film midterm assignment

who says chinese professors can't give positive reinforcement? i guess this is no ordinary chinese professor :)

"Dear Grace,
Thank you for your excellent paper. I enjoy reading it very much. Indeed this is a very standard survey and your questions are all designed to serve the need to discuss an issue of far reaching impact opon a nation that used to be torn by war inflcited by foreign aggressors. Your questions are wonderfully designed and the different answers you collected reflect the psyche of a nation on the rise. Your findings well articulated the current sentiments among the general public, it is full of details of the change I myself feel strongly about over the years. I am glad you are collecting new answers to a question that posibly will divide this country the way it does in the US. But I am glad the overall attitudes are against the war, esp. among the young people.
Best.
Teng Jimeng"

Midterm Paper: Comparing Two Landmark Chinese War Films and Analyzing Current Chinese Attitudes about War

Tunnel Warfare and Assembly are both Chinese films about war, but they were produced generations apart and shaped by completely different historical-cultural circumstances. Tunnel Warfare, directed by Ren Xudong and released in 1965, is the inspiring story of a village that cleverly defends itself against invaders during the Sino-Japanese War by building a network of tunnels and outwitting their enemies. Assembly, directed by Feng Xiaogang and released in 2007, tells the story of People’s Liberation Army Captain Gu Zidi, who loses his entire unit of soldiers in one of the Chinese Civil War’s final battles. The Captain then spends the rest of his life in pursuit of honor and recognition for his fallen men.

For two films of the same war genre, Tunnel Warfare and Assembly share almost nothing in terms of plot, characterization, cinematography, and overall message. This divergence comes from a basic philosophical disagreement on the very nature of war. By portraying the villagers as a unified and intelligent force against evil, Tunnel Warfare tells us that war brought out the best in the Chinese people. Assembly, on the other hand, shows us that war brought out the worst in the Chinese, causing countrymen to turn against one another and resulting in massive death tolls.

Each film uses its respective devices to communicate its message. In the case of these two, plot is the most impacting element and provides the starkest contrast. In Tunnel Warfare, the villagers are disadvantaged in every way against their Japanese invaders. However, they are inspired by Mao Zedong’s writings and use their own ingenuity to fight back. Instead of employing conventional weaponry and tactics, they work together to dig the tunnel network. When the tunnels fail, the villagers persevere in improving them, until they achieve victory against the Japanese enemy in a final, glorious battle. Assembly lacks this linear quality and “happy ending.” It begins with Captain Gu losing all the men in his People’s Liberation Army unit in one of the final battles with the Guomindang. Each man falls, because Gu is under strict orders not to surrender until the bugle is sounded and the troops may retreat and assemble. After all is lost, Gu is plagued with the guilt, tormented by the possibility that the bugle in fact sounded, but he ignored it instead of saving his men. Long after the war is over, Gu’s search for his dead comrades causes him to discover that the bugle was never sounded. Gu’s superior officer wanted Gu’s unit to continue fighting as a diversion, while the rest of the forces retreated. Gu is forced to deal with this bitter betrayal and tragic realization.

These two plotlines give the audience two very different impressions of warfare. Tunnel Warfare’s story is inspiring and exciting. It tells us that war unifies people and forces them to think of creative ways to solve problems. It portrays war as a fair engagement in which the good will always triumph over the evil, no matter what the material circumstances of each party are. In Assembly, however, war is just a senseless conflict between men. Neither party can be delineated as right or wrong. The hero and his comrades are shown to be imperfect. Betrayal and the committing of war crimes demonstrate that battle brings man’s deepest flaws to the surface. Finally, by narrating the journey of a soldier after the war is over, Assembly emphasizes the abysmal psychological effects of soldiers who have faced combat, whereas Tunnel Warfare ends on the simplistic and joyful note of victory.

I used these two films as a starting point to begin a discourse with Chinese people on their war-film experience, and their attitudes toward war in real life. In order to survey different types of people in a timely manner, I wrote a multiple-choice questionnaire with nine questions. With each question, I also provided space to write one’s own thoughts, in the case the person surveyed did not find any of my answers suitable.

The questions were as follows: “Have you watched Assembly, and what was your impression like? Have you watched Tunnel Warfare, and what was your impression like? What does each of these films tell us as an audience? Which film do you like better? If a serious issue arose between China and another nation today, would you advocate diplomacy or war as a solution? Has China’s “中国和平崛起”or “peaceful nation” policy affected Chinese leader/citizen attitudes about war? Do you have any relatives who have fought in wars before? How do they feel about war today?”

