NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got back from seeing the Jet Li movie "Hero".

Very convoluted story line with some interesting twists. Oh and I love the cinematography (hope that's the right description.. the sets and use of color etc).

Interesting thing however is the message that Jet Li gives to the king in the end.

Any comments on it from anyone who's seen it?

Haven't seen it. No comment here.

Hero is imperialist, fascist propaganda.

Hero is imperialist, fascist propaganda.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your position? What about that movie is imperialist facist propaganda?

I'll repeat some comments I made in my review of Hero which can be found here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350513

"Hero" is entertaining and enjoyable if you just consider the storytelling and the stylishness but I was bothered by its fascist message. The movie's last scene is a perfect, very tragic illustration of the totalitarian State annihilating the individual. No wonder the People's Republic of China (which is fascist, not communist) is happy promoting this movie as propaganda. "Hero" may be compared to Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" which is the famous Nazi propaganda film. Ive never seen "Triumph" in its entirety but seeing clips of the stormtroopers marching in unison reminds me of parts of "Hero," and both promote totalitarian ideologies, and both pay close attention to stylish artistic conventions like pleasing lines, shapes, movement, etc.

The Emperor of Qin in history wasn't some high minded benevolent monarch driven by his greed for land and power not for peace or the greater good... "Hero" manages to glorify Qin Shihuang without showing his appalling crimes. Also Mao Zedong has always liked to be compared to Qin Shihuang, so the Chinese communist party is happy that "Hero" in glorifying the Qin Emperor indirectly praises the tyrant Mao. The unquestioning subordination of the individual to "the greater good" invites authoritarianism... I thought the execution at the end was cruel and unnecessary and accurately reflected the barbarous nature of the Qin dynasty and fascism in general.

Also, one crucial conversation in the movie reveals its imperialistic undertones... the King says to Nameless something along the lines of, "Once I've conquered the six kingdoms I will conquer the northern tribes." We have already drawn parallels between the King/Emperor Qin and Mao, and the Kingdom/Empire of Qin and the Peoples Republic of China. The comment made by the King of Qin supports Chinese rule over not only the Han. ("the six kingdoms") but also non-Chinese peoples such as the Mongols, Uyghurs, Turkics, Tibetans (thus the "northern tribes") This also sponsors China's claims over Taiwan which is ethnically Han but not formally part of the heartland represented by the "six kingdoms."

Hero gives, I feel, a warning to all those "Fascist imperialists" fighting their wars, that when they've won the day they ought to remember what they were fighting for to being with. They ought to remember they fought for what was best for the people, and when the battle is done, lay down their arms and kill no more.... preachy, sure, but that's not all there is to it. The many untrue stories told remind us, I think, to question and analyze all that we hear, read, and see. Anything may be fabricated, and anything may be propaganda. There is the ethical utilitarian message that it is heroic to die for the good of the many, even if it means that a few must suffer, die, or be used as scapegoats. Also present is nationalism (recall: "our land".) and the ideal of self sacrifice, whether it be for love, loyalty, an ideology, or one's country.
It is, however, interesting to note that the king portrayed in this film was a real historical figure, and did NOT follow Nameless's advice. He went on to kill and persecute scholars and burn their books in the interest of promoting more practical application of intellect. The Great Wall he built to "protect his people" is called the world's longest graveyard, serving as the resting place to the thousands upon thousands who dies during it's construction. I love revisionist history, as is the case in this film and with the Hollywood film "The Last Samurai". Both are a tad inaccurate, historically, but that says nothing about their messages. The films are not meant to be documentaries. They are meant to be art.

Hero gives, I feel, a warning to all those "Fascist imperialists" fighting their wars, that when they've won the day they ought to remember what they were fighting for to being with. They ought to remember they fought for what was best for the people, and when the battle is done, lay down their arms and kill no more.....

Or else Jet Li will come flying to spank them.

Hero gives, I feel, a warning to all those "Fascist imperialists" fighting their wars, that when they've won the day they ought to remember what they were fighting for to being with. They ought to remember they fought for what was best for the people, and when the battle is done, lay down their arms and kill no more.... preachy, sure, but that's not all there is to it.
Hero is upholds the tradition of martial arts films which always have some moral lesson about the warrior bringing honor and lasting peace through his efforts. However the parallels between the storyline and Chinese fascism is much too obvious and Hero claims to be just another martial arts flick teaching a lesson about peace but instead it comes off as obscuring the true motives and behavior of kings and states, and distracting the masses with a comforting story about how their leaders are always looking after them and protecting them.

