Hero (Ying xiong) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Matthew Brown]

Can anybody that has seen the Miramax version and speaks the original language if the subtitles accurately tell the story?

Miramax has a history of changing plot elements and character traits with their subtitles that do not match the original language.

Matt

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The subs seem to mirror the information discussed here.



My moviestub indeed stated "Jet Li's HERO" as the title, though it is being sold as "Hero".



I really connected with the film. I see some of the major arguments here, and I must present myself as clueless on any but the very basic history...not even to the fictional level presented in the film.



I did not feel the film pushed one ideology or another, except to say that some things are worth fighting for and worth dying for. It was sad and melancholy, and somewhat painfully true. As with most films like it, it will inspire dialogue (though I disagree with Brian T's much earlier assessment that the discussion regarding The Passion wasn't inspired) and philosophical debates.



To share a few quotes that either mirror, tangentially support, or have some connection to the film:




quote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
- Thomas Jefferson



As I stated, I found it a bit melancholy, that we are so intrinsically tied into the very worst of our natures, that the best of us can often only be seen when it is sacrificed for the good of the many.



Visually, the film is rarely equaled. Well worth a trip to the big screen for those who have only seen it at home.



Take care,

Chuck

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Just saw it today. A stunning visual display. Like others have said the message is a difficult one to reconcile.

 

[Zen Butler]

Great! I'm off to see this in a few hours.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

The movie was beautiful and well made, so you don't necessarily have to agree with the message to like it. I thought it was wonderful to read the actual ending subtitles previously posted on this forum! The fact that the Emperor Qin actually stopped warmongering really puts the film in perspective for me! I also saw the film with a Taiwanese friend who I'll ask for insight.



The movie has spurred you guys to bring up one of the greatest ethical debates of 200 years, which is, do the ends justify the means?



There are two sides to that argument: Utilitarians and Kantians. Utilitarians say whatever provides the greatest happiness, or utility, to the most amount of ppl, is right. Kantians, those who agreed with philosopher Immanuel Kant, would say that it's never right to kill or use innocent ppl, even if you think it would save others. In their opinion, it is wrong of the Emperor to attack peaceful countries Spoiler:and to execute Nameless, even if he had a greater good in mind (at least within the way it is presented in the film).





I do not know the ancient history, so I can't apply the above framework to it, however, I *can* argue with China's contemporary history on a Kantian *as well* as a Utilitarian basis:



Has the Chinese statism really saved lives? Probably not. Mao Zedong and the Communist Party are probably the biggest murderers of all time, 40+ millions killed since 1949. What was their excuse? "The ends justify the means. We're doing it for the people."

 

[Jason GT]

Interesting discussion.



Just saw it at the ol' theatre tonight (holding off from importing a DVD or getting it locally). It's debatable if the movie was meant to draw a parallel to modern Chinese politics (apparently it was not?!) but in some ways I thought it to be, in some ways, a criticism of the current government.


ONe thing sticks in my mind - one of Nameless' final lines that roughly says (and I'm heavily paraphrasing) "the last words of a dying man are - please put down your sword". Once absolute power is obtained, it seems that there's an implication that mercy should be shown to the people.

People give the emperor mercy twice but it is not returned.



Tony, there's a major distinction between modern China (and the context of the current Communist party) and that of the period covered in the film. On the other hand, if one looks at the formation of modern China, things become a bit clearer.

China was united from various states by the Qin regime. Similarly, the Communist party is what rose and strengthened China from the hobbled China of the 1800s and early 1900s.



Having thought my way through this post

- the end to a certain extent justifies the means, but at the end, you must remember to justify your means. Modern China is stronger than what was before - now that it IS stronger it may be time to show belief in the people (it's time for China to "put down the sword").



I have some other thoughts on Maggie's character, but I'll save them for later.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Jason, you have clearly chosen and extended the Utilitarian viewpoint as I described above. What you are describing is actually the approach of "modern" Utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham. It is a thoughtful approach to analyzing history. As I said, I cannot ascertain if the movie was commenting on ancient or modern Chinese history, but I can draw parallels.





