Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hero W/ Jet Li

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The more I think about it, it could definitely be considered Communist propaganda. The film has an underlying theme of "all under one sun," as quoted by one of the film's presumably wisest characters. It refers to the emperors wishes to abolish or break the tribal practices of the feudal regimes in order to unite the country under a single political system. The system in mind is never specifically noted.

However, many of us know that Chairman Mao was known as the sun. This could be an overly literal interpretation of this theme, as the film has a deeper philosophical premise pertaining to its lead character. Nameless (an assassin of the highest caliber) has assumed his responsibility to revenge his father as mandated by his tribal code. The fact that his name is in fact Nameless, alludes to his lack of individual identity or strong tribal unity. Yet in the end SPOILERS rather then upholding his tribal beliefs he is differed by the selfless (suicidal acts) of his assassin in arms. The film never wholly specifies if Nameless recognized the philosophical fallacy of his tribal beliefs or simply realized the necessity of a unified or collective Chinese existence. However, the fact that the films voice of reason finds it fitting to commit suicide unable to live without the existence of his fallen lover alludes to the latter.

On the other side, there is enough in the plot to assume otherwise. The fact is the Chinese govt still has a pretty tight grip on the content and funding of its films. Chinese writers/directors have been known to sneak out a msg contrary to the government's beliefs through clever allegories. This could be one of those instances, and I could be terribly mistaken. Yet the film's premise seems too philosophically muddled for me to draw a definitive answer. It seems to be torn in that regards, maybe between the artist's vision and that of the government. I would really need to understand the revisionary process of the film to draw a conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you've seen the director's (Zhang Yimou's) other works, he is definitely very critical of the Communist regime and all authoritarian systems. He ran into trouble with the Chinese authorities for his views in:

To Live

Raise the Red Lantern

The Story of Qui Ju

It's true that Yimou had to work under the watchful eye of the Communist govt for HERO, so he had to make some concessions to placate them. So if this were the ONLY movie you've seen from him, then you can make a case that HERO is somewhat (though not entirely) supportive of authoritarian rule, but not necessarily a collectivist society. The Emperor in the movie only talks about uniting the various warring states, he never said anything about being "our brother's keeper", "welfare", "economic equality" or any such collectivist nonsense.

Of course the historical Emperor Qin Shi Huang Di tortured & killed thousand in his effort to unite ancient China. So he's definitely not an objectivist hero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really should learn Chinese history. I know this is off-topic but anyone know any good history books on the subject? Anyway if its not blatant and its an overall good film I might give it a shot on DVD or something. I just don't want to pay for communist propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw Hero a few hours ago. The cinematography was top-notch. The visual effects were solid, but at times gratuitous and Matrix-like.

The plot was thin. The story was told in an interesting fashion; instead of blossoming, however, the storyline seemed to get progressively crappier as the film continued. Philosophically speaking, the meaning was muddled, so you could probably extract several different interpretations. Nonetheless, I do believe the movie had a creepy "common good" theme that left me with a cold feeling at the end.

Overall, it's a solid movie. I seriously doubt that the movie is any sort of communist propaganda-- it's just a little ambiguous for us philosophical types. Besides, it's worth seeing just for Jet Li's several fantastic martial arts demonstrations :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this movie yesterday night, and I want to say that it is tightly integrated.

Yes, there is altruism; yes, there is mysticism; yes, there is malevolence; and yes, it is reminiscent of other films in its genre; but, overall, it is a very good example of the integration of art and philosophy. The fact that concepts are the basis of any objective view of the use of force is competently dramatized but open to ambiguous interpretation. As such, this is not the movie's strongest point.

Its strongest point is its portrayal of the importance of fighting for values.

"Hero" might remind you in places of "Crouching Tiger" and in other places, might be just too "cultural," i.e., expecting the viewer to be able to project the meaning of certain scenes, not in English but in Chinese. An implicit understanding of Confucius (possibly the Aristotle of the East) is advised.

Notwithstanding, this seasoned and hard-to-impress viewer recommends this as a movie worth your hard-earned dollar. I guessed the first twist but was riveted the rest of the time.

See it when you can. In the cultural desert, one oasis is worth celebrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read a review that said it promotes Chinese Communism. Is this true? The reviewer liked the movie but if its Communist Propaganda I want no part of it.

i doubt that there is any communist propoganda in this movie. i dont know how they could actually fit it in considering that china became a communist state in the middle 20th century and this is much earlier. if somebody goes to see this movie and feels that they are being fed communist propoganda then they are overly sensitive and clearly seeing something that isnt there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, yes! A real master. My favorites are:

Seven Samurai

Yojimbo

Sanjuro

If you haven't seen Kurosawa's High and Low be sure to seek it out.

