Does commentary on narrative content or structure even matter in an explicitly propagandic film? Also, it seems strange to give credit to Zhang for the cinematography.
What’s wrong with Die Hard?
I jest (only a little).
Someone more knowledgeable than me can jump in about the historical aspect to this film that I believe lends it more depth than your ascribing to it. That being said, it’s really not much more than an a wire-fu actioner.
Zhang studied as a cinematographer actually so he definitely has a great eye for colours. Didn’t Doyle do the cinematography for this one though in particular? Anyway, I agree with you Law, if you strip the film of its beautiful cinematography, it leaves something that’s somewhat weak. I have to say though, when I first saw it I wasn’t that bothered by the non-linear narrative and found it slightly entertaining, but after a re-watch I don’t know how I’d feel about it.
Then again, at least the film sort of draws on historical aspects. The story of Emperor Qin has been adapted so many times in terms of TV dramas and films in China (like the less popular The Emperor and the Assassin), but none have been as successful as Hero in the West. Even if some people didn’t quite pick up on it, it was an important event in Chinese history as Qin was the first emperor and the one responsible for its unification after the warring periods.
I don’t particularly like Hero, but I like it much more than later efforts such as House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (the latter I thought was pretty awful). Ever since he’s become all chummy with the government, he’s been directing much too theatrical films. I miss his social commentaries from the 80s and 90s. (This kind of applies for many of the Fifth Gen filmmakers actually…)
I doubt it is historically accurate.
Burce: Yes, narrative content and structure matter even if a film is “propagandic”, which I do not believe it is. All forms of media promote ideologies, this just happens to propose one some disagree with.
Myra: I have studied (a little) about the Qin Dynasty but I think that regardless of its importance, Hero’s plot does not fit in anywhere at all.
First, I saw Huo Zhe. Now, this?
Hahaha, yes, I agree, I think he embellished certain aspects to his liking for sure. I meant that as a result of the failed assassination attempt, he lived on, and therefore did unify China. (I guess he kind of did his own thing in terms of the narrative though.)
To Live is a good attempt from Zhang, although people say it may be too melodramatic. You should check out some other early works by him, if you can get your hands on them. Even his debut Red Sorghum is beautiful with its use of bold reds.
Hero may be propaganda, but it is no more so than some of John Ford’s films or something like Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. With that said, Hero is not a great film by any means. But it seems like every director of the Chinese diaspora has to make a grand historical “wire-fu” wuxia flick film in his career. Most are just cheesy in my opinion. John Woo’s Red Cliff, Wong Kar-wai’s Ashes of Time, Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Tian Zhuangzhuang’s the Warrior and the Wolf, and Zhang’s circus propaganda flicks…ugh… of these, Wong’s film is the only one I can stand, as it deals with some existential themes at least. If Jia Zhang-ke makes one of these, I’m boycotting Chinese food.
Zhang did make some great films early in his career. Red Sorghum, Ju Dou, and Raise the Red Lantern were all superb. And I’d rather watch a contemporary social satire of his like Keep Cool—even though it’s pretty uneven—than any of his recent circus flicks. At this point in his career, he should stick to directing opening ceremonies and maybe Cirque du Soleil shows.
“The Warrior and the Wolf is being co-produced by companies from Hong Kong (Edko Films), Singapore (MediaCorp Raintree Pictures) and China (Perfect World Culture).”
What have you done, Singapore?!!
Hero is not a movie that exists only as propaganda. Hero simply has a point of view that may support the principle that the individual must subordinate themselves to the collective and that it was passed into distribution after being subordinated to censorship checks. If it was propaganda, it would be blatantly saying that ALL individuals must sub-ordinate themselves to the state. However, it is only Nameless & Broken Sword who believes that the emperor’s survival will unite all Chinese states together. You still have Flying Snow who believed that the Emperor’s ruthlessness and hunger for power was immoral and unethical. You still have characters like Sky who sacrificed his life because he believed that killing the emperor would stop his reign of terror. If it were true propaganda, the message would be far less subtle, like in Triumph of the Will where every character appears brainwashed and believe that the ideologies of Nazism were absolute. At least in Hero, differing perspectives existed and that the ending allows us to analyse the decision Nameless committed. His actions are not in the form of a parable on the Chinese government but as a moral and ethical decision that he believed was correct. It’s up to the audience to decide if he was wrong.
