MovieChat Forums > Tian zhu ding (2013) Discussion > My Interpretations *Obvious Spoiler Aler...

My Interpretations *Obvious Spoiler Alert*


Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts, feel free to agree or disagree. I'd love to hear what else you have to add or different interpretations you have (or things I've missed).

Story 1: I believe this story is the most straightforward. The protagonist is upset that his town has been brought "prosperity" but he and his fellow villagers have not been given their fair share. Instead, he sees an (obvious) oligarchy that has developed, one which starts with Mr. Jiao and trickles down very minimally to others. It is a story of how the wealthy exploit the poor, and worst of all, convince them that things are fair and good. All of the other villagers the protagonist encounters are either indifferent or feel that he is wrong in his accusations.

The violence in this story - as in the rest of the stories - comes in two forms. The first type is the straightforward physical violence, perpetrated against the protagonist when he complains about the corruption in the village, and later against those he feels have been corrupted. The second type of violence, a more insidious violence, is social, and comes in the form of exploitation and brainwashing. The villagers have been convinced that things are fair, and many have bought in because it is the only way they feel they can prosper. Ultimately this story contrasts a shocking and brutal physical violence, especially the gunning down of several people, with the more subtle and sneaky violence that occurs as the villagers are made sick by the coal mine and exploitated while a few get rich.


Story 2: The second story is a little more complex. I interpret this story as being slightly more morally ambiguous. By this point of the film we have been presented with a modern China in which it seems that many people are chasing "the dream" of wealth but the system is inherently rigged and corrupt. Thus, our protagonist in this story, who seems like a cruel, cold-blooded killer, looked at in the bigger picture, seems like a sort of Robin Hood figure, except of course that he is taking things for himself. It's as if he sees that the system is impossible to beat, so instead he chooses not to play the game, taking what he wants through violence and force. He is the a sort of grim reaper figure, striking down the wealthy (best exemplified by his picking out and killing of the wealthy woman and her husband because she has a nice purse and most likely a lot of money). It's a case where their money cannot protect them, and it shows that ultimately we are all "even" when violence and death come knocking at our door. Is it right that he murders two innocent people? Of course not. But more abstractly speaking, is it right that a few are allowed to own so much while we see the majority of the population working for next to nothing at the expense of their physical and mental health?

Story 3: This story is full of social commentary on gender. We see the protagonist of this story as someone whose life is completely dominated by men, both physically and mentally. She is in love with a man she can't have, and thus is mentally shackled. And perhaps even worse, it is later demonstrated that she cannot even avoid being physically dominated by men, as shown by the sexual harassment she experiences in the spa. Like the protagonist of story one, by the end of the story, she has had enough, and snaps. Her physical violence against the man who harasses her seems brutal, but again, the director is asking the viewer to think a little bigger. Would this violence have ever occurred if the man had treated her with a little respect? And did it seem like she had any other protection if she hadn't taken out the knife? No one seemed to care about her being harassed and beaten, and it is likely she would have been raped if she did not defend herself. The director is asking us to question which is worse: the physical violence she has just perpetrated or the social violence that brought her to her wits end in the first place, and occurs on a much grander scale. We see even her fellow woman (and her male accomplices) beating her for attempting to seek happiness. She is (rightly or wrongly) in love with a married man, which seems to make her a slightly less sympathetic character, but we have to question the gender politics that keep the husband somewhat free of blame while the wife brutally hurts the woman he is having the affair with. It is the ultimate and most insidious type of gender subordination: the one in which even many women have bought in and play by its rules. It is the husband who should take the blame and be reproached by his wife, but instead we see her taking it out on another woman.