However, I must disagree in that, if you are a Kantian, that is, you believe that the ends *never* justify the means, then your intentions matter not. If the Emperor Qin colonizes just one peaceful nation, even for the purpose of unification and to preserve life, he would have failed the Kantian morality test.




The sole exception to this doctrine would be if the Emperor was overthrowing particularly despotic regimes with a volunteer army (Kantians don't like drafts), and he must also establish a more fair and equitable society for that nation's ppl. I don't know if this was the case in this part of China's history, but I'm guessing it wasn't.

I am discussing the differences between Kantian and Utilitarian viewpoints b/c they represent the two most important and diametrically opposed schools of thought in modern ethics, and they also provide a familiar and useful analytical framework. I also happen to strongly agree with one of those positions, I'll let you figure out which one

 

[Chuck Mayer]

In a piece of American literature, there is a third option.



It may sound silly, but in The Dark Knight Returns, Gordon explains why throughout his career he has let the Batman control Gotham. It's the same reason, he states, that he never understood the questioning of FDR and Pearl Harbor.



It's TOO big.



That's it. It's too big for one person.



I don't think the film takes a simple stand. It specifically gives interpretations. It does end insinuating that Broken Sword was right, but good people had to die. I think another key issue is raised in the film. Simplicity is order of the highest form. I didn't get too complex with my interpretations. It's more about personal belief than group belief. People make, and live with, their choices. And thee people are willing to do for what they believe, whether fully formed (Broken Sword) or nascent (Nameless) beliefs. Or for love (Snow).



In short, sometimes the end justifies the means. Sometimes, they don't. There isn't a manual.



Take care,

Chuck

 

[ZacharyTait]

I saw this movie yesterday and I must say this is one beautiful looking film. Too bad it wasn't elgible for Oscars because it would be a shoo-in for several nominations.



I had no idea Maggie Cheung, Zhang Ziyi, and Tony Leung were in this. I knew Jet Li was, obviously, as evidenced by the trailer.



The fight scenes were spectacular, on par with CTHD's fights.



I've got a feeling that a lot of people are going to see this expecting a high octane martial arts action movie and be disappointed that they get a martial arts drama. While I was watching the movie, I was aware of other people not paying attention or doing other stuff. Granted, they were teenagers with the attention span of a 2-year old, so I shouldn't be surprised.



****

 

[Citizen87645]

It was nominated in the Foreign Language category for the 2003 Academy Awards.

 

[ZacharyTait]

quote:It was nominated in the Foreign Language category for the 2003 Academy Awards.

I knew that going in, so I figure becase of that, it's not elgible for anything this year. Too bad.

 

[ThomasC]

quote:I knew that going in, so I figure becase of that, it's not elgible for anything this year. Too bad.

No, it's eligible. It didn't receive any nominations/awards in 2002 other than Best Foreign Film because it wasn't released here yet. A foreign film must be released in the U.S. before it is eligible for any other awards. Thus, Hero is eligible for any award other than Best Foreign Film for the next Oscars.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

ChucK:



I too love Dark Knight Returns, but I have always had a bad feeling about that exchange in the comic. This idea that some ppl or ideas are too "BIG" and beyond reproach, or that some problems are too big to be reasoned out by mortal minds...it's very elitist. I can easily judge FDR based on a Utilitarian or Kantian model, and come to a clear answer. Will it be the right one, who knows, but it's WORTH studying and deciding for yourself. To this day, a lot of educated ppl think FDR was a tyrant for forcing the country into the war and creating a near Communist state, etc.



However, I DO agree with you in that the movie need not be judged simply based on whether you agree with the message at its end. I believe that the film definitely comes out as supporting nationalism, if not statism. But it's so wonderfully told that I don't mind!

 

[Jason GT]

Tony,



I'm sorry but I didn't study philosophy or ethics! However, one can always argue if unification (or birth of a nation) through violence is justifiable - be it Bismarck and Germany, ancient China or even the US Revolution.