The many untrue stories told remind us, I think, to question and analyze all that we hear, read, and see. Anything may be fabricated, and anything may be propaganda. There is the ethical utilitarian message that it is heroic to die for the good of the many, even if it means that a few must suffer, die, or be used as scapegoats. Also present is nationalism (recall: "our land".) and the ideal of self sacrifice, whether it be for love, loyalty, an ideology, or one's country.
Also, the "our land" is a horrible misinterpretation of the two words that Broken Sword writes... his two Chinese characters should better be translated into three English words: "all under heaven." Also, Chinese do not refer to China as "our land." All these bad translations happened probably because conquering "all under heaven" sounds too jingoistic while uniting "our land" sounds like a noble act of self defense.

Yeah, I saw Hero, and as far as entertainment is concerned, it was pretty good. Some of the fight scenes were really way too swooshy, like at one point they were fighting with leaves. I did notice the imperialist message, and it did bother me. There were just way too many parallels that could be drawn. The anhiliation of the protagonist by swarms of identical arrows, fired by the uniform ranks upon ranks of qin soldiers was meant to send a message of sacrifice for the greater good, but what really struck home for me was the death of the individual. It may be propaganda, but it is really well done propaganda.

Hero is upholds the tradition of martial arts films which always have some moral lesson about the warrior bringing honor and lasting peace through his efforts. However the parallels between the storyline and Chinese fascism is much too obvious and Hero claims to be just another martial arts flick teaching a lesson about peace but instead it comes off as obscuring the true motives and behavior of kings and states, and distracting the masses with a comforting story about how their leaders are always looking after them and protecting them.
Clearly, I know, not all leaders look out for their people, which is why the epistemological message of the film is one I think is very important. The viewer should question everything, even what the film itself says. However, the hero in this film is not the king, but the nameless warrior who sacrificed himself in the interest of ending the continuous warfare present in his land. It is NOT an accurate depiction of history, as I have already said, and because of that it isn't really defending the true facts, but telling a story that IS NOT TRUE. In this version of the story, the king had noble intentions. That doesn't mean the real historical figure did, and anyone who takes the film for true history ought to go pick up a book. (Come on, the movie has people running on water. It's complete fiction with an historic setting, and should be taken for nothing more.)



Also, the "our land" is a horrible misinterpretation of the two words that Broken Sword writes... his two Chinese characters should better be translated into three English words: "all under heaven." Also, Chinese do not refer to China as "our land." All these bad translations happened probably because conquering "all under heaven" sounds too jingoistic while uniting "our land" sounds like a noble act of self defense.
Conquering "all under heaven" would, indeed, be taken badly. But what about uniting "all under heaven"? Wouldn't that be better, if we all came together in peace? That would end ALL war, rather than just civil war in China, and would be a better outcome, and much greater a goal to die for. However, the English audience doesn't read "all under heaven", but "our land", and that is the message they take from it. The Chinese may be given a different message, but only slightly, as the difference is a semantic one at best.

Clearly, I know, not all leaders look out for their people, which is why the epistemological message of the film is one I think is very important. The viewer should question everything, even what the film itself says. However, the hero in this film is not the king,
It can be argued that all of the characters in the movie were heroes, though. I watched an interview with the Australian cinematographer who worked on the movie... he said that one crucial issue for the English version is whether to call the movie "Heroes" or "Hero," because the Chinese title does not differentiate plural or singular. They ended up choosing up "Hero" because you can see the movie as having many heroes or just one hero, while under the title "Heroes" you are unnecessarily confined to interpreting that there was only one hero. It is rather open ended, but it isn't hard to see that the king is also considered heroic by the movie, even if you don't think he is on par with Nameless. Even the enemies of the king can be considered heroic though it is clear which hero is on the "right" side.
but the nameless warrior who sacrificed himself in the interest of ending the continuous warfare present in his land.
THe king conquered the land purportedly to end continuous warfare. So the king by the movie's definitions is also a heroic figure.
It is NOT an accurate depiction of history, as I have already said, and because of that it isn't really defending the true facts, but telling a story that IS NOT TRUE. In this version of the story, the king had noble intentions. That doesn't mean the real historical figure did, and anyone who takes the film for true history ought to go pick up a book. (Come on, the movie has people running on water. It's complete fiction with an historic setting, and should be taken for nothing more.)
Historical fiction can be a powerful motivator though. A lot of propaganda is based on real events colored with imaginary elements. For example - the Russian film Alexander Nevsky, or the CHinese novel Three Kingdoms which was intended to be propaganda for the Ming Dynasty. None of these are completely historically accurate and often features obviously fake elements such as the water jumping in Hero or sorcery in THree Kingdoms... but they are nonetheless compelling vehicles for the intended propaganda message and inspire emotion in the audience, most notably pride.

