Author: Mao Zewrong

The growth Chinese nationalism in cinema: Hero (2002) vs. Mulan (2020)

The concept of Chinese nationalism is not a recent development. The term Zhongguo or ‘Middle Kingdom’’ has its origins in the 3rd century CE and was used to denote the lands China occupied.[1] Sometimes translated as ‘all under heaven’, it separated Chinese citizens from the barbarians which surrounded them.[2] Since the Song era, China has developed a stronger form of nationalism that can now be seen in present day culture. This is especially true for the country’s cinema which has increasingly seen films being used for political messages. In order to show how this is the case, I will analyse Hero (2002) and the recent Mulan (2020).

Hero is a film directed by Zhang Yimou and centres on an assassination plot intended for the emperor. Through it’s uses of martial arts and prominent actors, it became a wild success both in Asia and the USA. At the end of the film, Zhongguo is an integral plot point. In order to prevent the emperor’s assassination, Broken Sword (Tony Leung Chiu-wai) uses this term to dissuade Nameless (Jet Li) from carrying out his mission. This ends up working as Nameless decides against the killing as he preaches a message of unity to the ruler whilst knowing this would mean his eventual death. This has a clear nationalist undertone ‘all under heaven’ encourages a China which is stronger as a united-state. Despite this apparent message, Zhang did not suggest the film was political. In an interview in 2004 he said,

 ‘The objective of any form of art is not political. I had not political intentions. I am not interested in politics.’[3]

Whilst this does not necessarily mean that the director was not intentionally leaving nationalism as a prevailing message in the film, it does show that it was a subtle approach. Whether accidental or not, the director does not openly suggest the purpose of the film was for political reasons nor involve himself in politics whatsoever.

This marks as a stark contrast from Disney’s Mulan (2020). First off, lead actress Liu Yifei openly supported Hong Kong police against the city’s protestors.[4] Then the film openly credits the help of the government agencies in Xinjiang where Uighur Muslims are currently being detained.[5] The film also removes itself from historical reality by placing the figure in Chinese territory despite the original poem suggesting she was a barbarian.

What is so striking with the difference of Mulan to Hero is the obvious political intent of the film. The lead actress is openly discussing her support of Chinese political actions and the film itself even thanks the government’s help. Whilst each movie clearly has a theme that centres around promoting nationalism, one is much more upfront and obvious about it than the other. The fact that Zhang steered clear about making comments on politics shows the lack of acknowledgement of the governments involvement or if it even took place at all. Mulan, on the other hand, is very clear in the fact that Chinese authorities had a large influence on how the film was made and how it would be promoted.

What this goes to show is a growing use of political messages in Chinese films that have become more apparent during the 21st century. Whilst it is not a new thing for Chinese cinema to have an undercurrent of propaganda, there has been an increasingly obvious change in how important this has become. Mulan demonstrates how Chinese cinema has become increasingly political and used for messages the government support instead of films getting made for the enjoyment of the viewer which I believe Hero is much more capable of doing.

[1] Wai-Yee Li, ‘Anecdotal Barbarians in Early China’ in Paul van Els and Sarah A. Queen (eds.) Between history and philosophy: anecdotes in early China (New York, 2017) pp. 113-5

[2] Nicolas Tackett, Origins of the Chinese Nation: Song China and the Forging of an East Asian World Order (Cambridge, 2017) p. 175

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/dec/17/1 (accessed 26/11/20)

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49373276 (accessed 26/11/20)

[5] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-new-mulanandnbsps-uncomfortable-relationship-with-chinas-past-and-present (accessed 26/11/20)

Zhuge Liang’s changing representation in Chinese culture: Romance of the Three Kingdoms to Red Cliff

Zhuge Liang is a figure that is revered throughout the entirety of East Asia and has often served as a lesson for many young students. His depiction in history, however, has varied even up to the present date. By first looking at his original literary role in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, written around the 14th century, he is a striking presence in the book. In time, his position as Liu Bei’s advisor becomes accentuated in importance and his character changes to reflect contemporary values in other pieces of literary work. In order to show this development, this article will focus on the two versions of the play Bowang shao tun and then John Woo’s film Red Cliff.

Zhuge Liang was an important literary figure in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Liu Bei’s three visits to the ‘Nangong’s Sleeping Dragon’ are central to the Shu-Han’s turning of the tide. With his promise of serving Liu like a ‘hound or a horse’ Zhuge Liang is immediately set up to be an immense and fearsome figure throughout the book.[1] His impact is immediately made in the fight against Cao Cao and is demonstrates when he promises Zhou Yu the acquisition of 100,000 arrows in three days which he fulfils thanks to his weather predictions and strategic mastery.[2] His intelligence is central to his character and is the definitive influence on the rest of the book. In proceeding centuries, his character would be developed into a much more nuanced figure in Chinese literature.