One thing that I find interesting - I speak (a little bit) of Mandarin, and Broken Sword's written words are translated in the subtitling as "our land". Best I can hear the dialogue is "tian xia" which can be translated as "under the sky" or better yet (IMO) "all under heaven"; essentially the earth. This makes for a subtle difference - instead of being a reminder of the desire and perhaps need for national unification, "all under heaven" has a much more ambitious implication.



Right now I'd appreciate the input of people more adept with Mandarin

 

[Rogozhin]

Kant's ethical theory was the Categorical Imperative. It had nothing to do with hypothetical imperitive (individual judgement without reason as the source of decision-desire) the basis was reason.



I'm just expatiating on Tony's description of Kant's ethical law.



Law: Act only on that maxim that can be willed a universal law.



Example:

I consider lying to you so that you will lend me some money, my maxim therefore being 'Whenever I can gain something from it, I shall lie.' Can I will this to become a universal law of nature? No, for the practices of communication on which lying depends would break down."

(DoP example)



This is a great thread! And a thanks to Tony for illucidating the moral dilema

Rogo

 

[Don Solosan]

quote:One thing that I find interesting - I speak (a little bit) of Mandarin, and Broken Sword's written words are translated in the subtitling as "our land". Best I can hear the dialogue is "tian xia" which can be translated as "under the sky" or better yet (IMO) "all under heaven"; essentially the earth. This makes for a subtle difference - instead of being a reminder of the desire and perhaps need for national unification, "all under heaven" has a much more ambitious implication.

The DVD I have translates that as "all under heaven," which doesn't seem to be as hopeful as "our land." And then to have those black robed figures yelling "Execute him! Execute him!" It led me to the interpretation that even if Nameless killed the Emperor, some other despot would rise up and it would all continue. I guess I don't see humans reaching that third level where they don't need their swords...



The translation in the U.S. theatrical version seems much more hopeful to me.

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

The official movie website has this to say:

quote:During the Warring States period, a feudal system became firmly established. The Warring States saw the feudal lord of each state vying for hegemony. Each of them believed that they were destined to unite ‘All Under Heaven’, a phrase taken to mean civilization as they knew it.

'All Under Heaven'--so that's the way they think it should be translated.



Anybody else care to chime in on the movie to bring us back from the abyss of tangential philosophical discussion?

Would like to read more impressions about the movie.

 

[Citizen87645]

I've owned the DVD for awhile now but will probably go see it on the big screen. Hopefully it will get an improved transfer, though Miramax's track record hasn't been too hot as of late. The copy I have at least could stand some improvement.

 

[ZacharyTait]

quote:No, it's eligible. It didn't receive any nominations/awards in 2002 other than Best Foreign Film because it wasn't released here yet. A foreign film must be released in the U.S. before it is eligible for any other awards. Thus, Hero is eligible for any award other than Best Foreign Film for the next Oscars.

Thanks for the info! I should have known from the City of God situation, but I thought this was different.

 

[Nick C.]

quote:

quote:No, it's eligible. It didn't receive any nominations/awards in 2002 other than Best Foreign Film because it wasn't released here yet. A foreign film must be released in the U.S. before it is eligible for any other awards. Thus, Hero is eligible for any award other than Best Foreign Film for the next Oscars.

Thanks for the info! I should have known from the City of God situation, but I thought this was different.

Actually, HERO doesn't appear to be eligible for any Oscars this year. (Note: rule V.3 which states any Best Foreign Language Award nominee is no longer eligible for other, including non-BFLA, awards in subsequent award seasons)

CITY OF GOD was in the opposite (and better?) situation, as it was _not_ nominated for the BFLA, thus it was eligible for the 4 nominations it received this past Oscar session. HERO was nominated for the BFLA in 2003, thus ruling it out for all subsequent nominations this year. This was one of the major reasons Miramax delayed so long in releasing it, as, at least Academy Awards-wise, it had nothing to gain.