MovieChat Forums > Huo zhe (1994) Discussion > Not anti-communist? (spoilers)

Not anti-communist? (spoilers)

posted 21 years ago by jtamburi
31 replies | jump to latest

(Yeah, this is a political post, but it's also a political film.)

I've seen several people claim that this isn't an anti-communist film, but really how can this be so?

The communist party was directly responsible for the deaths of the children, Xu Youqing and Xu Fengxia, not to mention many other characters in the film.

Youqing died because the party duties that were forced upon him kept him without useful sleep for three days. This led to him falling asleep, to be killed by a negligent party leader - though he shouldn't personally be condemned - he was probably also exhausted or untrained which led to his crashing his automobile into a wall that Youqing was sleeping next to.

Fengxia died because the party had imprisoned all of the hospital physicians (as "reactionaries"), in harsh living conditions, and each without food for days. Therefore when Fengxia gave birth and started hemorrhaging, none of the student "doctors" on board had the slightest idea how to save her and paniced while she bled to death, while her mother held her and tried to console her.

This movie had me almost sobbing - a very well done piece of work indeed.

Much of this (meaning human suffering) goes on in North Korea right now, except that it's thousands of times worse. What can be done?

Some people may point out that Fugui's life wasn't any better before Communism - he gambled his entire savings away, lost his house and his wife, and spent nights sleeping out in the cold winter weather. And yet, he was in fact starting to get his life back together. He showed promise of changing his ways, and got his wife and children back, and even had a low-income job. All before the communist revolution affected him and the rest of China.

[–] ScatteredWhisper 20 years ago

Yes, I do agree. There are some anti-communism events in this movie. And I was also in tears while watching this. I think Li Gong is wonderful.

That being said, I don't think Communism is a terrible, evil thing either like many people I know some to think. I think it has potential but it just doesn't seem to work out in real life. But I don't know if this is Communism's fault, or the people who put it to practice? I'm not very knowledgeable about Communism and its particulars, though I am Chinese, but I immigrated to the States when I was a baby. So forgive me if I make ignorant statements.

»If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain... *

[–] dingyiding 18 years ago

Yeah, I think you are right, it simply doesn't work out in real life, and it never will, so let's pray Communism won't live long.

All the bands in China are indie, these is no major label would sign them, because they are so not "mentally healthy", what the *beep* is that supposed to mean?

COMMUNISM KILLS MUSIC!!!

[–] msdwsb 20 years ago

absouletly agree with you, it's one of my favorite movies. Very deep, very accurately described.

[–] Jonas-4 20 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I remember it being not anti-Communist as much as it was critical of the nature of the revolution.