Conquering "all under heaven" would, indeed, be taken badly. But what about uniting "all under heaven"? Wouldn't that be better, if we all came together in peace? That would end ALL war, rather than just civil war in China, and would be a better outcome, and much greater a goal to die for. However, the English audience doesn't read "all under heaven", but "our land", and that is the message they take from it. The Chinese may be given a different message, but only slightly, as the difference is a semantic one at best.
Uniting all under heaven still has fascist undertones, as it implies a supreme authority which rules over all and accountable to none.

Uniting all under heaven still has fascist undertones, as it implies a supreme authority which rules over all and accountable to none.
But the difference between uniting "our land" and "all under heaven" is very minor, and only wordplay if you ask me. "Our land" could just as well have been used by the Nazi's to refer to the land "Entitled to them" as the master race. However, you take issue with the translation, while both translations could be taken in exactly the same way, depending on how one views the movie as a whole.
Furthermore, you are still ignoring the epistemological message sent by Nameless's many lies and half truths. It, I found, encourages the viewer to question and seek the truth. Maybe the whole movie itself is another false tale?

I liked the previews for Hero, but, I will wait until it comes out on video.

THe king conquered the land purportedly to end continuous warfare. So the king by the movie's definitions is also a heroic figure.
Yes, and if he had really brought peace and ended the suffering of his people, he would have been a hero. In the film's version of the story, he did. In the true history, he did not.


Historical fiction can be a powerful motivator though. A lot of propaganda is based on real events colored with imaginary elements. For example - the Russian film Alexander Nevsky, or the CHinese novel Three Kingdoms which was intended to be propaganda for the Ming Dynasty. None of these are completely historically accurate and often features obviously fake elements such as the water jumping in Hero or sorcery in THree Kingdoms... but they are nonetheless compelling vehicles for the intended propaganda message and inspire emotion in the audience, most notably pride.
I find it is useful to seperate the mythic tale from the true story. Both are unique and stand on their own. The myth IS NOT the history. For example, the Illiad tells us the story of the Trojan War. It has it's own messages. The Trogan War DID occur, though it bears little resemblance to what the Illiad describes. The messages that come with the Illiad are still relevant to us in North American culture, and I can't imagine the Illiad stirs a lot of nationalism in Greece because, well, it's a Myth, and everyone knows that. Likewise, the true history is probably no secret to people in China (at least I can't imagine it is; correct me if I'm wrong). That doesn't mean they can't take messages from the film. Utilitarian ethics isn't evil, nor is it exclusively Chinese or fascist in origin (see Hedonistic Calculus), but it is illustrated in this story, that has very little to do with the true story of the first Emperor of China.

But the difference between uniting "our land" and "all under heaven" is very minor, and only wordplay if you ask me. "Our land" could just as well have been used by the Nazi's to refer to the land "Entitled to them" as the master race. However, you take issue with the translation, while both translations could be taken in exactly the same way, depending on how one views the movie as a whole.
I agree that it is just wordplay... "our land" was chosen to minimize the fascism. However it is rather clear that the translaters wanted "our land" to mean China... at the very end of the story where there were a few concluding remarks it said "to this day Chinese refer to their nation as 'our land.'" However the King of Qin wanted to conquer the known world so "all under heaven" is more appropriate. The implication is that either the world should be united under a strongman, or that greater China (including Taiwan, et. al.) should be united under a strongman - in both translations the audience will grasp a fascist message.
Furthermore, you are still ignoring the epistemological message sent by Nameless's many lies and half truths. It, I found, encourages the viewer to question and seek the truth. Maybe the whole movie itself is another false tale?
I think the writers of the story made all the different flashbacks not to make a philosophical point but to show the lying, plotting, and backstabbing going on back then, and because it is a pretty cool effect. Therefore any lesson about truth-seeking shouldn't be intentional. In fact it would be highly ironic if such a point were intentional, given that the whole story indeed falsifies the reputation of China's most brutal Emperor and whitewashes his true sinister intentions and actions.

I find it is useful to seperate the mythic tale from the true story. Both are unique and stand on their own. The myth IS NOT the history. For example, the Illiad tells us the story of the Trojan War. It has it's own messages. The Trogan War DID occur, though it bears little resemblance to what the Illiad describes. The messages that come with the Illiad are still relevant to us in North American culture, and I can't imagine the Illiad stirs a lot of nationalism in Greece because, well, it's a Myth, and everyone knows that.
Well informed people can separate the mythic tale from the true story but often times impressionable people would buy into the romantic and fabricated aspects of a propaganda piece. The Illiad is rarely used as propaganda partly because modern western Europe is influenced by individualism and is reflexively suspicious of overbearing moralism and nationalism, but in places in the world to this day many semi-historical works pass off as genuine national history and/or serve some inspirational nationalist purpose.

