let's talk about zhang yimou's "hero"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
which incidentally is the number one movie this weekend.

i saw it on friday and pretty much liked it. i mean most of the fight scenes were beautiful, esp the one on the lake, i loved the arrows and the calligraphy school stuff... well it was pretty beautiful around. and i was kinda into the movie's super-formal, super-structured and distanced approach.

but it did feel a bit weird ideologically, all the "unite 'our land' and damn the consequences" stuff reminded me of taiwan. what think you?

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 29 August 2004 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

anyone see house of flying daggers yet?

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 29 August 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked the very first fight scene in the chess house. It was good...I guess a film can have one or two too many visually beautiful fight scenes. I wanted more from it somehow, but it was still one of the better films I have seen this year. I am love with Zhang Ziyi.

adam. (nordicskilla), Sunday, 29 August 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

yes this looks good.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 29 August 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

We saw it last night. The scene with all the yellow leaves is possibly the most stunning thing I have ever seen on film.

Kim (Kim), Sunday, 29 August 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

http://tinypic.com/3sdu0

hahaha i thouhgt this was a prank from an imdb data entry workslave.

:|, Sunday, 29 August 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

that is surprising, because america is usually such unsafe ground for foreign films. i guess this is one of the rare exceptions.

i saw this on DVD (kim's had it a while back). i thought it was v. uninvolving as drama, aestheticized in the extreme. which i guess is the point, although selling it as tiger/dragon II seems like a false promise. yimou takes one aspect of ang lee's film (an aspect that contributed to its success, to be sure) and makes it hero's whole reason for being. hoberman's review seems pretty on-point in observing both the film's limits and its merits, though i have to admit on video it was hard to be more than superficially impressed by the latter.

as for the ideology, it was concocted no doubt to be non-specific enough to simultaneously function broadly as pro-PRC but not even approach offending international sensibilities (much of its funding came from the amercian studios). probably it means something different to chinese--who have by now learned to understand certain retellings of chinese history as lessons for the present--and to others.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:19 (twenty-one years ago)

yes it was super-aestheticized, though i gotta say i was pretty into the maggie cheung/tony leung stuff, which totally worked for me.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm kind of sick of maggie cheung.

OH MY GOD DID I SAY THAT?

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:26 (twenty-one years ago)

that assayas movie she stars in looks awful

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:26 (twenty-one years ago)

irma vep?!

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't believe you're sick of maggie cheung!

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:27 (twenty-one years ago)

irma vep?!

-- s1ocki (slytus...) (webmail), August 30th, 2004 12:27 AM. (slutsky) (later) (link)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


no, the new one, clean where she plays an ex-junkie rock star or something

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:28 (twenty-one years ago)

sidenote: the dvd case for "heroic trio" quotes a reviewer who calls it "the original charlie's angels"!

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:28 (twenty-one years ago)

rock star characters in movies = always a bad idea

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:28 (twenty-one years ago)

heroic trio is a lot of fun. now that cheung is in such artsy movies, it's fun to see her in lots of hairspray and bad leather.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:29 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah that movie is great. i think it was maybe the first maggie cheung movie i ever saw.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:29 (twenty-one years ago)

my favourite jet li movie is still "kids from shaolin"!! have you seen it?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:30 (twenty-one years ago)

does he get AIDS and sleep with chloe sevigny?

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i think you misplaced the "k" with an "a" there

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 04:32 (twenty-one years ago)

house of flying daggers i just saw here in china. it was underwhelming.. and i liked hero! in an interview, yimou kinda said he was just gonna make wuxia films from now on!

may, Monday, 30 August 2004 05:16 (twenty-one years ago)

we have someone posting from china????? hello!

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 30 August 2004 05:20 (twenty-one years ago)

hi!

oh im only in china to visit my parents.. i dont really live here (hence me stocking up on cheapo dvds [50p each] for the few months im here).

may, Monday, 30 August 2004 05:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw this movie yesterday. Holy shit. Although I found the pacing of the film a little odd, the visual and sound in this film are far and away some of the most powerful shit I've ever witnessed. The water dripping and the old man playing whatever the fuck kinda stringed instrument that was* in the first fight scene totally blew my mind. And the RAIN OF ARROWS oh my god.

*if anybody knows what kind of instrument that was and how I might find one, that would be KICK-ASS

nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 30 August 2004 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

When I detune my acoustic guitar (or when my guitar detunes itself) and use a remote control as a slide, it sounds vaguely like that instrument.

And yea _Hero_ was unbelievably gorgeous & I totally got behind the sentiment (though my knowledge of world affairs & world history is sorely lacking, so I don't know how it dovetails w/ what's actually happened over thar). I also thought it was a bit lacking in the dramatics dept. UNTIL the kinda obvious twist about 30-45 minutes in, and then I was totally hooked (even w/ the row of asshats in the back of the theatre snickering throughout the entire flick) ("like OMG they're like floating & tiptoeing how lame" SHUT UP!).

