As it were, I have actually seen To Live in a class I took in high school called Global Issues. We were studying the highs and lows in Chinese political history. The film is interesting because you get to see the change in society over the decades past the 1950's. With each passing decade one can see a depletion of the social and cultural delicacies that gave Chinese history its unique undertone. There is also what appears to be a strong bias against the emergence of socialist China. This is shown in the aforementioned comment about the change from beautiful flourishing Chinese culture, to broken down shanty-town culture of socialist China. Socialism also weighs on the morale of those who succumbed to its presence. Not having any true personal passions, the Chinese were forced to adopt the passions of a leader who was mired in his own notions of a socialist, eutopian China. When there is no room to please yourself, what more is there to live for? How many of the Chinese citizens really bought into the Great Leap Forward? And how many people died as a result of the Reds coming into power? A socialist society would value all lives of its citizens equally, therefore, what was the policy of the socialists under Mao toward dissenters? At what true cost did China adopt socialist ideals under Mao?
On a side note, I know that Ma Jong is a very popular game to gamble on in Asia. The establishment where Fugui gambled was an interesting place. It appeared to cater to wealthy males who seek to distance themselves from their normal everyday lives. The presence of women in the establishment seemed awkward as they were probably brought along to show status. I'm curious to know how the books work in the gambling hall so that they can give you credit on your word. There were no safeguards to gambling away everything. Where was Fugui getting all this money to gamble with?
--Bob
Posted by robert at October 20, 2004 11:22 AMI had the same thoughts on the gambling issue. One plausible explanation that I came up with as to why the house provided such readily available credit, was because as you said, that particular gambling house seemed to cater to upscale clients. Perhaps it was assumed that each man was honorable enough, and rich enough to honor any debt that he placed upon himself. I doubt that a gambling house for the lower classes would have provided such easy credit. The house also seemed to know each gambler by name, as did the servants who carried Fugui home each night. So perhaps credit was awarded to those who frequented the gambling house and who had established themselves as honorable. -Ben
Posted by: Ben at October 22, 2004 10:12 AM