This movie must be very insulting to the Chinese. To portray their countrymen defending their country against foreign invaders as "baddies" is really the world on it's head. And all of the reviews that try to defend this by explaining the historical circumstances only strengthen that feeling.
It seems to me that Nicolas Ray tried to make a Western with the Chinese in the role of the Indians. I think he was a great filmmaker, but this movie really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I enjoyed this film a great deal. Yes, the film is very Pro-Imperialist but it was made in the early 1960's. Empires were dying and I don't think there is nothing wrong with having a film looking at the Golden Age when Western Powers were in the big dogs on earth. Thus I think we can all enjoy the film, as it shows the great powers coming together to stop a common enemy (yes the enemy is the locals but thats life).
shareThis is not true (and you can tell from the film it isn't true). Actually, the film was made at a time when the western powers were shedding their empires, either involuntarily (Algeria, for example) or voluntarily. Britain, France and Spain granted independence to Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco in 1956. Britain freed Ghana in 1957 and France freed Guinea in 1958. In 1960 alone, France, Italy, Belgium and Britain granted independence to
Cameroon
Togo
Mali
Senegal
Madagascar
DR Congo
Somalia
Benin
Niger
Burkina Faso
Côte d'Ivoire
Chad
Central African Republic
Congo
Gabon
Nigeria
Mauritania
Sierra Leone became independent in 1961, and Rwanda, Burundi, Algeria and Uganda in 1962. The year the movie was released, Kenya gained independence from Britain.
And that's just Africa. By the time the film was made, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma, India, Ceylon, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines and Pakistan were independent.
Moviegoers in 1963 did not believe in imperialism, and they knew the imperialism of some of the nations in the movie was not going to last. That's why David Niven says that China is growing stronger every day, and if she waits she'll have everything.
The Americans in the American legation (and their soldiers) weren't defending territorial interests in China; they had none. Of the three western leads, one is an American soldier who is not an imperialist. One is a British ambassador who takes the long view. And one is an expatriate Russian woman with a Chinese general for a lover. The movie doesn't embody the attitude of western imperialism.
But the imperial China of the film is corrupt and badly governed, and the Boxers are not a real army but a manifestation of the government's disarray. Prince Tuan is a villain, not because he's a patriot, but because he's a fool. He's playing with people's lives (including those of his supporters) and he ends up almost ending the Ch'ing dynasty (it lasted only a few more years anyway).
There are lots of good Chinese, and good Chinese patriots, in the film. Even the Empress is not entirely unsympathetic. But the Boxer Rebellion made things worse, not better, for the Chinese. The scene where the disguised Empress slinks away to escape is quite sad.
And whatever their governments' crimes, most of the people in the legations were women and children. Many were Chinese Christians fleeing for their lives to the protection of the Europeans (before the attacks on the legations, the Boxers systematically murdered both Christian missionaries and Christian converts in the provinces). Some were diplomats representing countries with no Chinese concessions. The way they defended themselves (and cooperated to do so, although their governments weren't that cooperative at other times) was still heroic and inspiring (in actually, the Japanese soldiers were especially heroic).
Whatever the geopolitical context, the people in the legations were the underdogs. It's still amazing that they were able to hold out. I think the movie actually notes that cooperation as an early model of internationalism.
The best explanation, ducdebrabant.
Imperialism didn't disappear. It just took on another form. Why bother spending massive resources ruling directly when you can install and prop up puppet regimes or rule through international institutions?
Working in the movie business since -92
Well stated. My family lost a relative there (he served in the USMC) and he was not fighting for any imperial aspirations; he was fighting to protect people.
shareThe film is not "pro-imperialist". It accurate reflects a small number of fanatical racist Boxers attaching international legations. Think of this in modern terms - it is like ISIS attacking diplomatic posts in Baghdad. Would you also support ISIS in that?
shareThe film is not "pro-imperialist". It accurate reflects a small number of fanatical racist Boxers attaching international legations. Think of this in modern terms - it is like ISIS attacking diplomatic posts in Baghdad. Would you also support ISIS in that?