I'm glad that it was the #1 flick this week, as I saw NO promos for it on TV (as opposed to 283 promos for _Anacondas: Sir Mix A Lot's Revenge_), and was wary of its potential draw in the States given the number of times its release was pushed back & the lack of promo push (at least in my podunky locale).

David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 30 August 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Some people are writing 'Yimou' when I think they mean to say 'Zhang.' Yimou is like writing 'Steven' instead of 'Speilberg.' Zhang is his surname.

Sorry if I'm being pedantic.

supercub, Monday, 30 August 2004 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

There were a whole lot of billowing clothes in the movie. And honorable death scenes, of course. And christ, Ziyi Zhang was annoying. Her only function was to screech over her master's death time and time again and get her ass kicked.

I did like it though, even it did get to be a bit numbing by the end. The chess house was my favorite fight scene, but the one with the leaves was gorgeous.

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 30 August 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

nickalicious is otm about the sound--the vibrating swords! the trembling arrows!

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe Zhang started this movie at the same time Ang Lee was doing Crouching Tiger, and the reason it's just now getting released here is that Zhang knew it would be compared to Crouching Tiger. I remember reading an interview with him when CTHD came out where he basically said that he was pissed that he was doing this movie when Lee just happened to be doing his.

dleone (dleone), Monday, 30 August 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

More sound-related-things I still can't get out of my head:

*the metallic 'ping's when Broken Sword and Nameless were pingponging that drop of water
*the sound of the flames between Nameless and the King flickering
*the rumble of the courtiers & soldiers coming up the steps

I think the big thing with the soundtrack was how well it used it's LACK OF musical score in most places, opting instead to magnify to ginormous clarity all the atmospheric sounds, almost as though those sounds (the water drops, the wind in the leaves, etc.) WERE the musical score.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 30 August 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Some of the actual score got pretty repetitive at times, but the sound design was amazing. Just the sheer visceralness of some of the sword sounds, especially when one of the fighters was wacking with the flat of the blade or the sheath, damn.

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

the score is by tan dun and the lead violin is iztach perlman (sp?).

i think that the biggest similarity between this film and crouching tiger is that they are largely action films from directors not known for action films.

i need to see this on the big screen again (i've had the DVD for almost a year).

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

This is one of those movies where you do lose something if you don't see it on the big screen.

Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I meant to say I need to see it again, it's been over a year.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm...I think I know what to do on Labor Day itself.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

This is one of those movies where you do lose something if you don't see it on the big screen.
-- Leon Czolgosz (nicolew1...), August 30th, 2004.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i hoe so, because as noted above, i was kind of disappointed by it on video. actually i felt like it was hitting me over the head with a hammer in terms of visual design. i don't know if that effect would be alleviate or accentuated if i saw it on the big screen.

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

apologies about "yimou." i should know better. it was 2AM.

amateur!!st, Monday, 30 August 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I drank it up like a sponge on the big screen until about the last fifteen minutes, it just felt like it had crossed that line and used all of its tricks and tropes a few too many times (which is in a way necessary due to the plot structure). Like I said though, I did really enjoy it.

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 30 August 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

you should amateurist, especially for the sound

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 30 August 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

licious and jordan otm about the sound -- and to address adam's thing about it being possible to have too many fight scenes -- BAH. It's a martial art film. Like saying there are too many song and dance numbers in a musical. Which ties back in to contemp. (stylized) martial arts films, which have, as far as I'm concerned, become the new musicals, where fight and dance are joined in choreography. All the yelling and screaming during the fights was quite reminiscent of the singing in Beijing Opera, for instance.

Leeeter van den Hoogenband (Leee), Monday, 30 August 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

god zhang ziyi is so fucking gorgeous

cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 30 August 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

the instrument being played in the rain fight scene was a guqin. the sound in that scene was just amazing, one of the few times i've found surround sound to be worth a damn.

fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Monday, 30 August 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Forgot to mention upthread, but we were figuring that the different coloured robes in the different 'tellings' were tied to traditonal chinese colour associations. The red, turquoise, green, white. Anyone more familiar with these?

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I was disappointed, I had thought I'd like it and I really didn't. The sound effects got to be too much for me at points and seemed cheesy and overdone - I admit that this may be partially due to the sound being WAY too loud in the theater. I literally had to cover my ears in the scene with the yellow leaves, because the rushing of the leaves was so loud it hurt. The plot also didn't interest me much; I decided the hero was a conniving jerk during the first story with the red color scheme and even later that feeling didn't go away when it should have, and I thought the end was tremendously anticlimactic and cliched.

It was very lovely to look at, though. I loved the look of the yellow leaves and the green lakes and hills, probably more than anything else in the movie.

Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

you guys have convinced me to go see this in the theater.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

it was so underpopulated! so strange for a film with 'epic' whatever. apart from qin's army (which counts and a single character) and the handful of retainers witnessing the first fight (1 again), how many people were in the movie? ten? twelve? made it more 'dreamlike' than however many slo-mo shots of wind in fabric.

g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Is a guqin anything like a zither? Because I have a zither gathering dust in the attic which I will definitely drag downstairs if it sounds like the instrument in the movie. As for the film, I felt little, less, nothing for the characters but it was quite beautiful.

the cut-up, Tuesday, 31 August 2004 03:46 (twenty-one years ago)

a guqin is a fretless zither with seven strings. follow the link and read about the sixth and seventh strings! apparently the music playing in the rain fight scene was liu li on the guqin and itzhak perlman on a violin with modified strings.

oh yeah, according somebody on IMDB "in the flashbacks, the characters' costumes go from red (imagination) to blue (perceived reality) to white (truth). in the final flashback, the costumes are green (enlightenment/peace)."

i think i'll go see this a few more times when it hits the dollar theater. it's just so pretty and nice sounding.

fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 06:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Maria, I had the same experience with the too-loud sounds, though I was determined to gut it out and enjoy it.

Leeeter van den Hoogenband (Leee), Tuesday, 31 August 2004 06:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Scaling the Chinese wall


Mon Aug 30,10:22 PM ET
Harvey Weinstein, STAFF
The success of "Hero" this past weekend, the biggest opening weekend ever for an Asian film, underscores Miramax's long-term commitment to Asian cinema.

Many people have asked why we didn't release "Hero" until just over a year and a half after its Chinese release. I'd like to set the record straight.
We have released films from several of the great masters of Chinese cinema - Chen Kaige's "Farewell My Concubine," Yuen Woo-Ping's "Iron Monkey," Wong Kar-Wai's "Chunking Express" and Zhang Yimou's "Ju Dou," the first Chinese- language film ever nominated for the Oscar. We have released the most successful Japanese film in this country, "Shall We Dance" and we gave the first major U.S. release to a Japanese anime film. Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke."
My own personal love affair with Asian cinema began well over a decade ago when I read Dave Kehr in the Chicago Tribune and Jay Carr in the Boston Globe describe Asian film series at repertory houses. I began tracking down these films and watching them.
But my real education in Asian cinema began when I met Quentin Tarantino, whose own love affair with these films is well known. Just as later, Marty Scorsese taught me about the great silent films and films from the '30s and '40s when we were making "Gangs of New York," Quentin gave me a master's knowledge of Asian cinema from Jackie Chan (news) to Jet Li to Tsui Hark and King Hu. Every Saturday night, the prints would come to my screening room. Then to cap it all off, I met Sir Run Run Shaw and had a wonderful conversation with him about the Golden Age of Hong Kong cinema.
When I was offered the opportunity to co-produce and co-finance "Hero," and work with a director I have admired immensely since I saw "Ju Dou" in a cubicle in the basement of the Cannes Palais in 1990, I jumped at the chance.
I am very proud that our sizable investment in the film ensured that his magnificent vision would come to life. We envisioned a marketing campaign similar to that of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," with a full Oscar push. (And the great reviews the film has received show that our initial inclinations were correct.)
However, when the film was almost completed, we got some disappointing news. It was impossible for us to release the film at the end of 2002 (we weren't even delivered the film until December). But the producers had decided to release the film for one week at the end of October 2002 to qualify if for the Oscars (news - web sites). This was now going to make the film ineligible in all categories in the 2003 Oscar race if "Hero" was nominated in 2002 for foreign-language film (which it was).
Our strategy of giving the film a full Oscar push was impossible. Then we hit another roadblock. We scheduled the film in August 2003, but the Jackie Chan starrer "The Medallion" moved onto our date. We knew it was imperative to distance the film from any other martial-arts films. We needed to be alone in the marketplace. At this point, Quentin Tarantino stepped in and offered to present the film and suggested we attach the trailer to "Kill Bill" Vols. 1 and 2, both in theatrical release and in home video release. This gave us a unique opportunity to hit the perfect audience for "Hero" several times and Quentin's generous offer to present the film gave the film a commercial stamp of approval.
Some people have suggested that the availability of illegal imports of "Hero" on the Internet would have an effect on the box office. Clearly this was not the case and in fact our surveys showed that few audience members had seen the film on DVD. We have successfully cracked down on this practice, and have kept the sales of these DVDs to a few hundred enterprising Asian film fans. Piracy is a hugely important issue for our business and I realize now that concerns about piracy in China may have led the producers to release the film as soon as it was completed.
We have always tried to be innovators at Miramax. When we released a restored version of Yuen Woo-Ping's kung-fu classic "Iron Monkey" in the fall of 2001 it was almost 10 years old and we knew that some DVDs had been available before we purchased the rights.
Our innovations have not always worked. One of our less successful ventures was the U.S. release of "Shaolin Soccer." After I watched "Shaolin Soccer" with no subtitles and a woman translating in my ear, we bought worldwide rights excluding Hong Kong and shortly thereafter released the film all over Asia and then in most of Europe. We released a dubbed version in France and Italy and successfully reached a family audience, doing $3.4 million and $1.5 million, respectively. We spent considerable time and money creating a dubbed version for a domestic release. Once it was completed, we tested it in several markets and discovered that something wasn't working for American family audiences, and so we released the film subtitled to appeal to the Asian film fan core here.
Inspired by the bravery of filmmakers like Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige, who make films under sometimes adverse conditions, my commitment to innovation in Asian cinema remains strong. I have always tried to expand the boundaries of film and broaden the audience for non-Hollywood fare, not ghettoize it. This fall, Miramax will release "Infernal Affairs," the first of a celebrated three-part series. My dream is to restore and release one of my favorite Asian films, King Hu's "Touch of Zen." I don't care that it is widely available on DVD. I want to do this because it is a good thing to do to.
Every step in this brave new world of bringing Asian cinema to a wide commercial audience is an experiment. Sometimes there are missteps as with "Shaolin Soccer." Sometimes there are giant steps as with "Hero." Despite the challenges, we were committed to "Hero's" brave filmmakers, Zhang Yimou and producer Bill Kong, who envisioned this huge artistic achievement. We had confidence in our plan and didn't talk publicly about the hurdles we had had to overcome.
Credit should be given to Bob Iger at Disney who got behind the film with the promotional support of ABC and ESPN and most of all to Quentin Tarantino, who more than anyone, deserves credit for opening American audiences to the excitement and artistry of Asian cinema.
Harvey Weinstein is co-chairman of Miramax Films.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks for the link to the guqin info! I WANTS ONE like NOW.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

