Archive for July, 2005
spent a couple precious hours of my life watching hunan tv on cable (that’s a china tv station to you, buddy). mostly because i was curious about the new tsui hark film, seven swords, which might or might not ressurect the wu xia (swordfighting) genre, lying dormant since the mid nineties.tsui can be pretty patchy at times. anything with van damme is a no-no for me, and as for once upon a time in china iv, its ridiculous slashing centipede sums up my feelings about the film. on the other hand, theflamboyance and imagination in films like swordsman ii show what can be created when it’s channelled in a good way.
backers in china obviously have a lot of money in seven swords, so it receved a huge publicity boost with a two hour stage-thing-spectacular-whatever on hunan tv. huge, i must say, with pyrotechnics and kungfu kids and dancers. not to mention most of the cast singing, most of their vocals thankfully being pre-recorded, and donnie yen choosing to play the piano instead, which he did surprisingly well.
the highlight for me was tsui hark at the finale singing the late james wong composed theme to his 1990 film swordsman. singing in a different key from the music, midway he apologised for ruining a song written by the revered songwriter.
seemingly a guy with a low tolerance for crap, i wonder what he really made of this big song and dance for his film. having already opened in china, it certainly would help get the numbers into cinemas (or conversely increase the demand for pirated dvds of the film). the hong kong film industry is still at a low point, and it would make sense if he was doing it more to help bring it out of the doldrums.
more ‘i can’t be bothered doing work today’ - ha, look at this orientalism, it’s a gas. i mean, wikipedia, being open source and all, will always result in disagreements. articles are supposed to be approached from a neutral standpoint, but frankly whose standpoint is it? especially when people keep arguing that orientalism is not an offensive term. it’s the same as ‘asian’ right, being all-encompasing?
‘asian’, as in asian-american, or australian, can be used advantageously politically. i doubt you will find a group who chose to identify themselves as asian calling themselves ‘orientals’.
in the wikipedia article they refer to the term as out of favour because it’s the age of the pc, or identity politics, or because of the awful stereotypes associated with it. but did they forget how strongly it is linked with colonialism and conquest? edward said was not just making a ruse.
‘oriental studies’ would have dropped its name anyway as asian-americans became more involved themselves in the discourse and study of asian culture, and specifically in examining their own relation to the diaspora. the study of asian-american history and relations became an integral part of asian studies, recognising their place in the country.
from weewhale: david brooks’ article on what happened to culture?
At the same time, pop culture changed. It was no longer character-oriented; it was personality-oriented. Readers felt less of a need to go outside themselves and absorb works of art as a means of self-improvement. They were more interested in exploring and being true to the precious flower of their own individual selves. Less Rembrandt, more Maine. Fewer theologians, more dietitians.
weewhale discusses this quote as well, mirroring the movement from social to self with the rise of the right in the west. i would take a whole different direction and see the absorption in the self reflected in rise in the ‘cult of the personality’. you don’t need a mao to look up upon anymore, flick on the tv to see many people vying for your attention. how else could someone like paris hilton become famous for doing essentially nothing but displaying herself across the media? it is all about who you are, not what you do.
brooks ends his piece with this:
Today more people go to college. They may be assigned Rimbaud or Faulkner or even Hemingway. But somehow in adulthood, they tend to have less interest in that stuff than readers 40 years ago.
he says that serious culture matters less now than it did then, and artists and intellectuals have less authority. culture matters less if doesn’t operate within a capitalist structure, if it won’t earn you the money. the working week is steadily increasing. why would i read that stuff, the language makes no sense and i want to be rich now.
brooks considers the downfall of the middlebrow to be a result of the shouting down of the intellectuals. i would have taken it the other way, and cited the increasing power (political or otherwise) of the lower and general middle classes to whom all this complicated faffle makes no sense. functionality is important. where does all this useless beauty fit in?
