Pirates are not insulting, say netizens and academics
Chow Yun-fat plays Sao Feng, a Chinese pirate, in the upcoming movie Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Looks sort of menacing, doesn't he? Is such an image insulting to the Chinese people? On Friday, the International Herald Leader reported the results of an online survey in which 61% of respondents felt that Chow's character does not insult China, while 22% felt that it does. There are reports that SARFT shares the minority viewpoint and may not allow the film to be shown on the mainland.
Of course, you can get an online poll to say pretty much anything, and the report doesn't indicate if Chow's character was put into context: the IHL article has quotes from people on both sides, none of whom seems to realize that the heroes of Pirates of the Caribbean are themselves pirates. Apart from that, there is a certain historical perspective to the responses that's refreshing. This one is from a cell-phone dealer in Chengdu:
This is an obvious affront to the feelings of the Chinese people. You can see the arrogance of western culture in this portrayal of the Chinese as pirates, just like how China used to believe that it alone was the Celestial Empire and everyone else was a barbarian.
The IHL report actually had something broader in mind: it asked a follow-up question: "What do you think is the major reason that Chinese people are incredibly concerned about foreign films 'insulting China'?" Responses:
- Nationalist feeling: 38.44%
- Domestic public opinion that has been misguided: 34.27%
- Genuine patriotic expression: 24.51%
- Other: 2.78%
The article goes on to quote a few experts who are basically dismissive of complaints about Pirates and other "insulting" films. Here's Zhang Xiaoming, a CASS academician at the Cultural Research Center:
"Insulting China" is a complicated issue that hinges on the genre of the film, its plot, and what it wants to say. A movie, even one that is just entertainment, will be inclined in a particular way, and will certainly possess the thinking of its author. To say that it insults China merely because of a poor image or because a Chinese person plays a scoundrel is untenable.
...
You cannot leave behind your own opinion merely because someone wrote a script and someone financed a film. Hollywood's 007 films used to use the Soviet Union as an opponent - there are lots of examples like this - there is no need to be overly sensitive to these things, but it is reasonable for there to be critical opinions. Actors, in particular, should take care when choosing films. They shouldn't just take any role; they should use their own judgment.When actors perform it is their own personal choice. To immediately elevate this to a nationalistic political level, and to ignore fundamental historical facts, can ultimately only result in the detrimental effects of "narrow nationalism." However, this does not mean that stars have no responsibility; the more influential a star is the more care should be taken in choosing films.
Huang Xun of the Beijing Social Psychology Institute commended the critics' concern for how China is portrayed overseas, but cautioned against tying artistic works to ideology. And cultural critic Zhu Dake summed up the protests against Chow Yun-fat's character as crude nationalism masquerading as righteous patriotic expression (another response from Southern Metropolis Daily is translated at ESWN).
None of the reports name a specific source for the notion that SARFT will take action to block the film's release on the mainland. The Administration did move last week to address previous rumors concerning criticism of the films Still Life and Lost in Beijing. Film Bureau deputy director Zhang Hongsen had been quoted criticizing Jia Zhangke for insufficient compassion for his subjects and calling Lost in Beijing insulting to the Chinese people.
In a statement posted on its website, SARFT said that the reports were misleading and took Zhang's address to a private conference entirely out of context. The statement did not provide a different context for Zhang's words, but instead closed with a paragraph about how the Administration is cooperating with the Party Central Committee to achieve new successes in the healthy development of the country's film sector.
SARFT claimed that "some papers and websites published these seriously erroneous reports without first confirming them"; Xinhua Daily, which first reported the story, has yet to issue a correction. Earlier this year, when reports circulated that GAPP deputy director Wu Shulin had called for a ban on eight problem books and their authors, the ultimate response was to deny everything. Does this mean that we should the disregard leaks from "internal meetings," or are the authorities actually responding to the storm of criticism kicked up by their words?
