Chinese value" is, you know nothing about it. You know nothing about Chinese history or culture.

As my proven in my reference to the First Emperor, I do not have the arrogance to claim all Chinese think that way, however, the general CONSENSUS is that the First Emperor's contributions outweigh his crimes.

 

You just can't help yourself, huh? I wonder if you can read your own words and not even see what an apologist you are. Mao was responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. Do you want to dispute whether the figure was 40 million or 20 million or 10 million or 5 million or 2 million? I ask you again: When does the number become significant for you? You can't answer that, can you? And then the priceless gem that the deaths under Mao were "never a KGB style dragging people off the streets and shooting them.......until the Cultural Revolution." LMAO! Oh, only a couple million people were dragged off the streets and killed in the Cultural Revolution, but you mention it as an afterthought. "Mao NEVER did anything like that UNTIL the Cultural Revolution!" Maybe he was "arguably going crazy" by that time, yeah that must explain it.

 

You really ought to learn how to read. My whole point regarding the Japanese invasion and occupation was to show how ludicrous it would be to condone Japan's WWII atrocities. Try reading it over, you'll understand it eventually, I have faith in you.

It's not. It would only be significant to an apologist looking to exculpate him, like you.

I didn't insinuate the film is political; I'm saying it flat-out. The film's political undertones delighted Chinese Communist Party brass by portraying a murderous tyrant as a hero, and by advancing the concept that "order" is desirable even though the cost is authoritarianism and oppression. "Insinuate"? Which part was I not direct and adamant about? Hey, most people can still enjoy this as a movie from an entertainment standpoint, but to say these political elements and themes aren't present in the film is either naive or ignorant. Or your upbringing has made you defensively sensitive to criticisms of your political background, whatever.

Yeah yeah, the "I'm more Chinese than you" argument again. Yawn.

 

I'm too lazy to read the previous posts, so I won't comment on them. But if this is your argument, then I'd have to disagree.

The idea of the movie is really quite simple. That in an age of constant warfare and terrible living conditions by peasants for countless generations, it is preferable to end warfare even at the cost of losing your own country(and the lives that goes with it). That the lives of future generations are more important than patriotism.

There is no "cost of oppression and authoritarism", as you ignorantlysuggest. EVERY kingdom at the time was ruled by a single king, some even more ruthless than Qin Shi Huang. War time kings are notorious for being harsh on the people. This isn't a matter of comparing 7 democratic, peace-loving countries vs. one single ruthless monarch. It's a matter of comparing 7 ruthless monarchs trying to beat each other up vs. one single ruthless monarch(whose later generations could easily mellow as the single country is no longer constantly threatened by the outside). The movie simply believes that the single monarch is the better choice for the long run.

 

Finally a sane response. At least you see that the movie is making a statement about governance--which is the definition of politics! Why is anyone afraid to admit that this movie is very political? Thank you!

 

Funny. I challenge you to find one single civilization which has never committed genocide, including (and not the least) the great democracy of the United States of America. The last time I checked, nobody in China ever said the Cultural Revolution was right on the part of Mao or the CCP. Last time I checked, nobody in China ever denied what happened either. Information on the subject can easily be found online, in history documentaries or any newspaper other than the government Xinhua. Hell, even Xinhua never denied it happened, choosing instead to keep its mouth shut altogether. The post-Mao era Chinese leaders all the way from Deng Xiaoping to Hu Jintao all said much of Mao's policies cannot be followed, falling pretty much just short of calling him an idiot. But you didn't know that did you?

Reading comprehension, ha, don't make me laugh. It's more like somewhere during reading your BS I realized that you have no legitimate point whatsoever, got bored and decided to skim. And for one professing to be so proficient in English, your reading comprehension isn't so good yourself. Show me where I blaimed Mao's Cultural Revolution issues on his mental state? And if you are wondering, most people in China died NOT during the Cultural Revolution, but during the failed Great Leap Forward. Last time I checked, being ignorant in economics was not the same thing as being a bloodthirsty murderer.