Likewise, the true history is probably no secret to people in China (at least I can't imagine it is; correct me if I'm wrong).
Correct... Qin Shihuang remains a divisive figure to this day because the spirit of his rule was resurrected by Mao Zedong and therefore he looms especially large in the collective consciousness of the Chinese people, who are already very mindful of tradition and history.


Yes, and if he had really brought peace and ended the suffering of his people, he would have been a hero. In the film's version of the story, he did. In the true history, he did not.

I moved this passage so it can be addressed along with the following passage...
That doesn't mean they can't take messages from the film. Utilitarian ethics isn't evil, nor is it exclusively Chinese or fascist in origin (see Hedonistic Calculus), but it is illustrated in this story, that has very little to do with the true story of the first Emperor of China.
Even though Hero is obviously fake, it places someone in a good light who in real life behaved in a fashion extremely removed from the fictional qualities ascribed him... it is like making a movie about Hitler and praising him for trying to bring peace to the world through unity. Though strictly speaking you can separate the moral of the story from the facts of history, Hitler is so synonymous with evil that one cannot help but denounce the film's ridiculous premise and suspect that there is an ulterior motive. I think to understand Chinese peoples' view that the movie is pro-fascist, one must first appreciate the fact that Qin Shihuang is inextricably identified with tyranny in the East, much like how Hitler is THE symbol for tyranny in the West. (Except though Hitler is universally rejected by the West, fascism lives on in China and is accepted by many... therefore the Emperor of Qin, unlike Hitler, can easily have a favorable movie made about him) Asking to separate fact from fiction in this case is too much to swallow, given the connotations surrounding these two men.

Even though Hero is obviously fake, it places someone in a good light who in real life behaved in a fashion extremely removed from the fictional qualities ascribed him... it is like making a movie about Hitler and praising him for trying to bring peace to the world through unity. Though strictly speaking you can separate the moral of the story from the facts of history, Hitler is so synonymous with evil that one cannot help but denounce the film's ridiculous premise and suspect that there is an ulterior motive. I think to understand Chinese peoples' view that the movie is pro-fascist, one must first appreciate the fact that Qin Shihuang is inextricably identified with tyranny in the East, much like how Hitler is THE symbol for tyranny in the West. (Except though Hitler is universally rejected by the West, fascism lives on in China and is accepted by many... therefore the Emperor of Qin, unlike Hitler, can easily have a favorable movie made about him) Asking to separate fact from fiction in this case is too much to swallow, given the connotations surrounding these two men.
I see your point, but I am still forced to disagree. Historical figures often have fictional characters based on them, and seeing the difference between the fact and fiction may at times be difficult, but it is ultimately the viewer's responsibility. If we blindly accept what is shown to us, we will be misled, but the film doesn't really encourage that. (I refer again to epistemology, which I may or may not read too much into. You can decide for yourself.) We can define the differences between Dracula of History and Dracula the vampire, and likewise see the difference between the true story of Elizabeth Bathory and the myths that sprang up about her bathing in the blood of virgins. Hitler, even, can be made into a hero if shown to the right audience and in the right light. He can at least be shown to be pitiable, and understandable. That can even be done in a comic way, as I now recall Family Guy's flashback describing the beginnings of Hitler's anti-semitism as a result of looking like a girly man next to the muscular Jews at the gym..... that has nothing to do with anything, but my point is.... what IS my point? DAMMIT!
Right... burden of analysis on the viewer or some BS like that. Right-oh.

Look, don't worry about it. Go see 'Ong Bak' if you want an awesome Martial Arts movie. The main guy doesn't use wires like Jet Li or Jackie Chan and has some of the most incredible stunts that will have you slack-jawed AND laughing at the same time.
And it's Muay Thai too, which has to be one of the most violent martial arts you can do (apart from a nasty Burma type, but we won't go there).
Trust me on this.

I would advise anyone that hasn't already seen it to see Hero, and make up their own minds.

If you don't mind wire-work, and if you don't mind certain story elements being revisited repeatedly, and if you don't mind 'foreign' film, it is well worth the watch.

Some say that it is full of evil empire overtones - and I'm sure you can find that if you want to.

I argue that it carries some very positive messages - especially dealing with the subjects of love and sacrifice.

Most importantly for me, however, is the fact that it is just absolutely beautiful. It has the most delicious palette, which is used to great effect, it has ahuntingly atmospheric music, some incredible combat scenes (several of which depart a huge distance from the somewhat hackneyed traditional swordfights) - the leaf-battle, the lake-battle and the arrow-cutting, for example, take martial arts combat far out of the ordinary arena.

Finally: I do not know how this movie will fair dubbed. I saw it on import, subtitled - and was very happy with it, but, I am worried that a 'dub' version will lose much of the subtlety...