[–] Maro7261 20 years ago

Communism is not a regime, but an idea that has never been truly tried anywhere yet I know of, least in UsSR or China. Those were despotic governments, as much as Great Britain is not a Monarchy in the sense of a Ruler by God but a Representative Democracy.
Communism is a perfect system, though only suited for ants or bees, not for men. Men strive for personal gain (to some extend also for a small group like family), and it is good this way. If it wasn´t, we weren´t human. And we weren´t free, wich I value very highly.
So, as communism has never been established in China, the movie can´t be anti-communism. However, one may say that it critizised the Regime, the one under Mao (dunno if Mao still lived at the vey end of the movie when Manto was already a few years old, I think so, but in anyway it does not matter cause it is just the end not critizizing... well, actually the only sentence that could be interpreted political "life will become better and better" is surely not critizizing, unless you get very deep into people minds :) ).
But the critic on the system is quite subtle. It never goes open against the regime. Youqing didn´t die cause of the system, it was a mere accident caused by individual failures. Fengxia died cause of the ignorance of young girls, it was not the regime that ordered the doctors to be locked away. No, it is a critic on failures of some executives, not on the regime. Not directly. On its own it is surely not enough to say it critizizes the regime under MAo.
Much more interesting are other little parts. With the "Great Jump" the people are giving away an important part of their belongings, wich makes their personal situation difficult, and spent huge amounts of time and energy to use that scrap material. Tremendous amounts. And for what? For some Iron of the lowest quality and minimal quantity. To form three Cannonballs. What a waste...
People get into panic if anyone accuses them of sabotage or counterrevolution, even for no reason at all, even when being just a poor citizen who has even aided in the civil war on side of the communists. Others that served communism for years and became small authorities are being backstabbed an marked as traitors. The whole culture of the oldest still existend civilization in the world should be destroyed in the cultural revolution. Even the marriage is more a propaganda than a celebration.
But all those things are never being said in the movie, or being pronounced. They are just presented, and they have to be, cause it has been that way, everything else is a lie. Is it anti-Mao Propaganda just to show a life in the world how it has been? And it has not been a bad life. They were happy and satisfied most of the time, beside the grief that was caused by the death of the children. And they were optimistic.
Zhang Yimou showed a life that was at least at the average of life in that time in that country. It didn´t show poverty, it didn´t show starving of millions, injustice and corruption (perhaps a bit injustice against the guy that won Fugui´s house, but hey, that was no worse than many things in the French Revoltion). There are movies that show worse conditions in the US, in Europe and wherever. It is not the movie that actually critizises the system. It is the fact that the system banned the movie, and Zhang Yimou along wiht his mainactor as well.

[–] lruigang 20 years ago

I'm a 24 years old Chinese. Although I've never been through those years I still love this movie since it teaches me something I've never been taught in school.

I don't think this movie was made under the purpose of "anti-communist" but it does contain some stuff our government doesn't want people to see and that's why this movie is prohibited in mainland China. Yes, it's never been shown in any theater before. I am only able to watch it because I bought the pirate.

You guys probably don't understand. In China, it is not just about "anti-communist" anymore. There are a lot of things you are not supposed to do or learn. TV stations only broadcast things that absolutely do no harm to our government, such as terrorists in the states, explosion in Spanish railroad station etc. but how about terrorists in Xinjiang (a Chinese province borders Russia) or all the terrible things happened there? 7pm news never gives a sh*t. Our government would explain that this is for the sake of China's stability and unity.

So, Chinese people look real smart coz we solve math problems like mathematicians but we are actually "fools" since we don't know a lot of things that are happening or have happened in our country.

[–] ken-ohki83 19 years ago

this movie was "not anti-communist" because that wasnt the point. End of story. The point was to show the lives of this small family and how they lived on the lowest of the low societys in a tiered society. truethfully, the role of communisim and/or China's governing style of that day got bigger the more you know about it. I've studyed alot about communisim and lived in a very quasi-communistic society (military) and i almost PANICKED watching the scene where the mother gave birth...it had a whole bunch of us silent for atleast an hour after watching it.

another good example of China's sociology (i dont know if this is true or not, i havent been over there...) is beijing bicycle.

[–] zhehuatsui 19 years ago

Its more of a critical look on the worst of the Cultural Revolution rather than the Communist party.

[–] Deidra 19 years ago

This film is a work of art. Like all works of art, it uses what is current but goes far beyond, into the essence of life and humanity. Certainly the director and writers have made a comment on the political structure of
China, (the past and present time period of the film) and those who inhabit it, but they also know that everyone one of these individuals also have their backstory of intimidation, fear and hope.

I encourage everyone to see this several times as well as Zhang's other films.

[–] edforever 19 years ago

Communism has nothing to do with it. As others have said "communism" is just a theory, easily used to justify the death and impoverishment of others with.

The problem is command, verses demand, economy. Command is why all the iron was confiscated to make three lousy cannon balls. The entire village was impoverished, their lived made harder and worse off, for no reason other than that they were commanded to be so.

That is why all command economies, whether they call themselves communist, socialist, totalitarian, fascist, all fail. People starve, die, and eventually the people (if there are any left, see Cambodia) revolt and try again.