that article is very self-serving but it still redeems weinstein somewhat from his "philistine" image.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

harvey,

the copy of hero i've owned is not an illegally pirated copy! or is the fact that i have a regionless player illegal? i'm confused.

gygax!

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 2 September 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

dear gygax!

if you send me a check for $45 we'll just drop this, ok?

harvey

harvey weinstein, Thursday, 2 September 2004 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

it really reminded me of the films i saw in my cinema of the cultural revolution class (although 100000000000x more beautifully done). i liked it, but i was a bit frustrated after a while.. it almost collapses under the weight of the art direction.

lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 2 September 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

what movies did you see in your cultural revolution class??

some of weinstein's rationale for not releasing certain films is close to "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" rhetoric.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 2 September 2004 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

it's been a while. i have absolutely no memory of any titles, amst. most of them were fiercely nationalistic retellings of past events, to bolster the glory of the present.

lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 2 September 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i want to see a movie about the US civil war done in that style. then again i wonder what chinese folk make of "jacob's ladder."

fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Friday, 3 September 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

lauren: were any of them "the red detachment of women" or "two stage sisters"?

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 3 September 2004 05:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm...I think I know what to do on Labor Day itself.

And I did. Man oh man. More later. I wouldn't change a single frame.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 6 September 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Apparently some Chinese ppl don't feel all ecstatic and gleeful over this film as easily amused Westerners:


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/board/nest/11441994

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

NB: this was the most commercially successful movie ever in china

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Which doesn't disprove anything I said. The discussion on that board certainly takes that "most succesful" line into account, and gets into the whys (maybe you should click on it before rebutting so soon)

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

even though actually I loathe some of the American responses on there, like It depends on maturity and educational level. I was absorbed in the movie when I first saw it. Most Chinese folks see it as an action movie, but it's actually very artistic. Sometimes, dislike came from misunderstanding. To be honest, I feel Americans in this forum are at a higher level of art appreciation.

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

However, what it does mean is that often what one takes to be original and innovative in the west, is often just a formula film within a stable genre that many people, who are chinese, might consider cliche. This is not to say this movie is not popular in china. the point is that this movie is popular in china the way the ten commandments or other big budget hollywood epics about jesus are popular in america. they are indeed popular, but there is nonetheless a big part of the population, like me, that considers such films just overblown big budget hollywood middle class morality propaganda-filled corporate monstrosities. I suspect an analagous thing going on in china and in chinese people. while many of them like movies like this, since something doesn't become a stable overblown genre that's repeated in a billion forms unless it's popular, others still will, for that exact reason, be more than a little fed up with movies within that genre. These same people might charge an american audience with being guilty of orientalism in liking this movie. I myself think that that's to be decided on a case by case basis. if someone likes this movie because they think it represents those 'different' and 'exotic' mystical chinese people living in a metaphorical quasi-eastern history that remains unchanged regardless of how chinese people now live (i.e., they identify 'chinese' with a fantasy about 'eastern exotic mysticism' founded on a joint fantasy about the 'past'), then such people are guilty of orientalism. However, it could just be people in america like this movie for being new and innovative (since americans didn't grow up seeing this genre of film in commercials, soap operas, tv shows, made for tv movies, regular movies, etc etc etc..) In which case I believe it amounts to an honest cultural difference without any orientalism. However, the situation is complicated because of crouching tiger hidden dragon. THAT was a film intended for a chinese audience that was going to take the film as a slightly fuzzy rendetion of chinese history, and that Bombed on that market, and then exploded on the american market because people here liked it for reasons other than the reason the filmmakers made it when they made it for the chinese audience (that is, the american audience saw it as largely metaphorical, as portraying philosphical themes. in addition to the prior points about innovation and newness vs stable overblown cultural genres). The result of that is that now the chinese make these movies in large part FOR western audiences. In which case one might accuse them of mysticalising their own cultural image so that it can be consumed by americans eager to so mysticalize the chinese image. A happy coincidence if inded that is what's going on. And in part, sadly, i believe that is true..

