and then So, the Chinese government doesn't dare to do **** about its citizens bashing it? Your father risked his frickin' life and got shot by the government that didn't dare to do ****. Glad you can dismiss his courage so offhandedly. Can Chinese people openly bash the government or might they end up risking their lives when they do so? Well, which is it? yet I'll be the moron and idiot, just as long as you go on repeatedly contradicting yourself. Again, which is it? Was he a hero or a tyrant? You believe that "his contributions far outweigh his crimes," so he's a hero in your book, yes? I find that repugnant, in my view his crimes drench your list of his beneficial contributions in blood, but you certainly have the right to hold your opinion. But don't be extolling his virtues on one hand and now back your way into a "non-denial of his tyranny" after you've been forced into a corner. If, as you say, NOBODY denies he is a tyrant, then what is the crux of our argument? Amazing that you can carry on an hours-long debate and be so clueless over what it is you're arguing about: THE ******* MOVIE DENIES HE'S A TYRANT, MAKING HIM OUT TO BE A HERO. Sheesh. You know what, you and your general consensus of BeiDa historians can continue to consider him a hero; the rest of us ignorant masses will continue to think him a tyrant, as has been the case for two millennia. And for the record, I never made any remark about Zhang Yimou's personal interpretation of the movie, so you cannot have "proven me wrong" when I made no claims there. As I said, his personal intent or motivations are not at issue. A director's work, like that of a writer's or painter's or sculptor's or musician's, ought to stand on its own and be judged on its own without the artist's intentions determining our judgments. And taken on its own, the film depicts an infamous tyrant in a positive light and promotes a conservative political view that was embraced by Communist Party leaders. Zhang doesn't need to make another pro-commie movie for there to be legitimate debate over it; he deserves every bit of the criticism he's gotten.
1. There is something to be said about knowing about something before you talk about it. Since you don't know jack about 6/4, don't talk about it like you know what's going on. While it is a free country and anybody can argue about everything, still, experts (or at least somebody who knows the subject) debate, morons BS. As I've suggested, at least do some research before opening your trap. Doesn't exactly seem to be any leap of logic to me. While as far as you are concerned, let me just give you the simplified version and say not ALL the students are as brave as you say (as a matter of fact, many of them aren't even students, but people taking advantage of the situation to loot downtown Beijing). Most of whom are simply democracy believers manipulated by the so called "student leaders" to their own end. These student leaders are no less power hungry than the commies and tried to advance their power through the students. Hell, one of the student leaders openly said she wanted to see a sea of blood. Well, then what happened? Before the shooting started she (like the others) fled the country. It's kind of hard to argue she's any kind of freedom fighter when she's sitting in her house here in the US, getting paid by the US government to spin crap about China. Being a stunch anti-commie, I couldn't care less what she says about the CCP. It's the garbage that she spews about China which pisses me off. Oh yeah, funny thing too. I've always been accused of being one of the most outspoken anti-Mao and anti-commie person before I met an idiot like you. Really gets one thinking. 2. It's funny how you see everything as black and white, completely ignoring the grays. While not every tyrant is a hero, there are heroes who are also tyrants. While we are at it, simply look at what the Romans, the Greeks, hell, look at everybody was doing at the time. I certainly don't find too many books snubbing the achievement of both civilizations based on crap you spin, like how Julius Caesar or Alexander were tyrants, which they were. If anything, there is a consensus (there's that word again) praising and gloryfying the achievements of the Roman and Greek Empires. If you really want to nitpick about something, at least bother to nitpick something which (hopefully) you know more about. Heroes are always subjective. Hero to one group is tyrant to another. Hell, one may even be hero to the same group during one time and public enemy number one to another. 