I wonder who Hongkongers think are the good guys: the mainland Chinese government or the imperialist British. Actually, I don’t wonder at all. They made their feelings pretty clear in the massive protests when China’s Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed the Hong Kong national security law. Freedom of Speech and Assembly forever gone. Now everything under the control of the Orwellian Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Chinese People’s Government. 20 years after the British left and fundamental human rights are rapidly evaporating. Turns out the movie was pretty prescient in identifying The good guys and bad guys
shareTrue. But look at China and the other Oriental nations today. Soon, they'll be the ones kicking butt against the whiteys.
shareChina and the other Oriental nations today. Soon, they'll be the ones kicking butt
"While China (if it hadn't been destroyed by then)"
Meanwhile China is overtaking Germany as the 3rd largest economy in the world, with far superior growth rates to developed nations. The US is slipping into the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
Theorectically the best form of government is not a decmocracy, it's a benign dictatorship. The reason for that is dumb people that don't know how a government should be run still get a vote. The problem with any dictatorship though is that power hungry men abuse their power.
The current form of government in China is able to get much more done than a democracy. Obviously there has to be more freedom as China develops, but that's at a rate that the Chinese are able to handle. If you look at how Russia opened up to democracy too fast, it's system just collapsed.
You should actually study the dynamics of the systems before giving far fetched opinions about what will happen in 50-100 years. At the current growth rates China's economy will overtake the US within 50 years.
Also, population growth rates in developed countries are about zero despite there being more land. It's not about land, people don't want big families in developed countries even if there's lots of land, they want a higher standard of living. If you don't even understand population growth rate dynamics, pls don't give crap about the US growing it's population vastly. To approach China's population the US population has to grow 500%, humans are not rats.
Such statements can only come from a deluded white American patriot. har. har. har. har. wow! With the economic crisis you Americans face after brown nosing with Bush & his stupid policies, I guess China can speed ahead. It takes money, not ideals like your democracy & freedom which you don't really practice (who does in this world) which motivates & powers the mechanics of a civilization. White American civilization is starting to go down the drain with Obama ushering a new era in USA history and that's a good thing. And so what if China is stealing/learning ideas from the West! Didn't your white-ass *beep* European ancestors do the same thing when China invented paper, writing, priting, navigation long beforehand? China's just turning the tables around in the yin-yang cycle of things. The arrogant whiteys like you had their time. It's time for the other races to control this world away from your hands.
shareThe history of China is a depressing, unrelieved, succession of the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and helpless. China has achieved great cultural advances over the centuries, but has been totally stagnent in the extremely important field of government. The Chinese have never learned how to share wealth or power to any degree. The only changes that have ever happened are in the identity of the oppressors. From Chin, to Ming, to Manchu, the system remains the same. With the arrival of communism, the FORM changed but the system remains the same. Given China's past it's no wonder that the policical system that it DID adopt from the West is the least democratic or fair form of government yet created in human history. It's failed everywhere but Cuba, North Korea, Albania, and CHINA;which is the only significant nation to still practice this totalitarian dead-end. Mao Zedong, had a different vision for China, but the old pattern was/is firmly locked in place. After the revolution, those in the Communist Party, used their positions to once again grab all the goodies and used their power to suppress and terrorize the mass of the population. Mao was aware of this and tried to end it, in the mid '60s, with his "Cultural Revolution". But he had no real idea how to distribute material wealth and political power without giving up the dictatorship of the Party, so he ultimately failed. (AGAIN!)
"The arrogant whiteys like you had their time. It's time for the other races to control this world away from your hands."
Well it certainly won't be racists like you with poor writing skills who do it. What contributions to human rights, happiness, or equality EVER came from Asia or Africa? Those champions of freedom like Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, and Kim Il Sung? The invention of democracy is a BIT more significant than the invention of gun powder.*
* Which the Chinese used only in fireworks displays to entertain the overlords. And paper was not used to write down laws,or a constitution, the only defense of the powerless. And the Chinese used the skills of navigation to stay right where they were and NOT explore the world. Few advances in Chinese culture were used to better the human condition. Unless the humans in question were rich, ruthless, and powerful.
[deleted]
You guy's want to talk about imperialism, ok well how about the occupation of the Uyghur homeland in 1949, the invasion of Tibet 1950 and it's subsequent occupation since then, the failed invasion of India in 1962, the border war with the Soviet Union in 1969, the failed invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and the constant ramblings about Taiwan and the Spratly Islands. Oh and then we come to the illegal, unwarranted occupations of Hong Kong and Macau without giving the population of those places the right to self determination.