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

However, what it does mean is that often what one takes to be original and innovative in the west, is often just a formula film within a stable genre that many people, who are chinese, might consider cliche. This is not to say this movie is not popular in china. the point is that this movie is popular in china the way the ten commandments or other big budget hollywood epics about jesus are popular in america. they are indeed popular, but there is nonetheless a big part of the population, like me, that considers such films just overblown big budget hollywood middle class morality propaganda-filled corporate monstrosities. I suspect an analagous thing going on in china and in chinese people. while many of them like movies like this, since something doesn't become a stable overblown genre that's repeated in a billion forms unless it's popular, others still will, for that exact reason, be more than a little fed up with movies within that genre. These same people might charge an american audience with being guilty of orientalism in liking this movie. I myself think that that's to be decided on a case by case basis. if someone likes this movie because they think it represents those 'different' and 'exotic' mystical chinese people living in a metaphorical quasi-eastern history that remains unchanged regardless of how chinese people now live (i.e., they identify 'chinese' with a fantasy about 'eastern exotic mysticism' founded on a joint fantasy about the 'past'), then such people are guilty of orientalism. However, it could just be people in america like this movie for being new and innovative (since americans didn't grow up seeing this genre of film in commercials, soap operas, tv shows, made for tv movies, regular movies, etc etc etc..) In which case I believe it amounts to an honest cultural difference without any orientalism. However, the situation is complicated because of crouching tiger hidden dragon. THAT was a film intended for a chinese audience that was going to take the film as a slightly fuzzy rendetion of chinese history, and that Bombed on that market, and then exploded on the american market because people here liked it for reasons other than the reason the filmmakers made it when they made it for the chinese audience (that is, the american audience saw it as largely metaphorical, as portraying philosphical themes. in addition to the prior points about innovation and newness vs stable overblown cultural genres). The result of that is that now the chinese make these movies in large part FOR western audiences. In which case one might accuse them of mysticalising their own cultural image so that it can be consumed by americans eager to so mysticalize the chinese image. A happy coincidence if inded that is what's going on. And in part, sadly, i believe that is true..

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

oops abt the double-post

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

i want to see a movie about the US civil war done in that style. then again i wonder what chinese folk make of "jacob's ladder."

-- fortunate hazel (fhaze...), September 3rd, 2004.

This is like the entire conversation we were having before and after the movie! WTF. Seriously I want to take this movie and redo it with a dance music soundtrack and change all the subtitles so that Jet Li is John Wilkes Boothe and The Emperor is Abraham Lincoln. At least maybe that would get all these boring people muttering about PRC propaganda to shut up. The South Koreans are hundreds of times more overtly nationalistic in their movies, nobody talks half as much shit about them.

TOMBOT, Monday, 6 September 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

and 'mysticalising culture' for export is part of what movies do everywhere

jones (actual), Monday, 6 September 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i knew ILX would attack the linguistic errors of whatever i had chosen to paste from IMDB first of all

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry vic i shouldn't even have posted since i haven't even seen this yet. that review makes a lot of cross-cultural assumptions tho for something that claims to be an orientalism-detector

jones (actual), Monday, 6 September 2004 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i simply thought it was an interesting topic of discussion, why some chinese ppl are not all gung-ho over it due to genre / marketing reasons, etc

Vic (Vic), Monday, 6 September 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

This movie felt like the Sesame Street of kung-fu melodrama. Is Tony Leung hosting Picture Pages or what? What the fuck were they doing on the lake? Safety lessons?

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 7 September 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

If Sky really liked chickens, sure. (On the lake, they were balancing on water molecules, duh.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 7 September 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

At least maybe that would get all these boring people muttering about PRC propaganda to shut up. The South Koreans are hundreds of times more overtly nationalistic in their movies, nobody talks half as much shit about them.

maybe we would if we were discussing a south korean movie in this thread, not a chinese one!

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 7 September 2004 02:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Well besides that, SK films are so blatant nobody gets to feel clever by figuring out the hidden agenda and pointing it out loudly to their friends while leaving the theater, and on top of that, everybody in the western world agrees the ROK and the DPRK should be reunited while we all think Formosa deserves independence (though not recognition).