Story 4: Story four at first seems slightly boring in comparison with the others, but I think it actually has the most to offer in terms of deeper commentary. In this story, our protagonist is caught in a trap: he has to support his family, but at the expense of his own happiness. He tries to achieve both by jumping between jobs, but he finds that the grass is not greener on the other side. Each job is just another, different form of exploitation and boredom. He finally finds love, the one thing which brings him happiness, but realizes that he cannot have the girl he wants because the economic and social barriers prevent him from ever being able to escape the situation. He finally settles on a third job, but realizes that he is even more miserable. We see him pick up the crowbar-type object, thinking about physical violence, but instead he just gives up and decides to commit the violence against himself through suicide. This story has perhaps the most subtle, yet the most profound commentaries of all. First we hear from the bald, older man who is being "serviced" by the protagonist's love interest that "young people have no sense of direction these days." This is a telling and ironic statement. Of course that is easy to say for an old man who is wealthy and is living "the dream". He is a direct beneficiary of the system, since he is one of the older, wealthy few. The younger generation, which does not benefit in the same way, sees things very differently. The second and more subtle social commentary comes in the penultimate scene: We see our protagonist giving up on life, and jumping to his death. A closer look at this scene reveals that immediately after his body is shown on the ground the camera returns to the ledge from which he jumped, and the "Oasis of Prosperity" sign of his apartment complex is visible on the left hand side of the screen. The director is here asking us to question: At what price does prosperity come? And what does "prosperity" mean? The "Oasis of Prosperity" is obviously not one in the truest sense of the word; it is a place where several workers live in one apartment for minimal wages.


Ultimately, I think the movie has a few main threads that connect all of the stories. The first, as I have mentioned, is the implicit contrast between physical and social violence. The former occurs less often, but in a more shocking way, and thus seems to capture our attention most vividly. The latter happens much more frequently, and one could argue, all of the time, but because it is more insidious and less directly shocking to the senses, we seem to miss it happening right under our noses.


The second thread that connects the stories is the contrast between wealth and prosperity. Many people see them as intertwined, but many times throughout the movie we are asked to look deeper: are wealth and prosperity really the same thing? If we are to believe the stories we have seen, true prosperity seems to be something that money can't buy, and is in fact something that comes from within. This is perhaps best stated by the protagonist's old girlfriend in the first story, when she tells him essentially to be happy with what he has and settle down, and not be so obsessed with obtaining wealth. Her message is that wealth corrupts everyone, and so we would be much better off seeking happiness within rather than without.

Whew, OK, that was a long post. If you are still reading this, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, and I hope you enjoyed them. Feel free to provide commentary. I should also point out I don't know the real life stories that these are based on, and I'm not an expert on Chinese culture (I'm Canadian), so I probably have missed many cultural queues and nuances. That being said, I hope you still enjoyed my thoughts. :)

reply

Interesting interpretations. I don't think those themes about social violence or the wealthy exploiting the poor are anything new in Chinese history. The difference is the way this film simply presents those stories in a neo-realist style, instead of using Kung Fu caricatures and Chinese folklore metaphors, as most Chinese films do.
To be honest, all of those stories were based on true events in modern China, so one way to interpret them is just to read about what actually happened. But the film chooses what to show and what not to show, which makes the viewer interpret the stories quite differently than the actual events. For example the hooker that stabbed the guy who slapped her with stacks of money became a national hero and got out of her murder charges because of public opinion. This part of the story was left out, leaving the viewer to rather contemplate the corruption of the rich government official that sent her over the edge into violence. Chinese viewers would be familiar with those events, and her rise to fame afterwards, so they would be more fascinated by her as a character study.
I like your interpretations because I got a similar feeling about the themes of the film. China has reached a new level of prosperity beyond even most people's comprehension and yet the age old cultural problems still exist. The only difference is that the stakes keep growing along with the wealth.

reply

Thanks torontodog. That's a good way of putting it: the film is definitely done in a neo-realist style, rather than the "traditional" manner in which it was done in earlier cinema. One can easily see why this film is not smiled upon by Chinese government censors. At some points the social commentary is almost palpable. I knew that the stories were based on true events (I Googled the film and tried to read about it without coming across spoilers), but now I will definitely have to check out the coverage and read up on how the real stories compare/contrast with the film.