About Hero:

I just came from the theatre and have to say I really enjoyed the film. The Rashamon approach to tell what is really a simple story was highly effective.

As for the themes within the film, I am on the fence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the plot in Hero is simple at all. It starts out seemingly a boring cliche Asian martial arts movie about revenge, blah blah blah, but it turns out to be quite a sophisticated story about man and his values. I also think the stalwart and expressionless role for Jet Li is best suited for him. So everything really comes together in a beautiful composition of colors, and of human excellence.

The only (minor) problem I found with the film is that it is too dark sometimes. Some scenes of suffering repeat 3-4 times, unnecessarily, for example. Other than that, I'd say the movie is wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated previously, Hero is visually stunning. One can admire the committment to excellence many of the characters personify. You can admire the relentless pursuit of values.

But which values??

If you elect to see Hero, do not go into it looking for an actual hero. The movie equates a pursuit of unity and heriosm, assuming that unity must be better than disunity. (I will not provide details to avoid spoiling the movie for those who have yet to see it.)

As I watched Hero I thought of the wonders that befell China after it was unified under communist rule. 65 million dead there. Or the unity that produced over 100 million dead in the former Soviet Union after the Bolsheviks dispatched the White Army. Or the wonders of unity if we would only bow down to the United Nations and let them "help" the worlds most capitalist-starved nations.

Of course, I am not arguing the opposite; that unity is necessarily a negative thing. The question is: unity *for what*? to achieve *what values*? That is precisely where Hero is silent. The movie couples brilliant visuals with very little thought, very few ideas.

I can not recommend Hero to you. Although I appreciated the visuals, I would have preferred to spend my time watching a movie packed, instead, with wonderful values.

Cheers,

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiler (highlight the text below in order to read it):

The values here are contextual. In the context of historical environment the movie suggests, where fragmentation, tribalism, and balkanization abound, a value of unity is very high indeed.

And unity need not mean Communist unity; instead other alternatives exist, such as American Federal unity (very important to the Founding Fathers), lack of ancient Greek unity which proved to be their downfall, and ancient Roman unity which created what the Greeks could not, a total greater than the sum of its parts.

That's why, by the end of the movie one realizes that the plot is far more than just a simple revenge scheme. At first we think that the Nameless Hero is a hero because of his martial arts prowess, but by the end we are explained that he is a hero not because of his skills, but *despite* them. In the end what is most important is not his ability to kill, but his ability to refrain from killing; his greatest value is his help in establishing a united land where tribalism and balkanization at least will not exist. The movie does not say what kind of unity will be created instead, but whatever it will be, it will be better than the balkanized fragmentation and "chain" wars that have no beginning and no end.

So the moral theme we are left with, when the credits start to roll, is that true heroes do not follow their own petty passions but loftiest ideals and highest values. We are shown that the what matters most in life is not a slash of the sword or dash with a spear, but contemplative, moral, action guided by highest values. In a movie like this, that is pretty remarkable, and today in general very rare.

Btw, the "invisible" color is "color=#F5F9FD".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler (highlight the text below in order to read it):

The values here are contextual. In the context of historical environment the movie suggests, where fragmentation, tribalism, and balkanization abound, a value of unity is very high indeed.

And unity need not mean Communist unity; instead other alternatives exist, such as American Federal unity (very important to the Founding Fathers), lack of ancient Greek unity which proved to be their downfall, and ancient Roman unity which created what the Greeks could not, a total greater than the sum of its parts.

That's why, by the end of the movie one realizes that the plot is far more than just a simple revenge scheme. At first we think that the Nameless Hero is a hero because of his martial arts prowess, but by the end we are explained that he is a hero not because of his skills, but *despite* them. In the end what is most important is not his ability to kill, but his ability to refrain from killing; his greatest value is his help in establishing a united land where tribalism and balkanization at least will not exist. The movie does not say what kind of unity will be created instead, but whatever it will be, it will be better than the balkanized fragmentation and "chain" wars that have no beginning and no end.

So the moral theme we are left with, when the credits start to roll, is that true heroes do not follow their own petty passions but loftiest ideals and highest values. We are shown that the what matters most in life is not a slash of the sword or dash with a spear, but contemplative, moral, action guided by highest values. In a movie like this, that is pretty remarkable, and today in general very rare.