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 7 September 2004 02:20 (twenty-one years ago)

this film seems like a lot of other films made in a lot of other countries insofar as it was designed (very selfconsciously) i am sure to support, flimsily, a number of different political interpretations. no doubt its creditors would not have had it any other way.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 7 September 2004 02:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Some more wibbling on my part.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 02:28 (twenty-one years ago)

This would have been so much better without most of the martial arts. One more shot of a swordsman (or woman) flying through the air like the witches from The Craft, I was gonna scream.

The plotting got a little strange in places - "I'll never let you kill the emperor" "OK, so I'll kill you" "Just kidding, I'll wound you, hope you don't die" "OK, all three of us are still alive. I'ma let you go decide whether or not to kill the emperor now, please take my sword." But the actual character interaction between Jet Li, Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung was excellent.

Am I strange for finding the Zhang Ziyi-fucking scene a little creepy? She looked so young there.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 23:51 (twenty-one years ago)

In Singapore, I don't actually know anyone who thinks Hero, Crouching Tiger or House Of Flying Daggers are any good. The only people I know who like these films are not Chinese and do not speak Chinese.

syntaxfree (syntaxfree), Wednesday, 15 September 2004 12:28 (twenty-one years ago)

...and?

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 15 September 2004 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...
oh no no no no no.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 3 October 2004 08:33 (twenty-one years ago)

my chinese flatmate thinks this film is illogical, too.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 3 October 2004 08:34 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought it was v. uninvolving as drama, aestheticized in the extreme. which i guess is the point, although selling it as tiger/dragon II seems like a false promise. yimou takes one aspect of ang lee's film (an aspect that contributed to its success, to be sure) and makes it hero's whole reason for being... i have to admit[] it was hard to be more than superficially impressed by the latter.

cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 3 October 2004 08:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i just didnt get it either - i loved a couple of the scenes but it was uninvolving and about as pointless as "The Usual Suspects".

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 3 October 2004 09:36 (twenty-one years ago)

well, not THAT bad, right enough.

jed_ (jed), Sunday, 3 October 2004 09:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked a lot of things in it but, yeah, I didn't get it.

RJG (RJG), Sunday, 3 October 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i didn't really like this film, sorry everyone

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 3 October 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

the further i get from it the less i like it! don't be sorry amateurist we are on the avant-garde of the backlash

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 4 October 2004 00:03 (twenty-one years ago)

the sound design is amazing

ryan (ryan), Monday, 4 October 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

true yes!

...or false, who gives a shit?

jed_ (jed), Monday, 4 October 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked all the obvious things about it, but it still felt flat to me. Part of it was probably having only a passing familiarity with the folklore; I suspect that knowing the story better allows you to take some things (like character motivation, say) for granted rather than needing them dramatized a little more.

The character of the emperor bothered me. The whole scene where he's like, "Yes! Finally someone understands my great plan to bring peace and justice through wholesale slaughter!" I gather it was supposed to be inspiring, but I thought it was creepy. And if I can bitch about American nationalism, which I can and do, then surely I can bitch about Chinese nationalism. There was something a little unnerving about the casting, all these Hong Kong stars pressed into the service of the state. I mean, on one hand it's interesting to get a little exposure (however watered down or jazzed up) to another culture's national creation mythology; on the other, this is a call to peace-through-war from the biggest authoritarian state in the world. Didn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies.

Interesting, but emotionally hollow and kind of unnerving.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 4 October 2004 03:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(ok, so I said unnerving twice -- I guess that was my strongest reaction)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 4 October 2004 03:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I found the whole thing a bit like something out of National geographic. Beautiful images, for sure, but somewhat detached from one another and little more than escapism. Or maybe it was just an ad for the Chinese Tourist Board.

Totally agree with those who mentioned the wondrous sound, as opposed to the soundtrack. Talking of music, I remember coming away from Crouching Tiger loving the film, but hating the music desperately. While I didn't hate the music in Hero quite is badly, I did find it symptomatic of a kind of New Age vacuousness in parts of the film.

Zhang Ziyi is magnificent to look at, but her part - as others have mentioned - was a bit lame.

On the plus side - the autumn leaves scene; the running acros the water scene; the dodging the arrows scene.

Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Monday, 4 October 2004 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm psyched for jia zhang-ke's "the world," speaking of chinese tourist attractions

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Monday, 4 October 2004 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmmm looks good, Amateur

http://www.lff.org.uk/films_details.php?FilmID=570

Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 11:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Just saw this yesterday. It was... pretty. It was extremely, almost painfully beautiful.

But I am baffled, like many on this thread, about where its moral center is, or what its political message might mean to modern Chinese people (much less to me). At the end of it, my mouth was agape for more than one reason. a) it was unspeakably gorgeous. b) it made little sense.

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

The political message seemed to be 'what we need is a good dictator,' unless I was missing some kind of irony. Seeing as the whole film was excruiatingly po-faced, I doubt that I did.

It was indeed pretty.