There is something very fascinating about watching a country modernize (I use the word "modernize" in a neutral sense, though these days it carries several meanings, either positive or negative, depending on your political/economic stance). I spent some time living in Korea and some days on my walk home from work I would literally just stand and watch the construction cranes building an entirely new city (and expanding the old ones) right before my eyes. I haven't been back in seven years but I wonder if I'd even recognize it. China is experiencing much of the same, and I bet the before/after pictures are going to look startlingly different in ten or twenty years time. Heck, they already do compared to pictures from the 80s and 90s. I think what A Touch of Sin captures best is that modernization can bring new buildings, technology, and convenience, but it cannot change the inherent social problems. I know it's a cliché at this point, but I think the message is echoing Shakespeare, that the fault is in ourselves. It asks us to remember that modernizing doesn't just mean building newer and better things and making money, but also bettering ourselves. I wish this film got more press, I think everyone should watch it. The messages are in many cases timeless.

reply

Very impressive interpretations of each of the segments.

I think you're right that money is the covert instrument of violence here, because it attempts to legitimate inequitable social relations and has become the main source of social harm.

I'm not sure the film wants to suggest a contrast between acts of violence though - the physical presupposes the social since the latter will invariably give rise to (or find expression within) the former.

The only thing missing from your nuanced account, however, is the lack of social context or history: capitalism is (of course) supposed to fulfill the broken promises of communism, and instead threatens to bring an intractable social contract full circle.

I have to confess to finding the film a little too literal or straightforward for my liking, and much prefer the subtly and ennui of Jia Zhangke's The World (his best film in my view).

I found some of the situations and characters crude caricatures, and unworthy of an artist of his caliber. The chief interest of the film is the true stories he chose to reenact and/or comment upon - they provide an interesting cross section of a society at an impasse, and an insight into Zhangke's own 'politics' (an anger that borders on moral resignation).

He seems resigned to the fact that the ideology of capitalism is as corrupt (or corrupting) as the ideology of communism, and that there doesn't appear to be an alternative to social exploitation and violence.

It's also pretty obvious where his loyalties lie: with the socially disenfranchised (typically displaced rural people exploited by urban elites and the upwardly mobile).

The film doesn't so much offer a diagnosis but a lament for a society destined for more violence.

reply

Wow, those are some great interpretations. Thanks for elaborating on a lot of those areas. I am not familiar with his other work, so I will have to catch up on it now. :)

I also agree that sometimes the characters were a bit too much like caricatures, but I think I overlooked it a little bit because I thought the subject matter was so compelling. Your thoughts on his attitude towards capitalism are thought provoking and definitely spot on. Reading your post makes me want to watch it again with an eye to those things.

Thanks. :)

reply

thanks for the response hexedd.

When you get a chance, consider reading this profile on the director to get a better overview of his work and his place in the world (and I implore you to watch The World when you can manage it for his critique of globalization).

http://sensesofcinema.com/2003/great-directors/jia/

reply

Thanks again. I will definitely check out The World soon. :)

reply

Great interpretation, interstingly enough I thought the second story was the most straight forward as far as morality goes: the lead might be cornered by a very unfair system of exploitation but the way he coldly shots down that couple for their money is unforgivable, he could have easily have done it without killing them. More, it is implied he has done this many times before as opposed to the others who were driven to commit violence because of a series of circumstances while the second story lead has made murder his lifestyle.

I noticed a few more tidbits of social commentary, like how Buddhism is making something of a comeback (the fourth story girl is a self-proclaimed Buddhist and she visits a place with a bunch of statues at one point and prays) after having been perscuted; how we see a statue of what I think is Mao in the square in the first story and then see a van carrying stained glass featuring Christian imagery, not too long ago it would be impossible to have the two things in the same scene; how the Communist Party's ideals are not what they used to be, even the brothel turns commuist-like clothes into sexy costplay and the first story rich guy was able of selling a state owned mine with little to no reaction from the authorities or the locals, this too would not have happened in a recent past.

