Hero (Ying xiong) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

AFAIK, the push for City of God was non-existent, and look what happened there. Yeah, it didn't get a Best Picture nomination, but still.

 

[Howard Tom]

quote:Yes, but I'm not sure how much of a push Miramax will be making for Hero in the Best Picture Oscar slot.

I was pretty certain that Nick's earlier post was correct: that "Hero" was only eligible for 2003's Oscars once it became one of the nominees for Foreign Language Film. That ties into an old rumor that Miramax may have planned for an Oscar push for the next year, but were caught by surprise when China submitted the film. Of course, since they should have been aware this could have happened, the plausibility of this theory comes into question. At the same time, the situation with "City of God" suggests they may hedge their bets more often than we would believe.



Howard

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote: Michelle Yeoh on the other hand is from Malaysia, I'm not sure what her "first" language is, but one suspects it could well be English (spoken with a Malaysian accent), hence the comments about her Cantonese (which presumably would be her "second" language), let alone her Mandarin.

A few points, the first of which should generate no controversy. Yee-Ming has made some points about Malaysian Chinese and language (especially in schools), to which I would add that Michelle Yeoh did in fact learn both Bahasa (Malay) and English before Chinese.



Since a check on IMDB indicates that she was born in the northwest of peninsular Malaysia, my strong guess is that she would have first learned Hokkien, and not either Mandarin or Cantonese. This would be a reasonable expectation around Penang and Perak—where Hokkien is the main mother tongue (if one is retained).

quote:Clearly Marple's understanding of the phrase is literal, whereas the phrase has been in the Chinese diction for a long time with a different meaning. His implicitly (or explicitly, I'm not sure) says that the film could justify imperialism or further expansion, to which I would argue is a cheapshot ethically, and ridiculous in the current political climate.

Understanding that Marple is studying in Taiwan, I would suggest that either he needs to study a bit more or not confine his recitation of facts to the Qin dynasty and Mao Zedong. There is no question that Qin destroyed much of what came before—as did the Red Chinese. What Maprle did not mention was that this has happened at every turn in Chinese history. All of the dynasties destroyed as much of what had come before as they could possibly manage. Most especially art, literature and other accomplishments. Furthermore, this phenomena is not unique to the Chinese. To cite only one example, one need go no further than England where Oliver Cromwell undertook to destroy as many of the monasteries as he could manage.



To suggest that the movie showed only one (and perhaps a modified one at that) aspect of Qin and that therefore the film plays to the current Chinese political leaders displays a complete lack of understanding of how any movie views history and historical figures. Very few show the complete man or the complete story (to be sure there are some).

 

[Tony_Ramos]

quote:Kirk Tsai:

Nowhere in Marple's article does he claim that. If it is your claim, it is awfully broad and easily disputable.

Unfortunately, Kirk, it *is* indisputable that most economists believe China's inflationary economy is destabilizing the world economy more than any other factor. It contributes to the price of oil. It has increased the value of our commodities such as steel, putting Americans to work, and should their economy go bust it would put those same Americans out of work. It is their persistent puchasing of the dollar to inflate their own currency that is allowing their hot economy to continue to rise while our dollar is not allowed to stabilize at its real value. And the Chinese gov'ts persistent theft of national security, computer technology, software secrets and intellectual property is costing the world economy millions each year, all in the name of Chinese progress.

However, I'm not worried, I think China is being flooded with capitalism right now and that flood will eventually overpower the CCP. They are already letting businessmen into the party, something they never would have done even 10 yers ago. But they aren't turning around b/c of what the movie advocates, which is worrying about their country: China is turning around b/c the ppl are finally thinking about their own welfare and thus embracing a free economy.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Darrell:



Taking film class helped me to understand that a movie is more than just a narrative, just as a painting is more than just a representation of something. In my opinion, the fact that you loved the visuals means the movie was completing half its job right there!



Despite being queasy about the totalitarian "message" at the end, I found that this movie put me into an almost meditative state when I was in awe of the power of the visuals. I think it has to do with the fact that I love anything about Taoism. It also has to do with the fact that, like Brian said, the movie made me think.



Another poster said that the movie fulfilled on an intellectual level rather than an emotional level. I think this was true for most of the American audience. Upon leaving the theater I heard a lot of grumbles of ppl literally claiming to have hated the movie, including the friends I went with. I was very despondent that somehow the beauty of the film was lost on them. The avg American needs to realize that you can analyze a film based on more than its plot. We may not find great works of literature to be always entertaining, but few of us would dispute that they are great. Yet, a lot of ppl don't have the same respect for film!

 

[Brent Hutto]

I would be the last person to evaluate a film solely on its plot or lack thereof. That said, I found Hero quite disappointing. On the one hand, it was beautifully imagined and photographed while the actors were remarkably expressive and sympathetic within the contraints of their very rigid roles.