3. The goddam movie did no such thing in denying the First Emperor is a tyrant. After all, I thought that the reason the other heroes wanted to kill him in the first place was because he was one. Attacking civilians in a defenceless calligraphy school doesn't go too far to prove you are a peace and people loving man. The only remark that might remotely suggest otherwise is when the King remarked how his court official regards him as a tyrant. As I've said, idiots and conspiracy theorists can see politics in everything. If the movie is political at all, it is pretty much consistent along Chinese (historian) lines of he's a tyrant that did some nice things. 4. Just as easily said is that Zhang Yimou is merely promoting peace and unity. Everything you or anybody else makes is purely subjective, nothing more. Which is why I never bothered talking about Zhang's intentions until you started your crap about what he made the movie for. Even though it is conceivable that he hides his true intentions or is merely being diplomatic, his words still hold more value than you, because only he knows what he thinks. What I've repeatedly point out is that he had a history of anti-commie altercations. Since we have no clue what he's thinking, that as legitimate as possible in THEORIZING what he thinks. 5. What a joke. Us BeiDa historians. What would you know about BeiDa historians? If you know anything you'd know that BeiDa had the largest following at TianAnMen Square in 89. You also insinuate as if what I talked about is only an opinion shared by us BeiDa historians. As I've mentioned already, it is pretty much a consensus among ALL Chinese historians. While not everybody necessarily agrees with it, a healthy majority does. And while we are on the subject, generally the opinions (and that's what they are when it comes to such subject matter, mere opinions) of experts are valued over average people, whose opinions are valued over ignorant people. It is because experts dedicated YEARS of research and studying on a subject. They are not always right over others, but the probability of them being right is significantly higher than others being right. While I cannot say I am of the expert category, I certainly am of the average person category, while you are of the ignorant category. 6. Here we have it, you are on an English board arguing with 6 or so Chinese, every one of them more knowledgeable than you; all of them disagree with you, 5 of them called you ignorant, 4 of whom don't see the need to bother debating with you any more, 3 suggested you relearn your history, 2 openly labelled you an idiot and myself questioning whether you have any affiliations at all with China or Chinese people at all, yet you are here preaching "Chinese values." That pretty much summed up your whole argument. While China is a convenient political punching bag, especially on an election year, some points are still more legitimate than others and an idiot is still an idiot. PS: If your only issue was that China has problems, I think I pretty much admitted that long ago.
The first emperor and Mao certainly have stunning similarities. If this movie was made in the 80's, then most people would think it's about politics. But at this point in time, it doesn't really make sense. If it's about Mao then it's weird coz that's a non issue. If it's a metaphore of the current government led by Hu, then it's very awkad. Hu and the current government doesn't remotely resemble the first emperor. Also the resistence is in the form of personal assasinations. I don't see how it relates to Taiwan or Hong Kong. If it's a total war between Qin and Zhao then maybe. It certainly could have some pro-unification elements in it. But I don't see the main theme as political. It would be a very awkad piece if it is. It does provide a different perspective I guess. Jing Ke could be as dumb and weird as these Zhao assassin, I don't know. In general I don't really like it, way too abstract. Chinese in general don't get into movies much, they prefer TV series. But maybe I'm out of style.
Also there shouldn't be a uni-history or simplified history. So everything promotes the first emperor is properganda, only criticizing him is the single correct way. I don't believe so. In a strict history sense, communists shouldn't promote the first emperor. The key idea of communism is class revolution. And the first emperor caused the very first peasont uprising in Chinese history. His tyrany was a dream example of the communist theory, well in any case the government has very little communism in it now. This "promoting communist regime" point is moot long time ago.