Unfortunately, all governments tend toward command and control. Some just take longer than others. China right now is undergoing another revolution, those in power are trying to get control the way they see "capitalist" rulers are in control of much happier populations. They are doing this by reducing their command control of some aspects of peoples lives.

Hopefully, as the Chinese people (who are generally quite wealthy everywhere in the world other than mainland China) gain liberty in some parts of their lives, they will realize that government is a criminal parasite and take control of the rest of their lives too. Some day, the Americans might figure this out too, and the largest terrorist organization in the world (the US Fed.Gov) will too be overthrown.

Bob-

[–] pegazus-1 18 years ago

Ok, just to make things straight... first of all, communism is not a theory, marxism is a theory. Communism is the final stage of that theory, after socialism has been established, only then can society advance into communism, meaning - all bourgeois relations have to be abandoned.. but in the history of the world, that never happened, there were (are) still people with power and those without it... that's human nature folks.

[–] EboMike 19 years ago

I fully agree with you, but I thought the ending made it obvious that Fugui gave up on the idea of Communism (which would be the message of the mvoie). He delivers the same little "growing animal" story he gave halfway through the movie, just omitting "Communism" as the final stage. Besides, his puppets, the one thing he valued so dearly, were supposed to be taken away from him several times throughout the movie by the Communist government or things related to it.

No matter how much he tried to fit in, it simply wouldn't work. If he hadn't gambled his property away, he would have probably died. Even Niu, who seemed like a die-hard supporter of Communism, ended up not getting accepted.

So there are many jabs at Communism - some of them not even that subtle.

[–] sharkmeister 19 years ago

this film doesnt so much jab at communism as it does at the party who tried to implement it. the regime under mao zedong can very aptly be descibed as totalitarian and a dictatorship, and not communist at all.

communism is a nice little utopian theory, but due to the nature of man, it simply does not work in practice. whats that saying: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"...

[–] jhughes1362 19 years ago

For the majority of Chinese people Communism was a step up from the feudal system which preceded Communism. Under the feudal system only those who were cronies of the empowered elite could own land and collect rent. As the movie revealed, depending on how strong or influential the local customs were and how weak the particular landowner was, his property could be taken for something as scandalous as gambling debts.

Still, there seems to be the hint that a man could still work his way up and acquire a certain level of prosperity. One such hint was when the gambler found himself in the street selling odds and ends then received the puppets to begin an even better business pursuit. After all, the man who won his home raised the money to gamble against him with those puppets. But the majority of people were renters and subsistence survivors living day to day with little meaning for their lives except 'to live'. To see the kids grow up and in turn have their own children. To pay rent and taxes, and then to die.

With the revolution, the majority suddenly found they no longer had to pay rent, they could own land, and they ate a hell of a lot better and more often. But if they had a soring spirit, it seemed they stuck out and were eventually imprisoned or put to death under Communism.

It is true that militaristic Communism could never get near the wholesome perfection of the Communist Theory. But as long as there are forces antithecal to Communism (namely Capitalism) the only Communism possible is militaristic as it must continuously protect and defend itself. Instead of putting all of the nation's GDP back into itself, it is forced to spend more and more of it's GDP on supplying the military. This creates a legacy of debt that can easily be set off tilt by outside, covert and relentless wars, terrorism, and arms races.

In the end, the movie shows that the real landowners survived the communists because they fell on the eve of the revolution, and the commoners who rose on the eve of the revolution were killed. In a way, this preserves the landowner/non-Communistic principles even in the very heart of the socialist community as indicated by the logic chain mentioned two or three times thru-out the film: chickens to goat to cow to ... or something to that effect. It implies Capitalistic values. Buy low, sell high. Start small, leverage, acquire more and better until you're at the top.

To Live was more about the people around the main characters. Not about the main characters. As the film went on, we saw the commoners reflected in the main characters as they became more common. To say that their increasing commonness was a crime on those individuals is to admit that the general commonness relegated to the masses prior to the revolution, was too, a crime on that collective group of individuals. In this respect the film was not anti-communistic at all.