On the other hand...well, pretty much everything else. I did not feel empathy for any character at any point during the movie. The impact of the deaths that finally occurred was diluted by the number of times we had seen main characters being killed or pretending to be killed. It is not part of my cultural heritage to consider the abstract ideal of building a great nation as sufficient to balance injustice to an individual and the movie unfortunately did nothing to illuminate that point of view so that I could understand it. Ultimately, Hero seemed to progress rather mechanically toward a conclusion that was inevitable and ugly. That structure requires a certain level of empathy on the part of the viewer for one or more characters in order to achieve emotional resonance.

 

[Darrell Bratz]

Tony,

quote:Taking film class helped me to understand that a movie is more than just a narrative, just as a painting is more than just a representation of something. In my opinion, the fact that you loved the visuals means the movie was completing half its job right there!

Agreed, fully! The film did at the very least half it's job. However...Brakhage this is not. There's very much an active narrative here, and the thrilling emotion supplied by the visuals has the side-effect of highlighting the narrative/character problems of the story they serve. In my opinion. To reference another film "Hero" has now frequently been compared to: "Rashomon" this is not, either.



I might well have enjoyed the film more with the subtitles absent, guessing at my own rationale for the behavior observed. I'd also admire frame after frame as wonderful photographic art, blown up and hung on a wall.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Just as a thought, there are numerous examples in Western literature, thought and matters of history where an individual either voluntarily gives his life for the greater good, or is required to do so (and that requirement is seen to be valid).

 

[Darrell Bratz]

Lew,

quote:Just as a thought, there are numerous examples in Western literature, thought and matters of history where an individual either voluntarily gives his life for the greater good, or is required to do so (and that requirement is seen to be valid).

Certainly. However, it is not at all clear that anyone is giving anything up for the greater good in this film. The facts in evidence (and there aren't many at all) would be that they are either dying on behalf of a greater evil, or for the good of one man/country (Xin). Surely two characters are intimating that they think it's better for the rest of China to lay down and be conquered by Xin, but we as viewers are not given any good reason to think they are correct. They would appear to be wrong. Again, it's sketchy - just maybe the rulers of the other six nation-states are even worse than Xin's king, but if that's the case it's not made at all. As our pal TH White taught us as adolescent readers, "might doesn't make right". Good heavens, maybe Britain should have surrendered to Germany in 1940 to end all those nasty blitzes. I have a hard time reading the Leung/Li characters as anything other than less-than-deep thinkers.

 

[Shawn_KE]

Thought it was well shot as well acted. But seeing Broken Sword die for the 15th time was getting real boring. Just when you thought it was over, nope, they die another way.

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:Certainly. However, it is not at all clear that anyone is giving anything up for the greater good in this film. The facts in evidence (and there aren't many at all) would be that they are either dying on behalf of a greater evil, or for the good of one man/country (Xin). Surely two characters are intimating that they think it's better for the rest of China to lay down and be conquered by Xin, but we as viewers are not given any good reason to think they are correct. They would appear to be wrong.

I think that you are taking this too literally, Darrell. Plus you are making value judgments as to ‘good’ and ‘evil’ outside the context of the movie.



In an earlier post I went though a minor consideration of some portions of the movie and why it is that the actions taken by the Nameless One and the King are both justified and moral (within the context of the movie).



Remember that this is an epic—a tale not to be taken that everything is factual as presented but as mythic. I think that once you see this in that context, the evil as perceived by Westerners will become much different.

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

quote:The avg American needs to realize that you can analyze a film based on more than its plot. We may not find great works of literature to be always entertaining, but few of us would dispute that they are great. Yet, a lot of ppl don't have the same respect for film!

I think when it comes to this film, a lot of the people seeing it - exclusive of critics who will research the subject and people like many of us here who were interested in the bigger cultural picture long before HERO ever came along - are coming away disappointed for reasons that have been fairly pointed out earlier in this thread: outside of the mainland Chinese audience, for whom this film was primarily made, one has to put aside one's cultural and emotional preconceptions about, well, everything in order to truly enjoy it, even if one disagrees with the political undercurrents racing through it and its final moral. I nearly share Brett's opinion regarding empathy for the characters: I had little, particularly from my "western" point of view, but in light of the acknowledged "mission" of the film, I knew the filmmakers didn't necessarily want me to empathize with these characters. Were I a lifelong member of its primary audience, however, I really do believe I'd have thought otherwise. Putting myself in that mindset - as well as I could based on what I've read about the culture - actually allowed me to have more empathy than I might have had had I watched a film like this, say, ten years ago. I still come away with my viewpoint largely intact, but I understand the counterpoint just that much better. I'm not as deep a thinker as I'd like to be (especially when compared with others in this thread), but I try, and movies like this and all the research and discussion they inspire can only result in a better understanding of those beliefs with which I might disagree.