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/movies/27HERO.html From the NY Times: If "Hero" proves to be less than the sum of its attractive parts, it's nonetheless generally pleasurable. That's particularly true if you don't think too hard and long about the implications of the "noble" sacrifices various characters make in the name of a unified China or what this subtitled version of the film calls "our land." (In at least one DVD copy the same phrase is translated as "all under heaven.") Many of Mr. Zhang's earlier features were initially banned in China and more recently he has directed state-sponsored films promoting China's successful efforts to serve as host for the next summer Olympics and World Expo. For better or for worse, Mr. Zhang's ability to provide the powers that be with palatable stories is apparently no longer in doubt http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,871738,00.html From the Guardian, UK: Qin Shihuang's bloody legacy remains a raw wound in today's China. Two thousand years ago, the military adventurer unified the country for the first time by subsuming six warring states and began to build the Great Wall. He ruthlessly imposed absolute order by executing those suspected of disloyalty; historians have compared his fearsome exercise of power to that of Napoleon and Stalin. Modern artists approach the subject with caution, in part because Mao Zedong considered China's founding emperor an inspiration, and the Communist party still views the ancient leader as a pointed allegory. So when Zhang Yimou, China's best-known and arguably most talented director, chose the Qin court as the setting for his big-budget martial arts epic Hero, expectations were high. The director of Raise the Red Lantern and To Live, Zhang has often explored the emotional whiplash inflicted on common people by China's tumultuous history. He has also infuriated the Beijing government and found himself blacklisted, while delighting critics. But Hero, despite its complicated subject, has delighted Beijing's mandarins, who are submitting it as China's nominee for best foreign film at the Academy awards after a huge premiere screening in Tiananmen Square. And it has infuriated some Chinese critics, who have panned Zhang's plot for promoting a philosophy of servitude. "Hero does not have the courage to present the massacres Qin Shihuang ordered in the name of peace under heaven," said Tou Jiangming, writing in the Sat-China Weekly. "The history so often questioned by modern thinkers is ignored by Zhang Yimou." Or, as a critic using the pen name Bu Tong put it in the Beijing Youth Daily: "Zhang Yimou's movie has a deep servility inside. He has tried to understand what the world looks like from the ruler's standpoint." ... Zhang has never been a dissident. But until recently he seemed to enjoy flirting with the limits of China's artistic tolerance. ... But over the past eight years, as China's economy has become more prosperous, Zhang's films have become less provocative. ... Recently, Zhang has also accepted some official duties. He has directed movies promoting China's bid to host the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and its entry to stage the 2010 World Exposition in Shanghai. http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-0408210377aug22,0,3579937.story?coll=mmx-movies_heds From the Chicago Tribune, and the horse's mouth: Zhang says controversy about the film's historical setting arose purely from his own "stupid mistake." "The film could have been set in any dynasty, but I set it in the Qin dynasty of the first emperor. I was trying to show the magnanimous spirit that abstains from killing. But this first emperor is so controversial -- there is much debate over how to value his rule -- so it's politically charged. As soon as I used this particular emperor in the story, it triggered debate and discussion that had little to do with the film. "He was quickly toppled; it was a short rule," Zhang continues. "Legend has it that he buried people alive, that he persecuted Confucius scholars and burned books, but he also unified China and ended 600 years of killing. His victory and his crimes are equally impressive. There is much disagreement about him among serious scholars; he is so controversial, I should have stayed away from him." The controversy reminds Zhang that, as China's most famous director, China's censors often hold him to a "different standard." The "dissident" label he earned early on in his career, that marked him as a "director at odds with the government," he says, has changed. So all these people who had critical things to say are all idiots and conspiracy theorists? And then, appealing to the authority of the auteur/director himself, which I never did but you insisted, Zhang Yimou says THERE IS MUCH DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HIM [the First Emperor] AMONG SERIOUS SCHOLARS. So Zhang himself says the subject matter is POLITICALLY CHARGED and that THERE IS NO GENERAL CONSENSUS regarding Qin ShiHuang--is Zhang an ignorant moron too? I know you enjoy being an arrogant prick, but let's see you try to squirm out of this one.
oh shiz... all i have to say is... quit hatin' on China. i am sorry if the communists took away your granddad's riches.