Btw, the "invisible" color is "color=#F5F9FD".

************* SPOILER-ESQUE ***************************

I agree with the general thrust of FreeCapitalist's post. His review is in line with my overall assessment. The "unity" thread running through "Hero" is contextual, and the details of the context aren't explicit.

Soon after I saw "Hero," I also watched another take on the "same" story of the King of Qin's desire to unite the seven kingdoms under a One China banner. This is Chen Kaige's "The Emperor and the Assassin," which is - or should be - available at your local video store. I got it from "Movie Gallery."

******* SPOILERS FOR "EMPEROR" ***************

Now, the "unity" thread in "Hero" is fleshed out into a complete theme in this story and the results are way different. If "Hero" reminds one of Hugo, "Emperor" reminds one, ultimately, of Shakespeare. In the latter case, the context left vague and undefined in "Hero" is fully circumscribed. Maggie Cheung's [whom I now have a mild crush on :) ] superheroic character gives way to another type of woman, played by Gong Li. Still, it's an engrossing film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An implicit understanding of Confucius (possibly the Aristotle of the East)

Are you serious? The ideas of Confucius had devastatingly adverse effects on China. The rise of the backward Confucian philosophy coincided with a total halt to the rapid technological advancements that China had experienced in the centuries before the establishment of Confucianism. Confucius' assertion that the views of a wise man remained forever right totally destroyed the Chinese thirst for knowledge and innovation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? The ideas of Confucius had devastatingly adverse effects on China. The rise of the backward Confucian philosophy coincided with a total halt to the rapid technological advancements that China had experienced in the centuries before the establishment of Confucianism. Confucius' assertion that the views of a wise man remained forever right totally destroyed the Chinese thirst for knowledge and innovation.

Confucius lived around 550 B.C., which is right about the time of Pythagoras. These were rather primitive times anywhere, so I don't know what "rapid technological advancements" could have been had before him.

Why do I think he was possibly the Aristotle of the East? Simply because of what function I know Aristotle's philosophy served in the West: the focus on this world.

Confucius' ethics could be described as "self-interested altruism," the first part of which saves it from being placed squarely in Kant's corner.

Am I certain he was the Aristotle of the East? No - because I don't know too much about Eastern philosophy. But, just from reading about Eastern history on the web, one is led in that direction. If you have more facts about that part of the world and who led it into any kind of enlightenment, please be sure to impart this knowledge. I await your thesis eagerly.

On this site, we are told:

A curious and noteworthy aspect of the teaching of Confucius is his arm's length attitude towards religion. There is considerably irony in this, not only because Confucianism later became one of the major religions of China, but in comparison to the life of Socrates, who was born just nine years after Confucius died. Socrates, although he talked about the gods all the time, and saw his own philosophical project as a divine mission, was condemned and put to death for presumably not believing in them. Confucius, although he later became a god, to whom temples were dedicated in every Chinese city, as the patron of students and scholars, nevertheless didn't talk about the gods at all:

    The topics the Master did not speak of were prodigies, force, disorder, and gods. [Analects translated by D.C. Lau, Penguin Books, 1979, VII:21, p. 88]The term for "god" here, shén (shin or kami in Japanese) is often translated "spirit" or even "spiritual beings." We see another term in this quote:

    Chi-lu asked how the spirits of the dead and gods should be served. The Master said, "You are not able to serve to serve man. How can you serve the spirits?" [XI:12, p. 107]

"Spirits" or "spirits of the dead" here are guei3. This is a remarkable passage considering the attention given by Confucianism as a religion for one's ancestors and for the care of one's family grave plot. This seems comparable to an instruction from Jesus:

    [Matthew 8:21] And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. [8:22] But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Few Christians are so unconcerned about burial of relatives, or Confucians about the service of spirits. What Confucius honored rather than pious ritual is implied here:

    The Master was seriously ill. Tzu-lu asked permission to offer a prayer. The Master said, "Was such a thing ever done?" Tzu-lu said, "Yes it was. The prayer offered was as follows: pray thus to the gods above and below." The Master said, "In that case, I have long been offering my prayers." [VII:35, p. 91]

This is interpreted to mean that Confucius has been praying all that was necessary just by being good and polite. Further prayers are unnecessary.