This is shown in the play Bowang shao tun which was written in two versions, the first residing in the period of the Yuan dynasty and the other during the Ming dynasty. Part of the zaju genre, the plays use the characters from the Three Kingdoms story cycle are written to encourage the use of orthodox Confucian values which is evident in the manner in which they are portrayed and how the story develops.[3] The Yuan and Ming version hold an important distinction in the way they depict Zhuge Liang. The former uses no dialogue but stage directions show how Yuan scripts made him seem just as intelligent but much less polite and decorous.[4] When compared with the Ming version, which includes a script packed with written dialogue, Zhuge is treated with much more nuance and reflects an idealised version of the renowned character. Instead of focusing solely on his intelligence, these works depict this historical figure in a way which reflects the values of contemporary society instead of making it akin to prior depictions.

This continues to be the case today as is demonstrated in the film Red Cliff directed by John Woo which was made in 2008. In the film, Zhuge Liang is played by Takeshi Kaneshiro and features prominently in the battle plans and strategy. His polite and knowledgeable appearance in the film are central in many of the scenes which proceed in this new Chinese epic. When doing an interview with the Japan Times, Woo mentions how he wished demonstrate Zhuge heroism through his restraint and mild manners.[5] He continues this says,

‘That was part of his strategy, part of the art of war. If the enemy underestimates you, you become that much stronger, which is something Zhuge taught the generals. He was also a romantic and a cultured man who thought his thoughts in poetry and played music; his presence transformed the battlefield and altered the course of history.’[6]

Whilst the medium of film presents a different spectacle from the other works I’ve analysed, this quote shows how Zhuge has been represented in modern day cinema compared to older forms of literature. He is no longer just a man of intelligence, but one who’s very demeanour and virtues reflect politeness to the upmost. The values of Confucianism and the importance of decorum have become much more central to the character of Zhuge Liang and Woo’s version of the strategist is but one of many that reflects this development.

[1] Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms trans. Moss Roberts (California, 2004) p. 140

[2] Ibid pp. 222-6

[3] Kimberley Besio, ‘Zhuge Liang and Zhange Fei: Bowang shao tun and Contemporary Masculine Ideals within the Development of the Three Kingdoms Story Cycle’ in Kimberely Besio and Constantine Tung (eds.) Three Kingdoms and Chinese Culture (New York, 2007) p. 74

[4] Ibid p. 76

[5] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2008/11/06/films/war-as-wisdom-and-gore/ (accessed 20/11/20)

[6] Ibid

The perceptions of barbarians and evolution of China demonstrated in the writings of Sima Qian and Li Jing

The term barbarian in Chinese history is readily apparent when discussing civilisations that surrounded the empire. This term, however, changes its meaning later in the country’s history. To demonstrate this, I will use excerpts from Sima Qian’s Shiji and Li Jing’s Yunan zhiliie in order to elaborate how this change occurred.

First I will look at Sima Qian’s Shiji 116: ‘The Account of the Southwestern Barbarians’ which talks about states which were invaded during the Han dynasty. In this chapter, Sima Qian mentions a barbarian chief in Julan who is afraid of leaving his territory during a distant expedition. The reason for this is the threat of neighbouring states who would ‘invade his territory and seize the old men and boys who had been left behind. He and his people therefore revolted and killed the Han envoys and governor of Jianwei.’[1] This ending sentence shows the drastic solution that the chief opted for but Sima Qian importantly gives context to why this occurred. Instead of writing of the heinous crimes of these barbarians, he instead writes how this was a compassionate measure taken by the chief due to the need to protect the young boys and old men in his own territory.

This recognition of compassion is certainly not as evident in Li Jing’s Yunan zhiliie. Li Jing was a native of the Hebei province and was said to have written the work in 1301 and then edited it in 1331.[2] The work focuses on territories outside of China in the South-west, specifically Yunan which was a province conquered by Mongol ruled China in 1253.[3] In this province, Li Jing focuses on the customs of various barbarians and I will exclusively focus on an excerpt describing the Luo Luo tribe. He describes the men of the tribe saying, ‘They carry two knives, one at each side, and enjoy fighting and killing. When a disagreement arises among fathers and sons and among brothers, they are known to attack each with military weapons.’[4] When comparing this to Sima Qian’s work, the dichotomy is clear. Li Jing is not appreciative of those outside of the Chinese empire but displays them as something completely ‘other’. By describing the willingness of the barbarians to commit crimes like patricide, it demonstrates an antithesis to the Confucian value of filial piety. The lack of a moral compass and love for violence shows a sharp distinction from civilised values present in China at the time and makes these barbarians seem almost ‘sub-human’.