1. Bravo, so we are starting to quote NY Times and the Guardian now, both of which had a long history of anti-China rhetorics. But it's OK, at least now you are bothering to do some research. In case you are wondering, the Guardian also at one point claimed that every other female baby is ruthlessly murdered by the commies (a claim that the Tennesee court use in its handling of the Anna Mae case). 2. Being not as anti-government or even ending a feud is NOT the same as pretty much paid off by the government, as you claims and still claims without proof. One also DOESN'T have to be paid off by the government to want to promote his own country and cities there, a concept you undoubtly would have trouble understanding. Anti-commies all over China saw no problem (as proven by both government sanctioned and western media polls) with China hosting the Olympics and upwards of 90+% urban Chinese population supports it. So what's your point, that Zhang is one of the 90+%? Only you are incapable of separating wanting to do something good for the country (even if it means working with enemies, as the commies and KMT did, and as Zhang and the CCP do) than outright adopting an enemy's philosophy and beliefs. Working for one's country is different than spreading commie propaganda. Basically, Zhang is practising what he preaches in the movie. Good for him. 3. What are you trying to prove? That the First Emperor was a tyrant? Did everybody pretty much agreed with that say couple hundred years ago before you began your rant on this board? As I've said, his benefits outweighs his crimes, which is the point pretty much every Chinese who responded to your stupid post tried to get across at one point or another. Disagreement about what? That is an interpretive quote at best. Disagreement about whether he's a good man? Well, my opinion is that he is not. Disagreement about whether he did nice things? My opinion is that he did. Which pretty much summed up all my premise here, that he is a TYRANT THAT DID NICE THINGS. Btw, here is what I posted in the previous post: If the movie is political at all, it is pretty much consistent along Chinese (historian) lines of he's a tyrant that did some nice things. And the one before that: 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. And the one before that: Last time I checked, nobody in China ever denied what happened either. And the one before that: 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 You get the point. Now tell me, why do I have to keep quoting myself? 4. You never claimed to know the director's intentions? Did you even watch the movie? The whole "twist" at the end was that the First Emperor was THE hero the title referred to, were you paying the least bit of attention? The depiction of the First Emperor was undoubtedly IN SUPPORT of his historical actions of imperialism and despotism, and if you can't see how the Chinese Communist regime would embrace that depiction, then you're naive or ignorant or both. You're right, though, "propaganda" is too vehement a word for me to use to describe the film. Clearly, the director Zhang Yimou has not in the past been a lackey for the Chinese government. Do I need to cite more of the countless examples which your actions prove otherwise? 5. While debates involves citing examples, extrapolating, etc, there is something to be said about staying on topic. Yet You went from the First Emperor to Mao to commies in general to communism/democracy to the Cultural Revolution to 6/4, straying completely from the initial topic in the first place. All of which would lead one to draw the conclusion that because you have no point in the first place (which you don't), therefore have to stray from the topic to give you rants a sense of legitimacy. If 6 Chinese on this board more knowledgeable than you all disagree with your "Chinese values," are they still Chinese values? You are probably just like one of those so called HK democrats (if you have any affiliations with China at all) to whom logic and reason is a mere distant thought and who blows nothing but hot air.
1. Putting words in my mouth: and How many times do I need to quote myself? 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." 2. Continuing to put words in my mouth: No, I did not. Read what you just quoted again: Did you even watch the movie? The whole "twist" at the end was that the First Emperor was THE hero the title referred to, were you paying the least bit of attention? The depiction of the First Emperor was undoubtedly IN SUPPORT of his historical actions of imperialism and despotism, and if you can't see how the Chinese Communist regime would embrace that depiction, then you're naive or ignorant or both. You're right, though, "propaganda" is too vehement a word for me to use to describe the film. Clearly, the director Zhang Yimou has not in the past been a lackey for the Chinese government. I made claims about THE MOVIE, I never made any statements about Zhang's intentions. Remember, R.I.F.: Reading Is FUNdamental. 