Which brings me back to my first point- How one interprets and appreciates a film goes way beyond what we actually see on screen. This movie is so different from past movies because this movie bombards the audience with messages both explicitly and implicitly. There is a quiet desperation to depart from this particular ideological form of government, as seen in the struggles of the protagonists. Perhaps the Chinese government saw it fit to censor this film because it reminded them of Mao and the past. Yimou brilliantly weaves environmental influences with the resonance of human relationships to create a moving and memorable cinematic achievement.
The strategy paid off and, two months later, he was accepted in the Cinematography department, from which he graduated four years later. The lead role won Zhang a Best Actor award at the. We haven't gone overboard on the tragic elements, but rather have focused on the minute, amusing details in the life of a nobody. Thus we see how the unprecedented turn of events socialize the individuals that make up the social sphere. To Live highlighted the resilience of the ordinary Chinese people, personified by its two main characters, amidst three generations of upheavals throughout Chinese politics of the 20th century. Review Roger Ebert, To Live is a simple title, but it conceals a universe.
Zhang followed up the huge success of Hero with another martial arts epic, , in 2004. Its explicitness will be a very effective tool for political socialization specifically for those viewers who watch films only for entertainment and do not analyze much about a movie because they will easily get the point of the film. Zhang said that he began reading , one of the works, and was unable to stop reading it. There but for the grace of his gambling goes Fugui. The Great Leap Forward 1958 — 30 minutes.
I believe that it is not because as I saw it, the movie actually presented another view of communism. Of the three films of Tian, Chen, and Zhang mentioned here covering the period of the Cultural Revolution, all of which avoided explicit criticism of the government, certainly To Live was the tamest — it did not even show any of the social violence or direct mass suffering of those times. Inevitably, self-destructive Fugui gambles away the ancestral Xu family home to Long'er, losing not only his home but his family in the first segment of the film. The metaphor of the seven loaves of bread which expands seven times is a symbolism of how the ideology can be very detrimental to the society. And in their conscientious will to do so, a lot of things were sacrificed, especially the lives of their two children. From the way they lived their personal lives to the decisions they made in accordance to their society, the concept of change was there. Next, Zhang directed , an epic film based on the novel by of the same name.
So what is the unseen source of this trouble that gives rise to such fear? He returns to his Jeep in a haze, only to see his guard beating Fengxia for breaking the Jeep's windows. It shows the lives of the Chinese people during the pre-civil war era, during the civil war, during the Great Leap Forward, and finally, during the Cultural Revolution. Overall, the film has been fair in portraying what it is like during the two aforementioned periods. A childhood illness causes their daughter to become mute and hard of hearing, but in the precise arithmetic of matchmaking a likely partner is found for her: A supervisor of the Red Guards at a factory, who is lame. But on one of these tours, Fugui and Chunsheng are abruptly and involuntarily conscripted into Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist army Guomindang.
This led to the production of Zhang Junzhao's , on which Zhang Yimou worked as director of photography, and Chen Kaige's , in 1984. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment: World Films, 2003. Gradually, he felt that his characters began to gain a life of their own: once the writer creates the characters, they begin to have their own voices which the writer can no longer control. Archived from on March 16, 2013. In the end the movie makes the viewers recognize that changes at the top inevitably trickle down to each and every house hold and shape their daily lives.
If you are going to watch the movie, you will be confused why they said that this is a movie against communism. Among these the fifth generation film-makers were considered to be the most influential and popular group. Personally, Yu said, he likes his novel better than the movie. It was banned in China, but released at the and won the , as well as earning a Best Actor prize for. Years come and go; jolly murals of Mao Tse Tung appear on the courtyard walls, and then fade in the sun and rain.
I'm certain that most audiences will like this film. Nevertheless, surely the period of Chinese history covered in the film featured a particularly relentless and egregious sequence of these horrors. Ever-smiling, little Fengxia has lost her voice to a high fever. He also frames the certificate he received from the Red Army to totally discard their landlord past. In fact, just buy it.
Furthermore the movie shows the continuous effort of the family heads, Fugui and Jiazhen to secure the happiness of their family especially their children. Because of his compulsive gambling, Fugui is loudly berated as a disrespectful son by his father though in his dissolute ways Fugui takes after his father , and increasingly alienates his long-suffering wife Jiazhen. In two magnificent performances, Gong Li carries the story's emotions and Ge You the weight of history. . His early works were often disapproved by Chinese critics and censors, blaming him for confirming the Western image of China as poor and backward. It is good in a sense that it is really family-oriented and very touching it can make you cry but it is not very original for me.
An example of which is the symbolism made to the seven buns that were eaten by the doctor that was supposed to guide the childbirth of the daughter of Xu Fugui, Fengxia. At the end of it all, we will be going back to the question posted above. At that time, the doctors were imprisoned because of some revolutionary accusations taken against them. In this parting scene, the viewers are given a huge room for interpretation as to what the film wants to convey. It is also interesting how the distinction between what is personal and what is public has been blurred because of the transition. For instance, it was through the mobilization of the government that pushed Jiazhen to sell water at the dawn of each day in order to make both ends meet, sacrificing her time for her family.