Photo Matt likes Hero. It is a good film, but I would have to issue some caveats in my recommendation. Spoilers follow:
I have never seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, so I have nothing but 1970s kung-fu movies to compare this to. Visually, this film is awesome. Many people have made a comparison to The Matrix, which I think is apt. Plotwise, the film is also outstanding. The plot is non-linear, but still easy to understand. It is subtle enough that if you do not already know the story (I learnt it in 9th grade World History Honors, but had obviously forgotten it by the time I watched the movie in May) behind the movie, you will be surprised.
By this time, some of this blog's more impatient readers must be chafing with discomfort. "But Martey," they ask their computer screens, "what was wrong with Hero, then?"
The political message. By the end of the film, the audience has been shown that what we assumed were the heroic acts that give the movie its name are simply a part of an ingenious conspiracy to kill the Emperor. The "Nameless One," played by Jet Li, is not really a hero, but just insanely good at martial arts. Now, the revenge that he planned for years is at hand. He has the Emperor in his grasp, and...
...he does not kill him, because this Emperor is "the First Emperor," who will unite China, allowing it to become a wonderful civilization. The hero's greatest act is allowing the Emperor to kill him, instead.
All very touching, but here in America, individualism and freedom are valued more than authority and security ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," etc., etc.). The concept that a political leader would have such an imposing presence that simply by being near him, you would convert to his viewpoint seems completely alien and strange. Do not get me wrong; I think it was possible that Hero could have satisified me with the same ending, but there needed to be more explanation. Throughout the movie, we learn that the armies of the Emperor have marched against at least two other Chinese kingdoms, crushing the inhabitants. We never see any suggestion that this is wrong. Although all of the Nameless One's kith and kin have been cruely slaughtered, the time he spends talking to the Emperor convinces him that the world would be a better place if the murderer of his entire family lives. Previously, another of the assassins is on the verge of killing the Emperor when he comes to the same conclusion and runs away. It is as if by having the Emperor within their power, they are fulfilled.
I would like to think that is the real message of Hero - it is best to seek an existentialist triumph over authority instead of the crude destruction of it. However, everyone who opposes the Emperor has a violent end, while Shi Huangdi eventually passes away from old age. While existentialist victory might make you feel better at the moment, wait until hundred of arrows come flying at you. I bet he wished he had used those martial arts skills when he had the chance, instead of lying there on the cobblestones, feeling his lifeblood seep away.
# At 10:16 on August 31, 2004, Bryan Loeper wrote:
Except at the end, right after he puts the hilt of the sword against the Emperor, he state's that his mission is complete. One would think that perhaps he knew what he was doing all along.
# At 12:40 on August 31, 2004, Martey wrote:
Good point, Bryan. Any chance you want a Gmail account?
# At 13:31 on August 31, 2004, Matt wrote:
Also, note the historical context of the movie. If Jet Li killed the emperor that wouldn't correlate with Chinese history. And another note, in most Chinese Soap Opera's everyone dies at the end. There aren't the happily ever after endings like all the movies in America.
# At 16:53 on August 31, 2004, Martey wrote:
True, Matt. Revisionism in order to make the movie uplifting is one of Hollywood's most annoying tendencies.
I think a large part of my problem with the movie is the title. When you title a movie "Hero," the protagonist should be heroic. While Jet Li's character may be heroic in an Eastern sense, he is not an individualistic American hero (like John Wayne, Charlston Heston, etc.). This is not a failing on Jet Li's part; whoever decided on the translation of the title made a mistake. If the film had been titled "Assassin" or even "The First Emperor," it would not have left such a bad taste in my mouth. If anyone reading this speaks Chinese, I would be interested to know if the film's original title is more nuanced.
# At 17:35 on August 31, 2004, Matt wrote:
I am chinese but don't speak at all. The literal translation of Ying Xiong is Hero.
# At 21:49 on August 31, 2004, Lashlar wrote:
Actually, whether Qin Shihuangdi passed away from old age or from some form of mercury poisoning is debatable, and certainly his dynasty lasted a pitifully short period of time compared with later dynasties.
I've always felt that Hero is an ambiguous film, and a bit of an apologist piece for Communist China. Certainly the position taken by the protagonists (Broken Sword and Nameless) reflect submission to a "greater good" which we would probably not empathize with. However, taken in the cultural context of China, both at that time and in later periods, it was "good" because the division of the Chinese empire has generally been associated with disorder, suffering, and war, which are all "bad". At the time, around 221BC, the states that would eventually form China had been engaged in war (on and off) for at least 400 years, whittling their number down to 7 or so superpowers and a few fringe states that were, by and large, buffer states that no side was willing to take for fear of triggering an open war with another superpower. I can easily imagine, having read quite a number of translations of texts from that period, that many people did see the only way to establish peace was for one state to defeat its rivals and create an empire. They differed in the means they suggested for strengthening the state and for defeating their enemies, but they didn't actually disagree about the intended outcome: one state and one king to rule all under heaven.
One of the reasons why I actually like the film is precisely because of this ambiguity. It isn't a clear-cut film with a simple dichotomy of "good" and "evil". Nameless' actions were ambiguous, particularly if you know the context in which all of this was happening, and it raises a question: "Is there any justification for tyranny? Does the ends justify the means?"
I do think there is a very different cultural ethos being presented in that film, and it's one that jars against my sensibilities, too, as I've been strongly influenced by Western conceptions of heroism and liberty.
Matt (No.5) is right, too. Ying Xiong is translated literally as Hero.