3. Yet more putting words in my mouth: and Unreal. NEVER did I make such a claim. To quote myself 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. Here's just one of countless examples: the Romantic era English poet William Wordsworth held radical political views and infused his writings with same in his youth, yet later in life was named poet laureate and became part of the "Establishment." I DON'T KNOW if this is the case with Zhang, but it is FAIR to question and criticize when this film shows such a departure for him. I did NOT accuse him of being "bought off" or "paid for" by the government, YOU even quoted me cutting him some slack: "propaganda" is too vehement a word for me to use to describe the film. Clearly, the director Zhang Yimou has not in the past been a lackey for the Chinese government. This film was definitely a radical departure for him, in terms of genre as well as political overtones, and while the film left a bitter taste for me, I certainly think it's worth watching. In fact, I look forward to his next project and seeing where his artistic development goes from here. Now, let's look at your words. and But Zhang Yimou himself, the man whose film you've been defending against my criticism, says that the First Emperor is so controversial and that there is much debate over how to value his rule. In fact, "he is so controversial, I should have stayed away from him." Do I need to tell you the definitions of "consensus" and "controversial"? I realize your IQ is rather meager but surely you can look them up for yourself, since obviously you don't understand what those words mean. Can you admit you're wrong, and that THERE IS NO GENERAL CONSENSUS? Otherwise, at least call Zhang an ignorant moron too, it'll make me feel sooo much better. Finally: So everyone who objects to the "heroic" portrayal of Qin ShiHuang in this film is an idiot and/or conspiracy theorist. Everyone who disagrees with the "philosophy of servitude" endorsed by this film is an idiot and/or conspiracy theorist. Everyone who dissents from your "consensus" and believes that the First Emperor's crimes make a bloody stain that blots his contributions is an idiot and/or conspiracy theorist. Everyone--including the director--who can plainly see that the film's subject matter is politically charged is an idiot and/or conspiracy theorist. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but really, you can't possibly actually be that stupid, can you? Do you seriously intend to cling to those positions I've QUOTED above? What you've repeatedly done has been to accuse me of saying things I never said, and trying to quash any debate and dissent on a legitimately controversial topic that is clearly worthy of discussion. You said you're not a commie, well, the next thing that comes to mind is that you must be...a Republican? (There, that oughta get this thread moved to D&D.)
1. Putting words in your mouth? Yipengzhao said the movie was "Chinese values," not that I necessarily agree with him. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure he said anything regarding Chinese values at all, as he said: Hero, is authentic. because the conception of the Hero in ancient Chinese lore does not fit into the archetypes of the greco-roman or judeo-christian Hero Then you said and I quote: Give me a break. "Authentic" Eastern values my ass; "Hero" was propaganda. If you think an apology for imperialism or justification for authoritarianism represents authentic Chinese values I suppose I somehow hacked your computer without even knowing that this garbage was ongoing 4 months ago and typed it right? 2. Ha ha ha, I really cracked up over this one. You are talking about the depiction of a film independent of its director? RIF? How about some BIR, Brain is required. Tell me, how can a movie be produced if the director doesn't apply his artistic knowledge and interpretation of the script? Further more, do you know anything about movie production at all? 3. Hey, of course you didn't say the commies paid him. You just pretty much accuse him of being a government lackey. Zhang Yimou has not in the past been a lackey for the Chinese government 4. Zhang Yimou said the First Emperor was controversial (which he is), he also said there is disagreement (which there is), but he never said what is in disagreement about the First Emperor. There is open disagreement about WHETHER THE FIRST EMPEROR WAS A GOOD MAN. There is NO OPEN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE FIRST EMPEROR BEING A TYRANT OR THAT HE HAS DONE SOME VERY IMPRESSIVE THINGS, which was pretty much my premise here all along. And at least according a survey of Chinese historians, THERE IS CONSENSUS THAT THE FIRST EMPEROR IS A TYRANT THAT HAS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHINA. While accusing my low IQ, you don't even see that you are so stupid that you strayed from your claim in the first place, which is that the First Emperor is not a hero, although I cannot be sure that's what it is, since it kind of got lost in all your rambling. 