After conducting this survey, my overall impression is that many people have seen both of these movies and perceive them very differently, just as I do. The greatest differentiation in answers occurred in people’s impressions of the respective films, so I will detail those answers below. In the second, “real life” section of the survey, everyone agreed that China is now a peaceful nation with the ability to solve external problems using diplomacy, and internal problems through stable, one-party rule. Most agreed that priorities such as economic development and education have trumped war making. However, all stipulated that if diplomacy and other means fail, war is still a viable option for China. Two people surveyed went out of their way to specify that conflicts involving economic interests or presenting potential profits (such as oil or territory) would be most likely to provoke war.

Returning to the films, I found that three out of six people surveyed had not seen Assembly. This surprised me because, upon watching the film, I immediately drew comparison to the American film, Saving Private Ryan. Equally disturbing and violent, Saving Private Ryan is considered historically significant and therefore its screening is treated as a “rite of passage.” Young Americans must watch it in order to understand the Western experience in World War II. This statistic made me reflect upon the fact that Assembly’s assessment of the Chinese Civil War is actually quite new and controversial, therefore the film is not placed on a pedestal like that of Saving Private Ryan. Of the people who had watched, the only person who felt deeply impacted by the film referred to the fighting spirit and undying loyalty of Chinese soldiers. He was more inspired by the characters and less perturbed by the brutality or terribleness of war.

All except one person agreed that Assembly’s message is not “war is completely bad,” but rather, “even though war has bad aspects, it is sometimes necessary.” That one person was the only elderly man I interviewed who had watched Assembly (most elderly had not watched). This man, sixty-eight years old, believed that Assembly tries to tells us that war is completely bad, but does so falsely. He reasoned that the director uses “new ideas to tell an old story,” thus distorting the true nature of the Chinese Civil War. He added that, “war is just war,” and it need not be dramatized as so terrible. I found this an interesting perspective from someone who lived through the Civil War and whose father was a veteran of the War of Resistance against Japan. It caused me to think that perhaps those who have lived through war are actually most accepting of it. Even though they have suffered the consequences, they believe most deeply in the causes, whereas we cannot directly relate to the events and emotions that provoked theses wars.

On the other hand, answers regarding Tunnel Warfare were essentially identical. Only one out of six people interviewed had not seen the film. All who had watched agreed that the film impacted them deeply, while three added that it was a childhood favorite. This reaffirmed what I had read at Beijing’s Chinese Film Museum; Tunnel Warfare is the most watched film in the world and a beloved of the Chinese people. Young and old answered that Tunnel Warfare is patriotic, showcasing their countrymen’s cleverness and capability. All agreed that the film is exciting and comedic, but its main purpose is to demonstrate how to prevail in unfair circumstances. In spite of decades of peaceful foreign policy, I believe that part of the reasoning behind China’s vigorous military development is the understandable desire to avoid “unfair” confrontation in the future. Nevertheless, according to the people interviewed, Chinese leaders do not view themselves as aggressors. They responded that it is actually the Chinese people who sometimes wish their leaders to be more aggressive in the international sphere.

I naturally conclude by comparing this situation to that of my home country. In the United States, I see huge variations in opinions about war stemming from people’s age, political affiliation, etc. Young people generally oppose war no matter what the circumstances, while older people believe that sacrifice is necessary for the preservation of freedom. Republicans are considered “war hawks,” while Democrats are considered “doves.” A survey like this, conducted in the United States, could have generated a plethora of answers. Some people would be indifferent, while others would have fiercely opposing answers.
Through these films and interviews, I see Chinese attitudes about war to be more uniform. This overall similarity could be due to the many educational, cultural, and political differences between these two nations that inform the nature of debate. When asking these type of questions in China, I have often been told, “莫谈国事，”or “nobody discusses country (political) matters.” On my campus, students are encouraged to seek information about America’s politics and wars, then develop their own opinions to discuss with their peers and professors. This type of contentious atmosphere may not be encouraged on Chinese campuses.

Similarity of answers could also be attributed to the limited scope of my survey. One person interviewed was a high school educated, twenty-year old male shopkeeper. Two people interviewed were retired elderly men relaxing on the campus. The remaining three were female university students. One of these students went out of her way to explain that her answers bore relation to her high level of education. Uneducated people, such as her parents, or the middle aged men that she overhears taking the train back to her home province, have extremely militant attitudes, and would like to see China go to war again in their lifetimes. These comments suggest that a more differentiated survey might provide a wider range of Chinese attitudes toward war.