While the practice of Confucianism was not entirely consistent with these principles of Confucius just expressed, his attitude did have a significant effect on the conduct of Chinese religion, where popular gods possessed less status in terms of politics and high culture than we see in most other civilizations. Thus, while most people have a least heard of major Indian gods, like Shiva and Krishna, I have frequently found entire classes of students who were unable to name even a single traditional Chinese god [3]. The government of Imperial China treated the gods rather like other subjects of the Empire, assigning them rank and promoting or demoting them depending on their popularity or moral wholesomeness. Confucian authorities thus never doubted their standing to judge the status and worth of the gods. The Imperial cult, like Confucius himself, was concerned with much more abstract and impersonal entities, like Heaven. Sometimes "Heaven" is therefore translated "God," but it is a principle, not a personal deity. Its reality, however, does refute attempts to characterize Confucius as the sort of sceptical and positivistic "secular humanist" who has become familiar in modern society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Confucius lived around 550 B.C., which is right about the time of Pythagoras.  These were rather primitive times anywhere, so I don't know what "rapid technological advancements" could have been had before him. 

Perhaps you should read my post again. I spoke of rapid technological advancements occuring before "the rise of the backward Confucian philosophy". Not before the birth of Confucius himself, who, in his time, was not well known. The rapid technological advancements I spoke of include the printing press and gunpowder.

Why do I think he was possibly the Aristotle of the East? Simply because of what function I know Aristotle's philosophy served in the West: the focus on this world.
Confucius' philosphy concentrated on the past of this world. Not the present, nor the future.

From the source:

Confucius, although he later became a god, to whom temples were dedicated in every Chinese city

This is simply not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should read my post again. I spoke of rapid technological advancements occuring before "the rise of the backward Confucian philosophy". Not before the birth of Confucius himself, who, in his time, was not well known. The rapid technological advancements I spoke of include the printing press and gunpowder.

I was aware of the printing press and gunpowder. The question I have for you is: When you say the "rise of...Confucian philosophy", what time period are you talking about?

Confucianism became state philosophy before the birth of Jesus Christ. The gunpowder and printing press came after the death of Jesus Christ. Please see the following [search for 'printing press' and 'gunpowder']:

http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2522

http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/info/current/inventions.html

http://www.cacbc.org/Culture/inventions.htm

Or perhaps you are talking about "modern" China? that Confucius' body of ideas (or some derivative of them) were re-introduced to the detriment of the country. Perhaps that is the case. But remember that some people would say that also about Aristotle and the scholastics.

Confucius' philosphy concentrated on the past of this world. Not the present, nor the future.

I don't know enough to contest this claim. But, you haven't provided anything to corroborate it. I cannot disprove negatives.

From the source:

This is simply not true.

Please see above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I would not at all classify Confucious as Aristotle of the East. More like Kant of the East, though with much less explicit philosophy. Confucious is Asia's number one Duty promoter. I'd say the biggest effect he had was to focus men's thinking not on the world, but on other people. Confucious seemed relatively uninterested in the material world, but thought primarily in terms of how one person ranked in relation to another, how one person was supposed to behave to another. My wife, who grew up in China, after reading Atlas Shrugged decided that it was Confucious (Koontze) who most paved the way for Communism, though all elements of Chinese culture played a role, including Taoism and Legalism.

The Emperor and The Assassin movie, while totally living in a malevolent universe (and living under the first Emperor would leave you feeling like you were in such a universe), took the opposite theme, that unity of the nation was not worth the misery and brutality involved in achieving it.

One leftist reviewer of Hero approvingly cited the theme of the movie as being the necessity of sacrificing the individual for the unity of the state. That sounds about right and is 100% consistent with the Chinese Communist Party's number one propaganda theme of the past decade, which would explain why they provided extra funding for it.

This review pretty well catches Hero's political point, I think:

http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Reviews/Hero.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not at all classify Confucious as Aristotle of the East. More like Kant of the East, though with much less explicit philosophy. Confucious is Asia's number one Duty promoter. I'd say the biggest effect he had was to focus men's thinking not on the world, but on other people. Confucious seemed relatively uninterested in the material world, but thought primarily in terms of how one person ranked in relation to another, how one person was supposed to behave to another.  My wife, who grew up in China, after reading Atlas Shrugged decided that it was Confucious (Koontze) who most paved the way for Communism, though all elements of Chinese culture played a role, including Taoism and Legalism.

Considering that Confucius lived c. 500BC (when men everywhere were primitive), I don't think it's fair to compare him to Kant, who lived in the Enlightenment.