 

1. You really are pulling **** out of your ass now aren't you? I'm an apologist for the First Emperor? Ha, I must be his third cousin's wife's best friend's daughter's, blah blah blah extended over for 2000 years and is generally related to him in some way right? Other than that I can't find any reason why I should be his apologist. And this coming from somebody who doesn't know Chinese history. I doubt you even know the First Emperor's name.

2. You know what's funny, Zhang Yimou had a history of altercations with the commies (some say openly criticising them), which hasn't exactly made him very popular with the top brass of the CCP. But now suddenly he somehow made a 180 degree philosophical shift and is now spreading propaganda for the commies. I know what you are going to say so don't bother saying it. Hey, the commies paid him off right? Well the commies sure are pretty dumb not to have thought about it in the 80's.

3. My upbringing has made you defensively sensitive to criticisms of your political background? What would you know about my upbringing. Hey, I must be one of those red book waving terribly dressed student Red Guard wannabe marching in parades singing "East is Red" and holding Mao's portrait right? I know jack about communism and let's be honest, China is less socialist and communist than freakin' Canada, always was and always will be. Chinese people openly bash the government and the CCP dares to do **** about it. Not that you know that did you?

4. Since we are talking about Chinese history, Chinese culture and "Chinese values," you'd think that somebody who's Chinese or has a clear understanding of the Chinese has a better idea, you clearly not being one of such, as proven by your ignorance. I mean, c'mon, even idiots like you should understand that, right?

 

YOU FOOLS WITH YOUR SPOILERS!!!

 

Wha-huh? America has done awful things, what's that got to do with this discussion? Do multiple wrongs make a right? Stay with me here, pal. I called the First Emperor a murderous tyrant, someone analogous to Mao, and you disputed that, saying that I have no evidence how many people he killed. So I asked you this simple question which you've been avoiding but here it is again: at what number of murdered civilians would you consider the First Emperor and Mao to be murderous tyrants?

That must not be a huge portrait of Mao hanging in Tiananmen Square. They must've taken that down and changed it. Sorry, I didn't know that.

Ah, the truth comes out. Are you often in the practice of calling people morons when you didn't bother to read what exactly they wrote? Must be the scholarly methods they taught you at the History Department of Beijing University. Sorry, I didn't know that either.

Sarcasm 101 is the next course you have to take.

Mao was not necessarily a "bloodthirsty murderer"; he just didn't give a **** whether people lived or died or starved to death. And if they were a threat to his power they were to be eliminated, by the millions during the Cultural Revolution. His not being a "bloodthirsty murderer" doesn't make him less of a monster, it makes him more of a monster.

 

Why would I care why you're being his apologist? You are one, by your words. Your motivations matter not to me.

Again, Zhang's motivations aren't the issue. He made a film reflecting a political view very different from his past work, but I'm not parsing his mind. He wouldn't be the first nor most notable person to have a drastic change in worldview and he won't be the last. Radical leftists have become arch conservatives and vice versa; if you're so incredulous that Zhang could undergo a transformation in personal philosophy, you need to move into the real world.

Yeah, nothing happened to those students and civilians in Tiananmen Square 15 years ago. Or maybe I could read all about the tanks rolling over them in official Chinese documentaries too, just like I could about the Cultural Revolution, right? Sorry, I didn't know that.

 

1. I don't condone the murder of civilians in any situation, although I'm sure you are disappointed to hear that. Quite frankly the murder of one civilian is too much, although when realities has its way of changing logic and moral values. What I've stressed all along (along with most Chinese scholars) and pointed out three times already is that, quoting myself "the general concensus is however, that his contributions far outweigh his crimes." Now tell me if you read so well, why do I have to quote myself? I also don't recall ever denying that Mao and the First Emperor were tyrants. In fact, I recall that even from my last post I remarked how NOBODY in China denies he is one, which apparently you didn't bother to read.

As for the First Emperor, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt since (as I've remarked also), he made harsh laws but didn't have a history of murdering civilians until he went nuts. Late life sure ain't a good time to start doing that, especially if you have a remote chance in hell to be labelled a good emperor.

Sure, I'd love to have a perfect ruler. You know one? Cuz I'll support him all the way.

