I found both of the movies we watched on Tuesday interesting and informative. I thought the cultural aspects of "To Live" were very interesting, particularly the interest in the puppet shows. I also thought it was interesting to see the way the common people became almost immediately attached to Communism. The protagonists' entire family seems to believe that Communism will solve their problems if there adhere to its principles. While the mother may not be willing to risk her children’s health for the state, it does not appear that this is because she does not believe Communism is the correct path for China. I also found it very interesting that there was very little depiction of the harshness commonly associated with Communism. As a student of history, I tend of think of Communism as a system in which the often astounding gains of society are completely negated by the poor lifestyle of its citizens. I think of the Gulag, families starving and working non-stop, and party purges conducted because one weak link means a failure of the entire system. The biggest problem for this family seems to be that the children are tired. They seem to be well fed, and rather than being shipped off to work in some factory, the father gets to entertain people with puppets. This doesn't compare to the pains I associate with Communism. My question is whether we have not reached that part in the film yet, or, if violence and terror never show up, whether this film is an accurate depiction.
I thought that "Morning Sun" was much more in line with the Communism I've learned about. The depiction of an apparently flawless leader who is constantly exalted reminds me very much of Lenin and Stalin, who were revered above all in Soviet society. I also thought it interesting that the interviewees admitted to buying in to this propaganda during the time of its appearance. It will be interesting to see whether this propaganda shows up in "To Live".
Carlos-
I had a similar understanding of the implications of communism. The Chinese, throughout the massive political upheaval, were not so complacent as the film "To Live" seemed to suggest. What I have learned parallels the second movie, "Morning Sun." The vibrant colors and dramatic movements in the play, shown intermittenly, show the constant political, social, and ecomonic turmoil. Furthermore, I also found it interesting that the interviewees admitted to succumbing to the propaganda that plagued this time period.
Kristin
Posted by: kristin at October 21, 2004 06:26 PMCarlos,
As a history major myself, I tend to associate everything that you have mentioned with communism. I was also very disappointed that "To Live" depicts this form of government as such a wonderful system when "Morning Sun" clearly shows that it wasn't. It is interesting to see how propaganda controlled the Chinese during Mao's rule. After seeing all of "To Live," I still believe that the director and writer were too sympathetic to communism as an institution. Throughout the movie, Fugui and his family believe in the system even when the system is failing. When Nui is accused of being a Capitalist, they tell him to believe in the system and Nui, himself, continues to speak well of the government when his life is at risk. Overall, I felt that "Morning Sun" depicted communism in China as I would imagine it while "To Live" was to sympathetic to the novel idea which is communism.