Even if he's not the Aristotle of the East, the farthest I would go in labelling his philosophy's concern with others is Plato.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering that Confucius lived c. 500BC (when men everywhere were primitive), I don't think it's fair to compare him to Kant, who lived in the Enlightenment.

Even if he's not the Aristotle of the East, the farthest I would go in labelling his philosophy's concern with others is Plato.

Yes, Kant was knowingly diabolical, while Confucius was earnest in his teachings. However, Confucius was also a much smaller mind than a Plato. I honestly find Confucius intolerably boring. In his analects he's constantly lecturing this person or that how to behave in relation to this or that situation and person. He tells you to eat ginger with meals to improve digestion. He tells a farmer to be humble. He tells a son to lie on behalf of a thieving father. It's like listening to a busybody trying to tell everyone to behave according to plan. His focus is mostly on interpersonal relationships, I can't recall any serious metaphysical systematizing or real epistemology. I wouldn't call Confucious' Analects religious tracts at all, more like a whole bunch of Dear Abby columns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Kant was knowingly diabolical, while Confucius was earnest in his teachings. However, Confucius was also a much smaller mind than a Plato. I honestly find Confucius intolerably boring. In his analects he's constantly lecturing this person or that how to behave in relation to this or that situation and person. He tells you to eat ginger with meals to improve digestion. He tells a farmer to be humble. He tells a son to lie on behalf of a thieving father. It's like listening to a busybody trying to tell everyone to behave according to plan. His focus is mostly on interpersonal relationships, I can't recall any serious metaphysical systematizing or real epistemology. I wouldn't call Confucious' Analects religious tracts at all, more like a whole bunch of Dear Abby columns.

Don't get me wrong, I have no quarrel with your assessment of Confucius' approach to epistemology and ethics, especially as I haven't read him. I was just wary of comparisons to Kant.

Plato was a really serious philosopher, no matter his flaws.

Still, I'm curious: Which thinker(s) in Eastern history made the eventual development of paper and gunpowder possible? Or did it owe to Western contact and influence?

Now, I'm certain that the answer to the above is NOT "it happend over time, bit by bit." So, how did it happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, I'm curious: Which thinker(s) in Eastern history made the eventual development of paper and gunpowder possible? Or did it owe to Western contact and influence?

Now, I'm certain that the answer to the above is NOT "it happend over time, bit by bit." So, how did it happen?

Inventions like those were the creations of individual geniuses, or small groups of more rational men, I would guess. Egyptians also developed paper under a theocratic slave-state, didn't they?

I think the better way to think of it is that the geniuses who did invent those things were unable to simultaneously make an impact on Eastern philosophy, they were not the parallels to Archimedes or later, DaVinci, probably because of the suffocating atmosphere that the dominant philosophers. These are just the anonymous geniuses Ayn Rand spoke about in Howard Roark's speech. The east's stultifying philsophy, in effect, is what caused such inventions to have so little impact on the broader culture or economy.

The first Chinese emperor, for example, was not one who would ever celebrate individual achievements of the mind, allow their creators fame, or even allow the communication of their ideas- he'd be more likely to bury his architechts, artists, and inventors alive, to accompany him in his continuing dictatorship over the dead.

Which brings up the big thing that troubles me about "Hero" and China generally. The sad truth is that the "unified" China that the first emperor created, was a tyrrany, guided by the totalitarian Legalist philosophy, and was probably on par, morally, with Nazi Germany. That's a bitter pill to take for Chinese nationalists. Their founding father wasn't a George Washington, he was a Kim Jong Il or a Stalin. That's why the prefer to focus on the "unity" theme than any real values achieved by such unity (other than the "peace" of a prison camp). This may also be why Chinese people can violently swing between virulent nationalism and intsense self-doubt. The country started deep in the hole of tyrrany, and has never climbed out, thanks in part to the philosophies that helped found and then supported the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I must express my wariness. The ancient Spartans, surely the most totalitarian and militaristic of all Greek city states, even they were far from Nazi Germany. I don't know Chinese history at all, but unless it was a completely unique society, the Ming dynasty was most likely nothing like Nazi Germany. A broad label of 'totalitarian' does not equate Persia, say, or Egypt, to a Nazi state.

So I will once again admit that I know practically nothing about Chinese history, but from studying other ancient societies I will venture a guess that, at most, it was akin to Persia and other eastern monarchies.