Why couldent China have let the people of Hong Kong determine their own future in a referendum instead of bullying the British to hand the place over?
How about Tibet's right to self determination?
What about the Uyghurs?
Quote - "Us orientals are not known for our unity" - do you see the words 'US' and 'OUR'?
shareThese boards are about the discussion of movies not to argue politics. I am sure you can argue politics someplace else. Fact is the Boxer Rebellion ocurred in the 1900's the world was different then. Imperialism by Europe first then America latter was the fashion of the day. In fact I can nme someplaces now that need a little imperialism now.
shareCommunist China will collapse in revolution and bloodshed when its property bubble collapses. Thus could happen by 2020 at the latest.
share> To portray their countrymen defending their country against foreign invaders as "baddies" is really the world on it's head.
Unfortunately, the history surrounding the revolt of the Boxers was not that simple.
First off the movie is about how a group of bandits attempt to slaughter the diplomatic missions of other nations. Then when it looks like they might succeed the corrupt Chinese Government joins in.
Remember the Chinese ruling China at the time were themselves foreigners, the mandarins. the overwhelming ethnic population are the Han.
So, before you start acting like a self-rightous victim, know your history.
mandarins are a citrus fruit.... jokes, but they are just officials, the invaders u r describing are the manchurians. know your history before branding others.
shareI so agree. The idea that 40 years ago the mindset of the West was so low that this level of good white, bad yellow was tolerated is upsetting. The Western comparison is very valid and look at the Native Americans today. Is Nicolas Ray to be forgiven for his ignorance? Thirty years after his passing I guess so. There is enough bigotry left in the world to go around everyone that needs it. I first saw this film on tv in the 1980's and it raised a family debate about Deplomacy and Imperialism.
share[deleted]
AMEN Brother, fun movie and wish they made more like them!
Actually, the movie is fairly accurate as dramatic fictions go. Its account of the siege follows fairly closely what happened. It discusses the background and causes only superficially and from the European point of view. Instead, it concentrates on the drama of the siege itself. But, what discussion it does make of the background is even handed. It describes the reality and allows ample room for the viewer to decide.
It is difficult for any European and mostly Christian audience to watch without rooting for the foreigners. After all, while they may be interlopers in China, they are us.
If one is knowledgeable about history, I hope it is impossible to watch with out some feeling of "Look what we've got ourselves into, now." I can understand the Boxers and sympathize with them, but I still want my fellow Americans to win.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Within the limits of the day, it's fairly critical of imperialism - the entire opening sequence with the flags and the national anthems points out that they're all saying the same thing - "We want China." The film even ends with the old status quo restored as they go back to the same routine and the same territorial ambitions, which the film doesn';t regard as a positive step. It's also worth noting that Chinese and Asian films are often much harsher on the Empress and the way she clumsily exploited the Boxer rebellion than any Western films.
"Security - release the badgers."
As a Chinese, I have to say we excel at talking the talk. But can we walk the walk? Our thousands of years of existence has proven no, so therefore I am naturally skeptical of any positive developments from China. We Chinese have long lost any moral ground we had when our government killed over 100 million Chinese, ie Human beings in name of the 'revolution'.
We and the world is still waiting for an apology..
I would hardly consider the Boxers to be heroic figures, myself. They were a bunch of murderers and thugs who deserved what they got. The rest of China, of course, is another story entirely. Convenient also, that you ignore the subplot about the Christian Chinese and the presence of the Japanese soldiers in the legations.
But I would very much like a more accurate film on the Rebellion than this one. We know so much more about the Rebellion now than when this film came out, that it would be interesting to see what a modern director could do with the story.
"If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right here by me."
we should understand that boxers didnt kill europeans only but also they killed christian chinese . thousands of innocents chinese killed by boxers so i cant call them heroic group and also can not name them thugs .
share[deleted]
by rnmboon (Mon Jul 7 2008 15:32:36)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
This movie must be very insulting to the Chinese. To portray their countrymen defending their country against foreign invaders as "baddies" is really the world on it's head. And all of the reviews that try to defend this by explaining the historical circumstances only strengthen that feeling.
It seems to me that Nicolas Ray tried to make a Western with the Chinese in the role of the Indians. I think he was a great filmmaker, but this movie really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.