5. Politically charged is vastly different than propaganda, which was your premise all along. You even have troubles remembering your own BS, how do you expect to argue with me? Or do I need to remind you? 6. Anyone in the world can openly object to anyone labelling anyone else in the world a hero or a jackass. As was my premise all along, the definition of a hero has always been subjective, varying by group, time and situation. I admire the Zhao for over 2 centuries of resistance to the most powerful Kingdom in the world at the time. I also have no problems if people say that the destruction of Zhao led to greater prosperity to the rest of the people. What I do have problem with, is some ignorant fool who knows nothing in the subject, somehow makes the outrageous claim that the movie is a communist propaganda at work. Last time I checked, Hero received mixed views in China but got rave reviews in the rest of Asia, including SK, Japan and Singapore, all of which at least openly claim to be democratic. So if your premise is true, I am inclined to believe that commie propaganda is incredibly effective and would predict that 30 years in the future we'd all be shouting "Long Live Mao." 7. I cling to quotes you made? I thought that was the point of a debate. One party makes an outrageous claim and another proves him wrong. Let me introduce to you something called credibility. When you are in the history field and is writing an academic paper (as most of the time, academia is where history majors end up), if someone catch of a whiff that you are trying to BS, even if you didn't actually do it, your credibility goes out the window. Hell, it doesn't even take that. If you as much as make a claim which is proven ridiculously wrong, others look at you with a different eye. And in this field, if you lose your credibility to that extent, you might as well apply for a job at McDonald's right away. Nobody will ever take you seriously again. Which is why if you make a claim, back it up with evidence. A historian has to research, theorize and ONLY THEN, make a claim. The whole process could take years!!! After which you have to defend your claim (whether the subject is legitimately controversial or not, whether it's worthy of debate or not) or openly admit you made a mistake, that you were wrong. Yet here you are, objecting to my citing your previous quotes and your previous claims, all of which directly affecting your credibility. To say it diplomatically, it shows you are amateurish. To say it bluntly, you were BSing. But we really aren't surprised by that are we?
I still don't see how unification of China was necessarily a good thing. Europe has thrived despite the large number of individual countries that comprise it. Would they have been better off if they'd remained consolidated by (The Roman Empire, Napoleon, Hitler, whoever)? Are the individual countries that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union less well-off as a result of that breakup?
Obviously, both unification and individualism have their benefits. China's unification provided a founding basis for the development of economy, social infrastructures, technology, wealth and trade networks while separate countrys promotes a level of competition between the countries. However, it should be stated that even individual nations are not independent by their own. Europe had to adopt a policy of extensive trading. Neither they buy your products or you force them to buy your products. Companies plain need markets, which is why we are seeing the trend of globalisation and the emergence of the EU. I would say the unification model is better (although that is only my opinion) as China never accounted for less than 50% of the world's wealth and was indeed the most powerful and technological advanced nation in the world until the Late Ming/Qing Dynasty f*ckups. Take for example, following the loss of the Opium War to the British by the Qing Dynasty, China paid 300 million teals of silver, equivalent of more than 15 million kilograms, or 33.75 million pounds (I'm a little hazy about my conversion rate of kg to pounds, you might want to recheck the number). After which, Britain (among many other European superpowers) saw the need to invade China again, as there was even more, and much more to be milked from China. As for the Soviet Union, the answer is not that simple. For example, Belarus won its independence, but lost all the industries the Soviets place in Minsk (not to mention Lukashenke is even more authoritarian than the commies). Any ways, the simple answer is, both have their benefits.