And besides, not every founding father of a country has to be a George Washington in order for his country to prosper under his unification. While it's undoubtedly true that the quiet of a prison camp is not always preferrable to us over a lawless land where men make their own law, for the ancients lawlessness was a bane above and beyond all others. That's why you see the paradox of Greeks accepting tyrants, except that it stops being a paradox once you see their hierarchy of values, and how important a lawful, non-anarchic state, was for them.

And for China, unless one of the Three Kingdoms was somehow superior and more moral than the rest (unlikely), the resulting unification did not decrease the moral status of the conglomerate, but increased it.

Frankly, it matters little to me what "other people" think of Hero, and which bad people like it and use it as propaganda, or claim it to be one. If I were to reject every movie I liked but some other disagreeable person used for his malicious purposes, then I would have no movies left. My values of which movies are good don't depend on what other viewers think, and do, with these films. I try to look at a film in context, and judge it by what it says to me through its theme, characters, music, plot, etc. The Chinese propaganda machine, if it was in fact behind the movie, didn't do a good job of making its message explicit enough for me to reject the movie. A theme of unification, as such, is not something I will frown over, but knowing the context of ancient societies, actively support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And here I must express my wariness. The ancient Spartans, surely the most totalitarian and militaristic of all Greek city states, even they were far from Nazi Germany. I don't know Chinese history at all, but unless it was a completely unique society, the Ming dynasty was most likely nothing like Nazi Germany. A broad label of 'totalitarian' does not equate Persia, say, or Egypt, to a Nazi state.

So I will once again admit that I know practically nothing about Chinese history, but from studying other ancient societies I will venture a guess that, at most, it was akin to Persia and other eastern monarchies.

And besides, not every founding father of a country has to be a George Washington in order for his country to prosper under his unification. While it's undoubtedly true that the quiet of a prison camp is not always preferrable to us over a lawless land where men make their own law, for the ancients lawlessness was a bane above and beyond all others. That's why you see the paradox of Greeks accepting tyrants, except that it stops being a paradox once you see their hierarchy of values, and how important a lawful, non-anarchic state, was for them.

And for China, unless one of the Three Kingdoms was somehow superior and more moral than the rest (unlikely), the resulting unification did not decrease the moral status of the conglomerate, but increased it.

Frankly, it matters little to me what "other people" think of Hero, and who else likes it and uses it as propaganda. If I were to reject every movie I liked that some other disagreeable person used for his malicious purposes, then I would have no movies left. My values of which movies are good don't depend on what other viewers think, and do, with these films.

Ok, I was trying to provide you some knowledge so that you would no longer "know practically nothing about Chinese history", and I even provided some leads for you to search for. Instead, you hypothesise without any basis in fact, that my thoughts about the philosophy and government of the first Emperor must be wrong, despite evidence that suggests I might have exerted some effort to know something about Chinese history and culture, which you admittedly have not, perhaps becuase it would clash with your desire to like a movie. Apparently totalitarian dictatorships can be celebrated, if they're old enough, even if they set the pattern for another few thousand years of tyrrany and cultural stagnation. Looks like you really like Hero. Keep your eye out for the sequel, "Hero 2, the People's Liberation Army takes Taiwan". After all, Taiwan has a lot of corruption, and perhaps the Chinese Communist party can increase the moral status of the new conglomerate. At least, that's one of the lines the Chinese propaganda department provides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, please pardon my ignorance, and provide some facts and figures here to teach me, and others, about the exact nature of the first Chinese dynasty. I will then compare this society to Persia, to Egypt, and we can go off from there. You might want to start a new thread for this, or find an old but appropriate one, and we'll discus this. I'm interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, please pardon my ignorance, and provide some facts and figures here to teach me, and others, about the exact nature of the first Chinese dynasty. I will then compare this society to Persia, to Egypt, and we can go off from there. You might want to start a new thread for this, or find an old but appropriate one, and we'll discus this. I'm interested.

Well, I don't plan on teaching you or others much about the first Emperor, or providing a cross-cultural comparison of ancient tyrranies. Your education is your own responsibility. However, as a goodwill gesture I will direct you to the attachment in my post in the "China" thread (Sept. 28), which is a paper I wrote on Chinese culture, business, and economy, which does briefly discuss the first emperor and the philosophy of Legalism, and how it continues to direct Chinese history. Even better, my paper contains numerous footnotes to some good resources for those looking for more information on the subject.

Also, while neither movie claims to offer a historically accurate of the period, I reiterate my recommendation of the movie "The Emperor and The Assassin" as an alternative artistic view on the subject of "Hero".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...