By the way, I'm Nocturnalux from the horror mansion, great to see you here :)

reply

Interesting post. A few comments. In the first story, the opening killing is the directors' homage to Sergio Leone and is not actually an integral part of the film.The actual story begins after this sequence. In the second story, the guy is not a Robin Hood figure but a professional killer, he's fighting against the mediocrity of his life. It is about young people in today's China who leave their home villages to go to the cities in the hope of bettering their lives, which for many doesn't happen.
This idea informs the third story where the young girl has left home to make a living and ends up working as a receptionist at a massage parlour. For her this is a loss of dignity, an attribute very important in Chinese society. Her lover Is involved in the train crash mentioned in a news bulletin on TV, which certainly doesn't help her situation. Also her lovers' relatives beat her up at the beginning of the story which only exacerbates the situation. Things come to a head at the brothel when she is called a whore and beaten by a customer, and she lashes out. This is an attempt to regain the dignity she has lost.

In the fourth story, the man jumps because he can no longer see the girl he loves abused by male customers. By the by, the man in the first story is not obsessed with wealth, what he is railing against are the injustices that have taken place in his home town.

To be honest I got a lot of the information from a magazine interview with the director. Excellent film though. Another factoid, this film is nothing like his previous films, they are more experimental, though again they are very good.

reply

Awesome, thanks for the info Benman. I guess I was off on a few things, but I still enjoyed the movie nonetheless. :)

I will have to watch it again now with your posting thoughts in mind.

reply

In the fourth story, the man jumps because he can no longer see the girl he loves abused by male customers.
I think there was more to his suicide than that. He has left the girl and the brothel behind when he jumps and before he jumps he has a painful telephone call from his mother (a slow burn but harrowing scene) and is beaten up and threatened by a local thug. He is alone, misunderstood by those who love him and trapped in a cycle of exploitation living in the "Oasis of Prosperity". He sees no way out.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

reply

I stopped reading after the first sentence about the first story. You're just outlining the outer layer of the story. Did it not occur to you that the story was very anti-capitalist? That's how it appeared to me...

reply

It wasn't anti-capitalist but more anti-oppression, though even this isn't the main theme as it's not in all four stories.
Benman46's comments above are spot on.

reply

Hexedd,

I would say a wonderful and insightful commentary. I just watched the movie this morning. I couldn't figure out everything the director was trying to say. But you so wonderfully brought everything to light. Now, I can see the subtle message in each of the four parts.

reply

Thank you very much.

I think some of my commentary is on the right track, but as a few others on this thread have pointed out, there is much I missed also! It is a very layered movie and one with meany meanings I believe. A great film.

reply

well said..I agree

reply

There is a common motive of a lack of law and order. On the outside, China looks like such stable, lawful society, but the film says otherwise. There is no law, people can't settle their conflicts in a court of law, i.e there is no justice in the society. If a man harasses a woman, she has to either submit or strike back,calling for help is futile. I think the director is trying to say to the world that people should not be fooled by the calm exterior/harmonious society being marketed by the CCP, China is actually boiling with internal strife. Even down to a personal level, there seem to be very little avenue for people to settle everyday conflicts. Instead, anger and resentment just grows, and eventually it reaches a tipping point and someone goes out and kills someone.

What i didn't like the film was the lack of resolution. story 1 is unfinished, so is story 2 and 3. Only 4 is resolved by protagonist's death. It would've been a better movie if it resolved the main protagonists from stories 1,2,3.

Sapere Aude!

reply

I really like your interpretation, thanks for taking the time to write it out. :)

I can definitely see what you are saying. There does seem to be no law and order, and a great deal of corruption throughout the film, so it seems as if part of the message is that the individual is alone to try and right social wrongs.

reply

rying to say to the world that people should not be fooled by the calm exterior/harmonious society being marketed by the CCP, China is actually boiling with internal strife
Ermm, it is true of any society embracing capitalism.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

reply

@ hexedd

Great post! The plot line for the film is 'random acts of violence' but when I was watching the film I thought, these are not random acts at all. They occurred within specific contexts and I like the way you have described those contexts and the social violence inflicted upon each character who then attacks and murders. Such social violence is insidious and endemic. Maurice Pialat describes French society post-war as "a lifetime buying everything retail and selling oneself wholesale".

In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

reply

Thank you for the post. Even though I seem to have gotten it "wrong" in some regards, I think you're right, there is something to the connection between acts of violence and the social context(s). I love that quotation from Pialat and am unfamiliar with it. I may use that in the future. ;)

reply