What's your point here? To say that you don't necessarily agree that the movie represented "Chinese values"? Uh, yeah, that was MY objection. *Sigh* I'll try to explain this basic concept to you: an artist's work and his "intentions" ARE (and should be) separate. For instance, whether or not Shakespeare "intended" for there to be an Oedipal dynamic between Hamlet and his mother Gertrude is irrelevant; as long as there is a solid basis for such an interpretation IN THE TEXT, then the reading is valid, legitimate, worthy of discussion. We don't need to try to read the author's mind; in fact, even if the author came out and said, "No, I had no such intention," it wouldn't render the interpretation invalid AS LONG AS THERE IS TEXTUAL EVIDENCE. Understand? So Zhang's "intentions" are irrelevant: he made a film, and as long as a critic can point to specifics in the film that show the film has political themes, whether or not Zhang consciously "intended" for the political themes to be there is, I repeat, irrelevant. *Sigh* Read the whole paragraph, learn to read context: "propaganda" is too vehement a word for me to use to describe the film. Clearly, the director Zhang Yimou has not in the past been a lackey for the Chinese government, [the implication being, because he hasn't been IN THE PAST, I will now give him the benefit of the doubt IN THE PRESENT]. ... while the film left a bitter taste for me, I certainly think it's worth watching. In fact, I look forward to his next project and seeing where his artistic development goes from here. Notice I used the phrase "artistic development"; do you think I would still consider a commie-paid-for-lackey to be an ARTIST? Uh, no. I strayed from MY claim? My claims are and have been that the First Emperor was a tyrant whose crimes far outweigh his contributions, that I'm repulsed by the movie's portrayal of him as a hero, and that this heroic portrayal of him (and Nameless endorsing his actions by not killing him) dovetails perfectly as a metaphor for Communist China. What was your claim? "the general CONSENSUS is that the First Emperor's contributions outweigh his crimes." I've already shown you many dissenting opinions, including Zhang himself saying "there is much debate over how to value his rule." So it appears that quite a few people and not just me, historians and otherwise, believe his crimes outweigh his contributions. You're now backpedaling to say that the consensus is only that he's "a tyrant that has done some impressive things," "a tyrant that has contributions to China." We all know he has made contributions, the question is are they blotted out by his tyranny, or the other way around? It would be fine and dandy if your original claim was simply that YOUR PERSONAL OPINION is that his contributions outweigh his crimes, but no, you claimed that that is THE CONSENSUS. Is that still your claim? Nice try backpedaling from it, your credibility just went out the window. *Sigh* "'propaganda' is too vehement a word for me to use to describe the film." But good to see you're finally acknowledging the political themes and allegorical aspects of the movie, although I'm sure you'd prefer to be able to continue dismissing people who bring that up as idiots and conspiracy theorists. "Propaganda" is a loaded word that I long ago (more than 4 months ago) withdrew. But to say that the CCP loves the political message of the film is no stretch. Again, the filmmaker's intentions are not at issue here: Zhang most likely did not intentionally conceptualize making this movie as a way to promote an ideology that the commie leaders embrace, but hey, it turned out that way. HIS MOVIE PROMOTES AN IDEOLOGY THAT THE COMMIE LEADERS EMBRACE; or more specifically, an ideology that the commie leaders WOULD LIKE THE PEOPLE TO EMBRACE. Um, you misunderstood me. The sentence "Do you seriously intend to cling to those positions I've QUOTED above?" was meant to convey this: "Do you seriously intend to cling to those positions [of yours] I've QUOTED above?" Those positions being the ones listed in the paragraph above that sentence in my previous post. I was giving you a chance to backpedal from those assertions, which you did. Although, considering your next paragraph, maybe that wasn't such a great idea for you to do so... Hmm, originally: "general consensus is that his contributions far outweigh his crimes"; "idiots and conspiracy theorist can see politics in anything"...but now: "consensus is he's a tyrant that has made contributions to China"; "politically charged is vastly different than propaganda." Funny, I concur with both of your revised formulations. Are you going to defend your original claims, or openly admit you were wrong? Bye bye credibility...
Look, you know what, I've thought about this some more and basically we're arguing semantics at this point. I'm not going to go so far as to say that there's absolutely nothing positive to be said for Qin ShiHuang, and you've said he was a tyrant. The underlying philosophy of the film bugged me a great deal, and you've said you don't necessarily think it represents "Chinese values" (whatever vague, nebulous set of morals that phrase may connote) either. I think you and yipeng felt I was attacking China or something, and doing so in front of all these Americans, and felt the need to defend it, and I can certainly understand that instinct. Things got emotionally charged, but whatever, I've been called worse things than moron and idiot. As far as I'm concerned, we can leave this behind us. And to everyone else out there who's followed the thread, go and see the movie. What might've just been a cool kung-fu flick before you read this heated argument, now you'll watch it and be thinking about it on multiple other levels.