Wooden (Wooden), Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess I was trying to make it more complicated than it was. I was thinking, "So what it said was that the ends always justify the means, and even having your family killed is forgivable in the interest of rampant nationalism? My God. That can't be right."

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think you're over-complicating it there kenan

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, not right there, but then I said to myself, "What it must mean instead was..." and came up empty.

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

It all meshes very nicely with the PRC's stated position that Western-style democracy is not the right road for China to travel.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I am curious as to how its meaning to an American who has a deeply ingrained fear of fascism might differ from that of a Chinese person, who I know little about the mindset of. The movie ends with, "Even today when the Chinese talk about their country they refer to it as 'Our Land'," implying that even the modern Chinese are enamored of the empire that was created so long ago through obvious tyrrany.

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I really doubt this guy agrees with the conclusion that this movie reaches.

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/asia/features/asian_education/images/tiananmen.jpg

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

No one was ever really in danger, which is kind of weird for a movie that's all about fighting.

I was surprised to see Richard Belzer as the king's wisecracking sidekick.

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"So what it said was that the ends always justify the means, and even having your family killed is forgivable in the interest of rampant nationalism? My God. That can't be right."

i dont mean to start up this debate again, but i think the movie feels that rampant nationalism is in the interest of peace--THAT'S why it is complicated.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont mean to say that i disagree with you, but i'd like to disagree with what the movie does say, and not a straw man version of it.

ryan (ryan), Sunday, 17 October 2004 23:59 (twenty-one years ago)

No, you're right. That is the conclusion the movie reaches. And certainly my reaction to fascism or monarchy or dictatorship or whatever is knee-jerk and negative. In fact, it feels weird to even say that. OF COURSE it's negative! But not to everyone, I don't guess.

Smokin' funk by the boxes (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked how it ended - "The King eventually found a job dominating his neighbors. And that's where the wall comes from!" in horrible video-toaster font, scrolling too-quickly up the screen.

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it was 'rampant nationalism' so much as "dictatorship and empire is in the interest of peace." No future wars between the (six?) kingdoms, so the King's wars of conquest were justified (no matter how brutal) and by extension his autocratic rule is justified. Looking back, the scene where the King does his Poor Misunderstood Me schtick is pretty nauseating.

I don't see how it is at all complicated, it reads as not very concealed allegory for the Chinese government. We might (threaten to) run you over with a tank on occasion, but it's all for your own good in the end.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i guess not! it's weird. i'd like to give the movie credit for raising an interesting paradox between peace and political freedom, but i dont know if there is evidence for any ambiguity in the film as it is. (esp calling it "hero" instead of, say, "assassin")

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

but if you factor in very real political pressures on the film, maybe that ambiguity is the in the context. see above picture.

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

The political pressure is what removes ambiguity to me. Where it could be an interesting question to ask, it's not so interesting when the movie has a clearly chosen side.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure there's some huge cultural gap here -- the peace-through-war idea is hardly novel or unique to China (see Bush, George W). As for the "Our Land" reference, isn't that the actual Chinese name for China? I think I read that, but now I can't find it online. Does anyone know?

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Never mind -- the Chinese name for China is "the Middle Kingdom," apparently.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 18 October 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The crux of the movie centers around the twin ideas of "the end justifies the means" and "a noble goal is more important than adhering to noble principles". Neither of these viewpoints are particularly palatable to liberal or libertarian Americans so it's unsurprising that ILE would react to the film with unease.

Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Monday, 18 October 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)

the IMDB bit on "Our Land" - The two characters Broken Sword draws, _tian xia_ - translated in the English subtitles as "our land" - literally mean "under-heaven", i.e., everything beneath the sky, the whole known world. This was the ancient term for China before it became a unified empire.

I thought Zhang explained that better in an interview somewhere, but I can't remember where I saw the interview.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 18 October 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)

cuz we're the liberal multimedia! (xp)

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I need to find more guqin music, that was my favorite part of the movie.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 18 October 2004 02:51 (twenty-one years ago)

the peace-through-war idea is hardly novel or unique to China (see Bush, George W)

but the movie also makes it clear that the leader in question is a widely hated tyrant. That's a big difference.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 02:57 (twenty-one years ago)

While it would be ridiculous to try to impose modern Western democratic values on an ancient Eastern land to whom democracy was completely alien, it is, IMO, questionable to make that movie and call it "Hero" in light of the current Chinese government.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:02 (twenty-one years ago)

it's kind of impossible to impose modern values on an ancient land so the point is moot no?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

That point is, but that wasn't my point.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:04 (twenty-one years ago)

so my point is moot too? FUCK

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:06 (twenty-one years ago)

is this a presidential debate? do i get a meaningless point?

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

(um... added to my meaningless score, i mean. reading those last posts in order, the word "point" gets thrown around a lot.)