The last Asian film that really challenged my intellect, such as it is, on this level was Wong Kar-wai's IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, another film that some people at the time had difficulty getting through. Granted, the "messages" in that film are wholly different from those in HERO, but there is a lot going on in the subtext from a culture-specific standpoint, and its fascinating to sit there, watching, trying to figure it all out.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Brian,



I really enjoyed In the Mood for Love. One of the best movies I've seen in the past year. I can't say I understood the characters but the emotions being depicted were pretty universal even though they were acted out in a context foreign to me. In the Mood for Love gave me a lot to think about and was certainly the artistic equal to Hero (in terms of the acting and the images) even though it wasn't about as large-scale a set of issues.



Lew,



For example, I can imagine a movie that depicts a Japanese solider in the 1940's holding out heroically in a doomed cause and giving his life for something larger that I don't particularly agree with. But it would have to be a movie in which I identified with the character's values and had some insight into why he felt that his sacrifice was justified.



Likewise, I can imagine a movie that depicts a Chinese warrior 2,000 years ago making a similar sacrifice regardless of whether I believe in the same cause as he does. Unfortunately, in Hero nothing beyond simple revenge and justice-seeking is portrayed in Nameless until he makes spur of the moment conversion to the King's (and Broken Sword's) belief system. For that matter I was never brought inside Broken Sword's mind enough to find his beliefs compelling. Who knows what my experience might have been if I had some cultural baggage that makes those beliefs at least resonant but I don't and they aren't and so I'm left with a beautiful but ultimately empty movie. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, just that I didn't find it very substantial.

 

[Darrell Bratz]

Lew,



I read your earlier posts on this and the review thread, and I appreciate them. In particular, I fully understand your discussion of why the King was obliged to kill Nameless. I found it clear at the time of viewing.



I suppose I do take it literally, Lew. Aren't we all? I mean, aside from the wire-fu and what-not, aren't we all commenting on the story as finally revealed, the character actions as finally taken? And from those very specific things, drawing conclusions about either the film's placement in harmony with fable and myth (I promise you I get it) or its use of such myths to create current political commentary/polemic?



The limitations of myth is that all too often, characters behave foolishly (or tragically, as some would have it). As read (be it Beowulf or Chretien de Troyes) that can be quite powerful. When such behavior is seen nakedly in film, it sometimes distances people from emotional attachment to characters. It's that way for me personally, and apparently a few others here. I like my myths on paper better than on film stock.

quote:Plus you are making value judgments as to ‘good’ and ‘evil’ outside the context of the movie.

I'm not sure if I'm getting your sense right. If you mean I'm evaluating what characters do as "good/evil", "smart/dumb", "brave/cowardly", etc based on my understanding of those terms, then of course I am. How could anyone not? How could you comprehend even the simplest of plot/messages if you didn't? This is the "two-way street" nature of communicative art and literature.



If you mean questioning what characters do, well yeah - I certainly don't believe Leung's character is correct simply because another character says he's always right, therefore he must be right this time too. In fact, I'm not certain we aren't meant to seize on that sort of fallacious thinking as an important message in itself.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I saw the film for a third time and have also come to the conclusion that I need not take it so literally. The problem is that i personally find nationalism dangerous; IMO ppl should be patriotic insofar as their nation gives them liberty.





But thinking about the Taoist interpretation of the story. The fact that Broken goes from caring only for himself in the first flashback, then caring only for Snow, then caring for everyone equally, even tho it means he has to give up what he wanted the most...



The way that Broken lives his code fully by literally putting down his sword, tho it means he won't get what he always wanted, a home of his own... Simultaneously finally being understood by Snow through that action...



That philosphy combined with the romantic really resounded with me emotionally, unlike what a lot of others here have said. The acting and imagery just worked for me on an emotional lvl as well. It's not sappy American emotionalism like Gladiator, but the film conveys a kind of longing...

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:I'm not sure if I'm getting your sense right. If you mean I'm evaluating what characters do as "good/evil", "smart/dumb", "brave/cowardly", etc based on my understanding of those terms, then of course I am. How could anyone not?

Perhaps you have a point, but I think that it is possible to at least partially discard ones limited view of the world and accept (for a couple of hours at least) another set of values. A part of my view on this may well be due to having lived fairly extensively in other cultures over the years (I’ve spent about 25% of my adult life outside the U.S.), including many parts of Asia (I’ve only visited the PRC, I’ve never lived there).



So it may be that my view that it is possible to consider the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong is due to my life experience and I can’t reasonably expect that can be applicable for anyone else. OTOH, it may also be due to reading a lot of history and philosophy over the years. Or a combination of both—I don’t really know.

quote: If you mean questioning what characters do, well yeah - I certainly don't believe Leung's character is correct simply because another character says he's always right, therefore he must be right this time too.