2. Funny that you mentioned it, certain members of the CCP (and some civilians as well) actually proposed to remove Mao's portrait, although it was ultimately rejected by the NPC. Although I fail to see how even by your standard, how it contributes to your argument. China is going towards a market economy and holding village and county level elections. Last time I checked, both pretty much contradict the fundamentals of communism/socialism/whatever. They can hang Gorbachev's portrait for all I care.

3. I did reasonably well at BeiDa, although still wish I had paid more attention. However, one thing they did teach (and I heard at pretty much every other institution) is to know what to say before you open your trap and to always back it up with research/evidence. When you remark about the director's personal interpretation of hero (which you didn't know and which I have proven you wrong), you get the benefit of the doubt. When you remark about my upbringing (which you have no clue), well, maybe you are just having a bad day. But when you mention the political climate/history/current conditions of China of which you know nothing about in which any scholar with half a brain knows otherwise, there goes your credibility down the toilet. Three strikes and you are out. I don't need BeiDa to teach me what a moron looks like and I sure as hell ain't gonna sugercoat it.

4. As I've said already, I never denied Mao's crimes during the Cultural Revolution, however, to say Mao didn't care if peasants starved to death is pure crap. The goal of Mao was to "catch up to Britain, surpass America." He made a misguided to industrialize China. Even Cold War Era American and Soviet politicians or historians after that didn't play with propaganda and say he purposely starved peasants, and yet you are here, making that exact claim.

I also find it questionable your motivation to bring in Mao. Since we were talking about the First Emperor. Surely he couldn't have known that 2000 years in the future some man named Mao Zedong is going to look up to him? Or can he?

5. See here's the thing, in a court (and pretty much everywhere else) when you make an accusation, you back it up with indisputable evidence. You made the accusation that I am a "First Emperor apologist" and brush it off with why should you care, my motivations don't matter to you, that merely solidifies the fact that you are talking out of your ass. But we already knew that didn't we? I have yet to see one single piece of evidence of any kind from you.

6. As much as you wish it so, sadly people don't just snap a finger and change their philosophy. Unfortunately it's not as easy as changing cloths. If Zhang made another pro-commie movie (of which he hasn't yet) then maybe the debates can begin.

7. The Cultural Revolution was long ago, even before China's reforms. If you want to mention that then while we are at it, the US was persecuting blacks and pretty much every other minority and murdering civilians in Vietnam. I see that murdering civilians is OK as long as they ain't your own. As for TianAnMen, I doubt you even have a clue about what was happeninig at the time, namely, the dynamics of the Reformists and Conservists struggle which probably sadly, the Conservists won. I mean, yeah, China needs 2 army groups (~50,000) men to crush barely a thousand students. I suggest you brush up the topic before I waste any breath.

And if you are wondering what do I know about TianAnMen, well, my dad (a professor at People's University, which had the second largest following at TianAnMen square) risked his life to go there. As a result of his actions, non of the students from his school died, although he did get shot in the arm.

8. All your rants has completely strayed from the subject, which about how the commies hijacked a movie and the First Emperor. You still not have come up with a single comeback about the achievements of the First Emperor. Let me re-iterate:
a) Stopping 550 years of war, ending the staggering civilian casulties
b) Unifying measurement units, language, culture and pretty much accredited with the unity of all Chinese hence after (and before you BS any further, he didn't simply destroy all other kingdoms' culture either)
c) His ancestors abolished slavery
d) One of the most lawful societies in China and in fact the world, EVER
e) Economic, cultural and social developments, leading directly to the flourishing golden age of the Han Dynasty

All his faults you pretty much nitpicked and I haven't denied. But nevertheless, feel free to rant further about them

9. I feel the need to elaborate one of my previous points when I noted that only the Chinese and somebody who understand the Chinese should debate on "Chinese values." I do not mean to insinuate that foreigners know nothing about the Chinese. I have a great amount of respect for many foreign scholars, some of which are more knowledgable than certain Chinese. And that is what I meant by somebody who understands the Chinese, which clearly you are not one. An idiot is an idiot no matter where he is from.