1. My objection was that the movie is not sufficient to represent all of China's values and does represent some non-Chinese values. Although to simply to say the movie does not represent Chinese values at all is bogus. My objection is also somebody like you pretending to know Chinese values. 2. To argue whether a movie is political if perfectly fine, to intrepret a movie differently is also perfectly fine. What is NOT fine is to say a movie is political implies a movie is propaganda. Let me remind you your points here: a) The First Emperor is not a hero b) This movie is commie propaganda The what is that you mean, that Zhang inadvertently/unintentionally created commie propaganda? I also find it funny that you would say "Zhang is promoting the Beijing Olympics on behalf of the Chinese government" then come out and say that you didn't intrepret his intentions. Can a person take both sides of an argument? 3. Here you go off again. Although you don't claim to know Zhang's intentions, you say the movie "dovetails perfectly as a metaphor for Communist China." I rather wonder have you ever actually been to China, as there is nothing communist about it. So what's your premise here, that the commies made Zhang produce the movie or the commies used a Zhang produced movie as propaganda? Because neither are true. As for your rants about China entering it in the Oscars because it reflects commie propaganda, just for your information, China had entered movies in the past in which the commies would hate. Whatever happened to the far more parsimonious answer that they entered it because it had some decent special effects? But you probably don't know what parsimony means. As I've said, conspiracy theorists can see political plots in everything. 4. Which one is it that you don't agree with? That the First Emperor is a tyrant or that he has done nice things? Which evidence do you not agree with? The survey that most Chinese historians think his contribution outweighs his crimes? Backpedalling? It would take you to produce some evidence for me to start even considering backpedalling. 5. Which concept would the commies love to embrace? Peace? Unity? Last time I checked, pretty much every country in the world at least pretend to want them. Which concept would the commies hate if the movie was reversed and the First Emperor was murdered? The fact that wars still exist and many MORE innocent people are dying? Furthermore, as I am almost sure now you have never lived in China, what would you know about pseudo-communism in the first place? 6. Try to argue with multiple surveys done by various organizations, at various different times, to various historians in various academia before you even start to BS about the consensus, whether it is that the First Emperor has done nice things OR his contributions outweigh his crimes. Unlike you, I can easily stand behind every statement I make. So go ahead, create your own poll. I am sure you are able to find several idiots to fix your poll such that 90% or even 100% of "all people" think the First Emperor's crimes outweigh his contributions.
awesome thread. entertaining, yet educational at the same time. for the rest of us non-Chinese-history-gurus, i ran across this page that gives an overview of this topic. in particular, the section titled "Qin Shi Huangdi in historiography" seems relevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huangdi
I really hate to drag this on, but it's just humorous to see your combination of, on one hand, desperately holding on to refuted claims and, at the same time, insulting as "idiots" those who aren't in lock-step with you. Let's break this down: First, you cite as "evidence" that according to "multiple surveys" there is general consensus among historians that the First Emperor's contributions outweigh his crimes. Funny thing is, moomoo then posted the link to a brief encyclopedia entry on Qin ShiHuang in historiography, which discusses shifting evaluations of his rule over the centuries. I don't need to "create my own poll," there's indisputable evidence right there showing that a significant number of historians, past and present, have argued that his crimes outweigh his contributions. Of course, they must've all been "idiots," though. Now, you said above that, "Unlike you, I can easily stand behind every statement I make." Great, then I'd like you to stand behind what you said here: "Hell, one may even be hero to the same group during one time and public enemy number one [at] another [time]." Looks like you're saying historical interpretations can and do change. So EVEN IF there's a current consensus that the First Emperor's contributions outweigh his crimes (which there isn't), are you daring to argue that such a consensus cannot shift? That in a generation, or a century, or a millennium, historians won't re-evaluate his legacy and come down on the negative side? Would they all be "idiots" if they did so? Your assertion is, to repeat, that "the general consensus is the First Emperor's contributions outweigh his crimes." Does this consensus include only contemporary historians? If it includes any historians at all from the past you've been demonstrably proven wrong. You go on to term "idiots" anyone who thinks his crimes outweigh his contributions (those past historians must presumably be lumped under the "idiots" category as well): "I am sure you are able to find several idiots to fix your poll such that 90% or even 100% of "all people" think the First Emperor's crimes outweigh his contributions." But you also argued that historical interpretations shift. Well c'mon, stand behind all these statements of yours and square them with each other. Better start backpedaling...
