The movie ‘Hero’. What does it mean?
So I went to see Hero last night, and I have to agree that it is a very fucking awesome film. The story is really intense and the cinematography is beautiful. If you’re thinking of going to see it, then do that right now and read the rest of this post later. It’s a bit of a spoiler.
…
So I was wondering, what’s it all about? Obviously it’s a film about the concept of ‘empire’. War is contrary the common good because people are senselessly and mechanically slaughtered and their culture is destroyed, which we see in the attack on the calligraphy school. On the other hand, without war there can be no empire, and the states will remain in conflict forever. As the Emperor guy points out, a war in this sense is in support of the common good. That’s the major contradicton being analysed in the film, as I see it.
So, when the film ends and everyone decides that the empire should win, what is that saying? That the power of the people is best invested in a state, and even though there will have to be horrific violence done to make that happen, that it’s better than the alternative? If it is, then isn’t the film just standing up for the idea of a ‘war to end all wars’? That would be a very narrow and oversimplified view of politics, so I hope that the film’s writers meant something else. I’m just not sure what it is, though.
Another thing that bugged me was that there are no scenes of ‘the people’. The only characters are the soldiers, the assassins and the Emperor guy. Why would you make a movie that is about politics and the greater good without putting in scenes of the people that they’re arguing about? There is one exception - the calligraphy school - but the calligraphers’ presence as the citizens is still highly metaphorical. I think this leads the film to a sense of abstraction and airiness where the only actors on stage are the warriors and their ideals. This is hammered in even more because it’s all happening in the middle of a desert. I just don’t know why they did it that way. Perhaps the final truth of the film is that people are dying for ideals that are so abstract and lifeless they carry no significant meaning, though this doesn’t really fit with the epilogue about a unified China.
So, like, what’s going on there?
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Damn it, now I have to go and see Hero so I can read the rest of this post.
Comment by T. — Saturday November 20 2004 @ 6:53 am
I have the film on DVD. I’ve watched it several times and is similar to another chinese movie. I think the question should be asked - who is the hero.. The Assassin who was sitting in front of the emperor telling his story? The other assassins who sacrificed themselves for the Assassin to be there in front of the Emperor? The Emperor, being the most hate man in china having to do horrible things in order to ensure he unifies china and stops the feuding between warlords? That I think is the idea of the movie. Who really was the Hero at the end?
Comment by lori — Saturday November 20 2004 @ 4:08 pm
I don’t really agree with that. They’re all working toward the same goal, aren’t they?. If one is a hero, then they all are.
The thing that annoys me is the ’submit to state power for the greater good’ message. How many heroes are simply fighters and murderers held up as righteous by the state?
Comment by Mark — Sunday November 21 2004 @ 6:50 pm
If I were in Taiwan I would have done a lot more shuffling in my seat. Very strong fascist imagery -massing- with the wise leader who appears cruel but really has the interests of the nation at heart. Peace through war, glorification of death, suppression of the individual for the common good…
The more I think about it the more it creeps me out
and what was with the English Manor Murder Myster plot driver?
Comment by anthony — Thursday November 25 2004 @ 6:15 am
Thankyou. That’s my point exactly. THANKYOU.
Comment by Mark — Thursday November 25 2004 @ 2:19 pm