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
Zhang Yimou even commented in an interview that he had no desire to fuse political intentions relating to the Chinese government in Hero. And if he did have political views he wanted to express, why is he only being criticised for this in Hero? Since Red Sorghum, he’s made work that has been banned from distribution in China. He was even banned from directing from 2 years because his work was seen as political fables on the negative aspects of China! And most importantly, how about The Curse of the Golden Flower? The movie practically based its entirety on the corruption of the Chinese government, on the artificial and deceptive nature of the characters (look at their complex lives and compare it with the rich environments they inhabit, it’s so ironic). If any movie would be banned, it would surely be the Golden Flower because of its political views on the Chinese government.
I was completely unimpressed with this film. It felt like it might as well have been a run-of-the-mill Hollywood action film. And everyone points to Doyle’s amazing cinematography but I have to tell you the work of his that impresses me are his dirty-looking shit (see Paranoid Park or Downloading Nancy), not his garish spectacles like Hero. I know that’s just a matter of taste but there you go.
I thought the movie was fantastic. Lots of great action, fantastic colors and cinematography, and I liked the story and how there is no definitive “bad guy”. The comparison to “Die Hard” is good IMO (Die Hard is a classic!). I will agree, it is an action movie through and through, it’s SUPPOSED to have fight scenes every 5/10 minutes. But I feel when it does go into story mode that it does not falter one bit.
I agree with Ryan, it is a visually beautiful action film which I think is often hard to find. It’s exciting and fun to watch, which I believe can be just as important as a political statement, or some deep meaning. Clearly Zhang has many “important” films, he’s allowed to make one action-packed film that’s entertainment for entertainment’s sake. I don’t think he should be criticized for that.
Law said, " Fans of martial arts and action films will heavily enjoy this film, but if you are not interested in seeing a fight every 5 minutes, tune away."
Actually, I was initially disappointed with this precisely because it didn’t meet my expectations as a good martial arts film. (I felt like there needed to be more fighting!). I don’t recall enough specifics about the film, but I do know that it was more than a typical action film.
I also felt the film had a propagandist message that made me uncomfortable, namely justifying the use of whatever means necessary to create a unified China. Think of Taiwan, and you can see why it makes me uncomfortable.
I actually got engaged in the storyline in “Hero,” and cared whether the outcomes were fake or real. To me, the beautifully staged fight scenes supplemented that storytelling. But yeah, Jet Li was made out to be a hero, a nice pun on the title.
Sue me, I enjoyed this one!
I agree with Jazzaloha. Hero is nationalist garbage. If it was a Hollywood film with the same theme and message, there wouldn’t even be any discussion of it here.
Yeah but does the message of the film make it good or bad? I don’t think it’s as big of a propaganda film as you think. China being united in the film is just mentioned in the very beginning and the end…the whole movie is about Jet Li’s journey to get to the king. Personally, the political leanings of a film does not make it bad just because I don’t agree with it. It’s still a great film, it’s just not your taste.
I like House of Flying Daggers much better
i like flying daggers more for the story and butterfly and sword is good 2
anyone seen butterfly and sword?
I’m not saying it’s a bad film—I actually think it’s a very good film (sorry, Ari)—but the politcal subtext makes me uncomfortable. If I remember correctly, Jet Li’s character supports the Emperor and understands the Emperor’s ruthless attempts to unite the nation as a way to bring peace (i.e end more warring factions). Ergo, if we have to “bomb” Taiwan, that’s for the greater good of a united China.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: a film does not necessarily have to be thought-provoking. Cinema can do so many things that I think it would be narrow-mided to disregard a film for being “just” an action movie.
“Hero” is great! It’s beauty makes up for all of it’s narrative weaknesses. And I am not a particular die-hard fan of martial arts…
As a hater of action movies, I am unable to argue with any of you. But I think the Chinese people deserve better than these wire-fu stuff, especially from a renowned 5th generation director like Zhang Yimou. Calling Jia Zhangke to my television now.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it but I remember loving it quite a bit. The plot isn’t the greatest but not only does it have Tony Leung, which is always a win in my books, but it is very beautiful. Crouching Tiger is definitely the best of the Wuxia films I have seen but Hero is still a highly enjoyable film.
Berjuan: Hero is not that bad Law. It is what it is.
Law: I don’t know, I think this might be where Blue K’s mention of “Asian Orientism” comes into place. As a Chinese, I was most unfazed by all elements of the film. Even the emperor sounded like a ridiculous caricature.