When contrasted to Sima Qian, who wrote over a thousand years before Li Jing and suggests that the barbarians in the South-west can claim their heritage to ancient Chinese dynasties, there is a noticeable difference.[5] This is further explained when examining why Li Jing wrote Yunan zhiliie. The ethnographical work was written in context of 1274 when the emperor commissioned Sayyid ‘Ajall Shams al-Din to commence on a ‘civilising project’ of Yunan which aimed to assimilate inhabitants into the Chinese empire.[6] By distinguishing barbarians on a scale of civility from ‘raw’ to ‘cooked’, it is clear that by the time of the early 14th century, civility was a big concern throughout the empire. In contrast to Sima Qian’s description of barbarians that make them similar to many of those in Han China, Li Jing does the opposite with his descriptions of various states. This difference shows a wider change of perspective of barbarians throughout the period of Chinese history as rulers start to separate themselves from surrounding states. What it was to be Han Chinese and to live in Han culture becomes much more defined and this is demonstrated when comparing the differences of barbarian descriptions by Sima Qian and Li Jing.

[1] Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian of China Vol 1, trans WM. Theodore, ed. Burton Watson (Columbia, 1971) pp. 257

[2] Li Jing, ‘The Customs of Various Barbarians’ in Under Confucian Eyes: Writings on Gender in Chinese History, (eds.) Susan Mann and Yu-Yin Cheng (California, 2001) pp. 87

[3] Ibid pp. 86

[4] Ibid pp. 91

[5] Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian, pp. 258

[6] Li Jing, Under Confucian Eyes pp. 86

How the Basic Annals of Empress Lu demonstrates Sima Qian’s separation from Confucianism

Confucian influences are clearly found in the Shiji as nearly half of the personal comments included in the work refer to Confucius himself.[1] Sima Qian’s approach to history however showcases differences to the morally regimented style of Confucian chronicles which preceded him. The Shiji’s contradictory approach to morality creates a complex narrative in an attempt to create a universal history.[2] Sima Qian often deviates from Confucianism principles as a result. He often forgoes the concrete morals of Confucius by sympathising with historical figures that break rules in order to do the right thing.[3] This is best demonstrated in Shiji 9 which details the reign of Empress Lu. Whilst his description of Lu throughout this chapter depicts the Empress as a particularly cruel figure, the grand historian’s personal judgement paints a different picture.

He says, ‘…Empress Lu, though a woman ruling in the manner of an emperor, conducted the business of government without ever leaving her private chambers, and the world was at peace.’[4]

By presenting Empress Lu as a woman who brought peace to the world after the tumultuous period of the Warring States shows the level of respect Sima Qian had for the Empress. This can be illustrated when delving into Empress Lu’s inclusion into the 120 chapters that feature in the Shiji.[5] In this attempt at universal history, Sima Qian’s judgement is passed in a much subtler manner compared to that of Confucius. Grant Hardy discusses this concept of subtly by suggesting Sima Qian’s method of inclusion or exclusion, amongst manner other editing factors, can indicate the author’s view on these historical subjects.[6] The fact that basic annals mostly dedicated to male emperors and generals included Empress Lu shows the importance the author placed on her. Sima Qian does not attempt to grapple with what many Confucian historians would criticise as a change from the natural order of heaven but instead decides to record her reign in detail whilst also giving his own seal of approval. This is certainly the case when contrasted with other contemporary historians’ opinions of Empress Lu which Hans van Ess elaborates on when contrasting Sima Qian with Ban Gu.[7] The latter’s depiction of the empress is much more condemning when describing her deeds compared to what features in the Shiji. Whilst Sima Qian does not view Lu as perfect by any means, he still attests to her attributes which Confucian ideologies refused to do as explained by Ess when comparing Ban Gu’s biography.

This key difference demonstrates how Sima Qian’s philosophy was different to that of Confucianism. Whilst he recognises the taboo of a woman posessing as much power as Empress Lu did, Sima Qian still appreciates the virtues she held in her position and the effects it had on China. Instead of following on the dogmatic path which saw any empress dowager taking control as an omen, the Shiji takes a more complex approach by acknowledging the benefits of a figure like Empress Lu and how it actually effected the state. The grand historian’s judgement substantiates Lu as a ruler who allowed the world to be at peace. As a result, it shows that whilst Sima Qian clearly holds some apprehension toward Lu, he still acknowledges the impressive attributes and effect she had on China which Confucian scholars (like Ban Gu) do not cite at all. Therefore, this particular chapter shows how Sima Qian was less dogmatic in his approach to history compared to other Confucian chronicles.

[1] Grant Hardy, World of Bronze and Bamboo: Sima Qian’s Conquest of History (Columbia, 1999) pp. 116

[2] Ibid 201

[3] Ibid 199

[4] Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian of China Vol 1, trans WM. Theodore, ed. Burton Watson (Columbia, 1971) pp. 340

[5] William H. Nienhauser Jr., ‘Sima Qian and the Shiji’ in Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy (eds.) The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 1: Beginnings to AD 600 (Oxford, 2011) pp. 469

[6] Hardy, Worlds of Bronze and Bamboo, pp. 130-5

[7] Hans van Ess, ‘Praise and Slander: The Evocation of Empress Lü in the Shiji and the Hanshu’ in NAN NÜ8, no.2 (1 January 2006): 250-4.