Actually he does not say he is always right—that is said by others (e.g. Moon)—and we are shown why this is true (as opposed to a character telling us). You may well not accept the symbolism within the film (and since it is symbolic, I can’t prove you wrong), but for me, it is clear and compelling that Broken Sword has the ‘enlightened’ view—he cannot be wrong. This is what I meant when I wrote that you were taking it too literally. I do like very much your comparison to Beowulf, but I disagree that the same thing is not as possible in film as litutature.

quote: In fact, I'm not certain we aren't meant to seize on that sort of fallacious thinking as an important message in itself.

A fine point—you might be correct—I don’t think so right now, but perhaps I’ll have a chance to see the film again this weekend and think about it again.

quote: I saw the film for a third time and have also come to the conclusion that I need not take it so literally.

Just so Tony.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Lew, plz, let's not even get into the discussion about Cultural or Moral relativism. Need I destroy your argument by proving that according to those terms, having no moral is in fact a moral? Or that, according to that view, murder must be correct? Or according to that view, no action could ever be criticized?



Plz do not assume that all philosophy supports that claim. Perhaps what you have read does, but in fact, most of Western philosophy establishes just the opposite, including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Kant, ad infinitum. That is why I have juxtaposed these kind of makeshift Easter "movie philosophy" with hardcore Kantianism and Utilitarianism.



I find it very odd that somehow I am told that I should not judge other cultures, when usually the ppl who make those arguments are making judgments themselves, such as those who say it is wrong to intervene in other cultures / nations. The hypocrisy and illogic of their statement is obvious to everyone but them.

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:Plz do not assume that all philosophy supports that claim. Perhaps what you have read does, but in fact, most of Western philosophy establishes just the opposite, including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Kant, ad infinitum. That is why I have juxtaposed these kind of makeshift Easter "movie philosophy" with hardcore Kantianism and Utilitarianism.

Tony, I did not mean to imply that any philosopher or philosophical argument either supported or challenged anything in Hero.



My point was that it might be that reading several different such writers might well allow one to consider the merits of any moral arguments made in the movie without applying one’s one values perforce.

quote: Lew, plz, let's not even get into the discussion about Cultural or Moral relativism. Need I destroy your argument by proving that according to those terms, having no moral is in fact a moral? Or that, according to that view, murder must be correct? Or according to that view, no action could ever be criticized?

I must have been quite unclear, as what I have tried to imply was that the characters were acting morally within the constraints and concepts of the movie.



Other than to consider what Marple wrote from an historical perspective, and to state that I thought that there could be found plenty of instances of a person voluntarily giving his life for the greater good, I don’t think that I have referenced any philosophers, either Western or Eastern, thinkers or writers in any of my posts.



I have really tried to only consider the actions of the characters within the context of the film and why I think that one can consider those actions without regard to our preconceptions. This however does not mean that there is a lack of ethical consideration, nor that the logical conclusion is that there are nor morals or that to have none is in fact moral. Only that the consideration of what may be consider ethical should be considered in the context of the myth presented to us.

quote: I find it very odd that somehow I am told that I should not judge other cultures, when usually the ppl who make those arguments are making judgments themselves, such as those who say it is wrong to intervene in other cultures / nations. The hypocrisy and illogic of their statement is obvious to everyone but them.

I am not sure if you were referring to anything I wrote, but I don’t recall writing that you (or anyone) cannot or should not judge other cultures. I have written consistently that I think that correct way to consider the actions of the characters in this movie is within the context of the world that is presented to us, and that since it is a myth or an epic, it is important not to take things too literally. If from this you inferred that I argued (or thought) that it was either right or wrong to intervene in other cultures or nations, you are inferring something that I certainly did not mean to imply—and do not believe that I did.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

quote:Lew Crippen said:

Perhaps you have a point, but I think that it is possible to at least partially discard ones limited view of the world and accept (for a couple of hours at least) another set of values.

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but I felt as if you were intimating it's wrong for us to judge the art of another culture based on our own values, or making a moral relativist argument about the acts of the characters in the film.

quote:Lew C said:

that since it is a myth or an epic, it is important not to take things too literally.

I still disagree on this point, Lew. While I think that this movie may not stand up to the test of a philosophy class, I think that you can definitely find applicable messages in most myth. A lot of scholars posit that the point of myth is to teach, specifically teach morality. So I really think it's important to try to digest the movie in this matter. so much of the movie hangs on right and wrong and the greater good.



I think the fact that the movie is challenging on many philosophical lvls is why it is one of my new favorite movies!

 

[Tim Glover]

Just posted my review in that thread. Really enjoyed it and have gained some insight in reading this thread.

You guys are much smarter than I am.

Good discussion.

Comparisons to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are probably unfair, but a natural reaction since that is the only martial arts/drama film I've liked or maybe even seen.