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:13 (twenty-one years ago)

the peace-through-war idea is hardly novel or unique to China (see Bush, George W)

This statement and this discussion remind me again of why I'm voting for Kerry. It's not the economy or abortion or any of that stuff, even though I do think those issues are important. It's mostly because W is limiting our rights and trying to change the way our government works. In my ideology, nothing could be more wrong-headed. Representative democracy *works*. Or anyway, it does as long as we're guaranteed our rights and as long as the media is responsible and as long as lobbyists and interest groups don't become a shadow government.

*gets depressed*

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, human rights are important. That's what bothers me most.

The crux of the movie centers around the twin ideas of "the end justifies the means" and "a noble goal is more important than adhering to noble principles".

But you're ignoring the fact that these ends are justified by the means of killing lots and lots of people, something the movie is happy to accept, and I am not. Go ahead, call me a liberal.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:23 (twenty-one years ago)

there's nothing wrong with your statements and opinions reflecting your values, kenan.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:30 (twenty-one years ago)

go ahead, call me an ineffectual liberal.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:31 (twenty-one years ago)

why does everyone go so crazy when somebody insinuates they're a liberal?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:32 (twenty-one years ago)

you crazy americans!

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:32 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I feel that way, too. FDR was a liberal, and he built every post office in Chicago, from what I gather. Apparently Chicago had no post offices before him, because every post officce I've been to has a plaque out front commemorating that it was built by FDR under such-and-such alphabet agency. So when people say they hate liberals, I always associate it with hating post offices.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

(please save your jokes about hating the lines at the post office.)

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:45 (twenty-one years ago)

i think something we may be forgetting is that the country was in a state of continual warfare, lots of people were dying ANYWAY. then this one dude comes around with the power to actually WIN the war once and for all. the "hero" recognizes this, and so instead of assassinating him and basically ensuring more war (for the sake of his own nationalism), he lets him live so that the wars may END. the question of people dying is almost beside the point in this situation isnt it? (am i crazy?) i mean the alternative is "let's all get along" which is the DEFINITION of the ineffectual liberal!

what's most objectionable to me is that it's clearly propaganda for the chinese government, something that only arises out of context from which it was made.

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i guess the problem is one of choosing between two evils, two nationalisms, and the fact that the movie does not embrace and extra-nationalist point of view is what makes it questionable.

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not forgetting anything, ryan. My point is the same as yours.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:52 (twenty-one years ago)

ah ok. sorry!

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i guess the problem is one of choosing between two evils, two nationalisms, and the fact that the movie does not embrace and extra-nationalist point of view is what makes it questionable.

Again, an extra-nationalist POV would have been impossible in the time that the movie takes place in. It's *now* that makes the difference. Why even make this movie unless you like Communism?

And even more interestingly, why was this the biggest hit movie in China of all time? Is it because it has great fiught scenes and colors, or it it becuase they like the moral of the story?

("moral")

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:55 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah you're right. i mean i could try to make excuses for it all day, but in the end you're right. (i still like the movie tho)

ryan (ryan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

It's very very pretty. Weel directed, well acted, well done.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 03:59 (twenty-one years ago)

And I understand your complaint with my argument, ryan. I said that because people would die, it brings up a human rights issue, and you pointed out that in the movie, people would die ANYWAY, so it's not. Valid.

But still not valid in the context in which the movie was made. I haven't seen any compelling arguments for the fact that less people would suffer in China if it was not an oppressive Communist country.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 04:06 (twenty-one years ago)

um... less = fewer. Grammar police.

Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Monday, 18 October 2004 04:07 (twenty-one years ago)

But you're ignoring the fact that these ends are justified by the means of killing lots and lots of people, something the movie is happy to accept, and I am not. Go ahead, call me a liberal.

How is that not encapsulated in the statements "the end justifies the means" and "a noble goal is more important than adhering to noble principles"?

There's also a good bit of "the devil you know" thrown in there, too.

My favorite thing about the movie besides the GORGEOUS GORGEOUS COLORS was the development of the assassins over the course of the film. Maggie Cheung = DA SUPREMENESS.

Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Monday, 18 October 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I was hoping for a little more than just one scene with J.T. Walsh.

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Although I guess you can only take digital insertion so far.

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Monday, 18 October 2004 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

eww

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 18 October 2004 19:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i think something we may be forgetting is that the country was in a state of continual warfare, lots of people were dying ANYWAY. then this one dude comes around with the power to actually WIN the war once and for all. the "hero" recognizes this, and so instead of assassinating him and basically ensuring more war (for the sake of his own nationalism), he lets him live so that the wars may END.

well so many chinese movies--from the silent era to the present--take as their theme the uniting of china, the end of the warlords and colonial exploitation, etc. so this is pretty well-trodden territory for chinese films, and probably just close enough to banality to escape much condemnation. but in addition to some populist-symbolic "uniting of the chinese people" there's an appeal to autocracy, which is troubling. anyway i feel this film was problematic mostly cause it was boring.

amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Apple has a House of Flying Daggers mini-trailer up. It looks bad.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.