Law, if you understand the qualities of any character properly, all characters can be reduced to a caricature as you said. I myself am Chinese and I don’t feel the same about the Emperor as you do. What I have noticed is that many of the wuxia movies have become Westernised, meaning that the way in which characters talk, the humour and the complexity of the movie’s themes have all experienced changes ever since Crouching Tiger, most likely the most Westernised wuxia movie of modern times.
If I have one criticism that truly hurts Hero, it’s the undermining of the Rashomon effect. Surely, it works in this movie but Rashomon used the effect to emphasise the inconsistent nature of truth and how the motives of the characters led to testimonies that didn’t match up. Hero used the Rashomon effect to test whether the Emperor would believe the stories that were being fed to him. But after the Emperor discovers that it’s false, he creates his own testimony of the event. The problem here is: there isn’t much left to observe in all of the testimonies because at the end of the movie, we know which testimony was true. All we can observe is the way which Nameless attempted to convince the Emperor by the way he told and constructed the false testimonies. Besides that, and how the Emperor’s testimony matched with the real scenario, there’s nothing left to analyse or observe.
Hero isn’t a thought-provoking movie. It merely adheres to commercialised tastes by offering great action sequences, voluptuous imagery & beautiful choreography. It doesn’t leave you with anything except what every blockbuster leaves you with. A Wonderful Experience. It is relatively simple to analyse. But another problem I had with Hero was the ‘wire-fu’ martial arts… I’ve had the same problem with Crouching Tiger where characters can move and jump in such unrealistic ways that the way in which they move is artificial (it’s like they’re floating on water). Hero still has this problem, especially in the fight between Jet Li & Donnie Yen, where they are able to jump horizontally and span such a distance. It’s not the idea that they can fly I’m against, it’s how it was presented. I’ve liked House of Flying Daggers much more because the movement has been corrected, and when they move, the manner in which they move is more natural. To me, it comes down to what I believe and what I don’t believe. And in some of the action sequences for Hero, I just didn’t believe what I saw.
Moderated
Law said, “As a hater of action movies, I am unable to argue with any of you.” The irony is that as a fan of (good) action films, I didn’t think this an action film, or not simply an action film anyway. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen this in a long time, otherwise I’d cite examples and make a case for my position.
I do agree with John about the over-the-top stunts. (The place those stunts would be appropriate is in some super-hero film. Why the Chinese fight choreographers haven’t been hired by Marvel to make the film adaptations is beyond me.)
Law
Hero, the title that Ying Xiong is popularly known under, is a horribly beautiful yet completely ridiculous film. Fans of martial arts and action films will heavily enjoy this film, but if you are not interested in seeing a fight every 5 minutes, tune away.
After seeing Huo Zhe (To Live) and this film, I am completely convinced of Zhang Yimou’s colour-matching and cinematography skills. But unlike Huo Zhe, Ying Xiong seems to have nothing much to say and grows increasingly laughable at many points.
The fight scenes are obviously the expressionistic wire-fu type. That is not to discriminate against them; they are meant to be expressionistic after all. But Zhang virtually abuses his cinematographic prowess here, feeding us sumptious angles along with slow-motion editing and CGI, glorifying the sword and well, creating an action film no different from something like Die Hard.
(And perhaps, since the whole story is not meant to be realistic, we can move away from criticising all that business with the fire.)
Narrative-wise, the film really does not say anything at all. Fighting everywhere and then suddenly, peace and brotherhood for everyone under the sky? This is a film where characters cannot help but break out into stylistic, aesthecised fights every five minutes. By stylising these fights, Zhang glorifies the characters and thus their actions, which hence promotes the message of “fighting is good”, going in direct contrast with the film’s purported main message of peace. (This leads back to the Truffaut argument that there cannot be a true war film because portraying war aesthecises it and Godard’s response of Les Carabiniers.)
On a structural level, the film is unsuccessful too. While it can claim to have a Rashomon-like plot, it ultimately declares one version the truth, eroding away the power of perspective and leaving the audience clueless why they bothered to see the two other versions. And the setting of a mind game between a nameless (cough cough Kurosawa cough cough) man and and a king is interesting but really, it definitely cannot match up to the strength of some other great films that follow such form such as Oh! Soo-jung (Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors), L’annee derniere a Marienbad, due to a lack of structural focus.
I respect Zhang for his cinematographic skills, but Hero is just a mindless action film that the prude and miser that I am cannot enjoy.
-
Hero seems to be pretty popular amongst The Academy. What say you, cinephiles?