Film Review: Hero (Ying Xiong)

This review reveals minor plot points that some viewers might wish to avoid before watching.

We tend to forget that film is primarily a visual art, rather than being just a novel told with pictures. Ironically those who enjoy a film for its explosions in spite of a leaky plot, tend to have their taste looked down on, even though this is something they clearly grasp.

Of course there were no explosions in 3rd century China (even though it was the Chinese who eventually discovered Gunpowder), but Zhang's Hero is a film that will be loved for its visuals nevertheless.

The story originates from the time before China was a united country and consisted of several warring states beginning to be dominated by the Qin dynasty (?) they stand poised to conquer and unite the whole nation, victory is just one bloodbath away. Furthermore, three deadly assassins who have stalked the king of Qin have just been killed by a previously unheard of fighter, known only as Nameless.

As the king rewards his hero he asks him to retell his story, this time in details, and the first of three flashback accounts unwinds. The king, however, finds the story unconvincing and so he and the nameless hero each retell the story gradually emerging with a fuller picture of what really occurred.

In terms of plot structure Hero shares some common ground with The Usual Suspects. It’s a measure of how far audiences have come that we can now accept that cinematic flashbacks can be wrong. When Alfred Hitchcock first pioneered the lying flashback in his 1950 film Stage Fright audiences left cinemas outraged.

The perfectly choreographed fight scenes will also be familiar to western audiences. As with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, another film from the ‘Wuxia’ genre of films, the fight scenes build on the techniques most western audiences first encountered in The Matrix. Leaving reality in general, and gravity in particular, far behind Zhang focuses primarily on the ‘artistic’ aspect of the martial arts. Switching from long shots of the awesome scenery to the graceful movements of the actors and back again. Somehow, the post film re-enactment by a group of teenage lads as they left the cinema didn’t really do it justice.

The elegance of the fighters is strongly contrasted with the army of Qin almost as strongly as the mighty reputation that goes before them contrasts with the nameless hero. An army of thousands acting as one finely honed unit, and yet somehow unable to kill a single one of the unarmed caligraphists they attack. The army is unknown, faceless, and all dressed in the same drab armour. We rarely even see their faces - it’s the image of thousands of their arrows simultaneously falling from the skies that remains. These spectacular scenes wouldn’t have been possible before CGI, but somehow they just don’t match up to the duels. Perhaps this is the contrast Zhang intends. Qin’s digital war machine overshadowed by just two graceful swordfighters and a heavy ration of silk mirrors the ineffectiveness of the army’s onslaught against them.

But underneath the stunning visuals the themes seem weaker than Zhang’s previous films, although there is some examination of sacrifice. The first version of the story lacks sacrifice completely and rings false as a result, but as the film progresses the understanding of sacrifice is progressively honed. It’s not merely giving one’s life on a whim but also about trusting others to do right, and paying the personal cost that is most appropriate, rather than the cost which is most obvious.

It is this area of the film that has been most criticised by western writers for its supposed endorsement of the current Chinese communist regime – sacrificing ones own goals for the good of the nation. However, such criticism rings a little hollow, particularly given that the ideology of individualism is so prevalent in western filmmaking, particularly the favourite western movie storyline the individual’s triumph over adversity.

Politically, the film can actually be read in a number of different ways. On the one hand, substituting in the current president of China for the king of Qin seems to endorse the reign of the current party. On the other, when you consider that this same king was swiftly overthrown once he actually became emperor then the comparison that Zhang invites is maybe far more subversive. Indeed, the pivotal moment of the film maybe when nameless, having told his story, leaves his king to decide which course of action is right to take. A metaphor for a film director laying a similar choice at the feet of his president perhaps?

So it’s difficult then, to discern whether Zhang has "done a Ben Elton" and sided with the establishment that his earlier work was so critical of, or whether he is merely creating a smokescreen to allow his work safe passage through his country’s censors – something many of his previous films have failed to achieve.

Aside from that though, the film has little else to say. There’s vague endorsement of the way of peace over the way of war, but the film seemingly contradicts itself here too. Viewers may find they leave the audience scratching their heads as to what it was actually all about.

Perhaps then Hero is the cinematic equivalent of a Ming Vase – staggeringly beautiful to look at, but ultimately fairly empty. That is not necessarily a criticism, though it may seem so to anyone set on looking for a message. Ming vases are, after all, appreciated for their beauty rather than their ability to contain liquid.

So it is with Hero. It is not a film that will appeal to everyone, but it is one of the most visually amazing films ever made. That alone should be reason enough for people to see it, - even if the film in the next theatre offers more explosions.

Posted by: Matt Page on Wednesday Oct 27th, 2004

Comments

Logged-in members can post comments on openheaven.org news articles.

Back