25 - Kungfu Panda
1
T ODAY • Wednesday • June 25, 2008 ...because Rewards Active Readership! 22 world news T ODAY • Wednesday • June 25, 2008 23 KUNG FU PANDA DEBATE A STORM IN A TEACUP But it shows that the Chinese can have balanced arguments MARIA SIOW EAST ASIA BUREAU CHIEF [email protected] FOR some Chinese, Kung Fu Panda is not just an animated comedy about a bungling panda who aspires to be a gongfu warrior. Released internationally this month, Kung Fu Panda is about Po the Panda, who works as a waiter in a noodle restaurant. A gongfu fanatic, Po dreams of being a great master, but his weight and clumsiness seem to make that an impossibility. Po accidentally enters a contest and ends up becoming a gongfu master who has to save the kingdom from a treacherous snow leopard. Po eventu- ally turns his weaknesses into strengths, and good, naturally, triumphs over evil. But instead of seeing black-and-white, some movie-goers in China are seeing red. Among the first to voice his protest was artist Zhao Bendi, who argued that supporting the movie would inadvertently lead to “more Sharon Stones”. Last month, the Hollywood actress said that the Sichuan earthquake may be karma, or payback for China’s policy towards the Tibetans. Mr Zhao also suggested that Hollywood should not be allowed to profit from a nation that recently suffered from a devastating earthquake. Neither should Hollywood “ex- ploit” China’s national treasure — namely the giant panda — and its martial arts. Mr Zhao was supported by a handful of Chinese who added that the movie should be boycotted, as it was produced by Paramount Pictures which has acquired DreamWorks. One of the founders of DreamWorks is Steven Spielberg, who pulled out as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics over the Chinese gov- ernment’s policy towards Sudan and the conflict in Darfur. So, even as the movie was launched throughout China last week, it was not screened in Si- chuan province. The Chinese media reported that the non- screening was partly to assuage opposition to the movie, and partly because earthquake- ravaged Sichuan is also the hometown of the much-loved giant panda. Even though this was not the first time foreign movies have been accused of cultural invasion, this was probably the first time that theatres had decided not to screen, or at least delayed the screening of, a movie due to public opposition. Many described as ridiculous the argu- ment that the movie should be boycotted T O DAY in China MARIA SIOW due to what they said was its tenuous link to Mr Spielberg. If such a circuitous argument were applied, they added, then perhaps China should also boycott the American channels MTV and CNN, which are owned by Viacom, the parent company of Paramount Pictures. As one blogger put it, given the inter-linked nature of media ownership, “three days and three nights might not even be enough to draw up a full list of who else we should boycott.” Many Chinese also described as absurd the notion that the movie should be boycotted be- cause of Sharon Stone. As one blogger noted, Stone does not represent Hollywood. Besides, Chinese Hollywood stars such as Jackie Chan and Jet Li have also made their name there. As for the argument that Hollywood should be prevented from making money from the Chinese, a typical comment came from Hangzhou native Liu Yuxiang, who noted that boycotting the film is pointless as Chinese people “do not have enough willpower” and by extending that logic, “it is best to rid China of all MNCs and joint-ventures so that foreigners cannot earn a single cent from us. But then how different would that be from China during the Qing dynasty?” While it is easy to assail the partial boycott as a form of nationalism, blogger Li Jianzhong disagreed. Citing neighbouring South Korea as an example, the blogger suggested that the wave of massive demonstrations over beef im- ports was more akin to nationalism, as “it repre- sents the sentiments of the majority and it was to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Seen in that light, this (reaction to Kung Fu Panda) should not be perceived as na- tionalism”. Of course, in the overall scheme of things, the debate in China over Kung Fu Panda was a storm in a teacup. Most Chinese are avid fans of Hollywood productions, and this is clearly no excep- tion. But, the minor controversy it has gen- erated is also a clear indication that, just as more Chinese have no com- punctions about airing their displeasure over perceived slights targeted at China, there are just as many cool and level-headed Chinese who understand that knee-jerk paranoia should not get in the way of good, clean, wholesome entertainment.
-
Upload
maria-siow -
Category
Documents
-
view
120 -
download
7
Transcript of 25 - Kungfu Panda
Today • Wednesday • June 25, 2008
...because Rewards Active Readership!
22world news
Today • Wednesday • June 25, 2008 23
Kung Fu Panda Debate a storm in a teacupBut it shows that the Chinese can have balanced argumentsMaria SiowEast asia BurEau [email protected]
FOR some Chinese, Kung Fu Panda is not just an animated comedy about a bungling panda who aspires to be a gongfu warrior.
Released internationally this month, Kung Fu Panda is about Po the Panda, who works as a waiter in a noodle restaurant. A gongfu fanatic, Po dreams of being a great master, but his weight and clumsiness seem to make that an impossibility.
Po accidentally enters a contest and ends up becoming a gongfu master who has to save the kingdom from a treacherous snow leopard. Po eventu-ally turns his weaknesses into strengths, and good, naturally, triumphs over evil.
But instead of seeing black-and-white, some movie-goers in China are seeing red.
Among the first to voice his protest was artist Zhao Bendi, who argued that supporting the movie would inadvertently lead to “more Sharon Stones”. Last month, the Hollywood actress said that the Sichuan earthquake may be karma, or payback for China’s policy towards the Tibetans.
Mr Zhao also suggested that Hollywood should not be allowed to profit from a nation that recently suffered from a devastating earthquake. Neither should Hollywood “ex-ploit” China’s national treasure — namely the giant panda — and its martial arts.
Mr Zhao was supported by a handful of Chinese who added that the movie should be boycotted, as it was produced by Paramount Pictures which has acquired DreamWorks. One of the founders of DreamWorks is Steven Spielberg, who pulled out as artistic adviser to the Beijing
Olympics over the Chinese gov-ernment’s policy towards Sudan and the conflict in Darfur.
So, even as the movie was launched throughout China last week, it was not screened in Si-chuan province.
The Chinese media reported that the non-screening was partly to assuage opposition to the movie, and partly because earthquake-ravaged Sichuan is also the hometown of the much-loved giant panda.
Even though this was not the first time foreign movies have been accused of cultural invasion, this was probably the first time that theatres had decided not to screen, or at least delayed the screening of, a movie due to public opposition.
Many described as ridiculous the argu-ment that the movie should be boycotted
Todayin China
Maria Siow
due to what they said was its tenuous link to Mr Spielberg. If such a circuitous argument were applied, they added, then perhaps China should also boycott the American channels MTV and CNN, which are owned by Viacom, the parent company of Paramount Pictures.
As one blogger put it, given the inter-linked nature of media ownership, “three days and three nights might not even be enough to draw up a full list of who else we should boycott.”
Many Chinese also described as absurd the notion that the movie should be boycotted be-cause of Sharon Stone. As one blogger noted, Stone does not represent Hollywood. Besides, Chinese Hollywood stars such as Jackie Chan and Jet Li have also made their name there.
As for the argument that Hollywood should be prevented from making money from the Chinese, a typical comment came from Hangzhou native Liu Yuxiang, who noted that boycotting the film is pointless as Chinese people “do not have enough willpower” and by extending that logic, “it is best to rid China of all MNCs and joint-ventures so that foreigners cannot earn a single cent from us. But then how different would that be from China during the Qing dynasty?”
While it is easy to assail the partial boycott as a form of nationalism, blogger Li Jianzhong disagreed. Citing neighbouring South Korea as an example, the blogger suggested that the wave of massive demonstrations over beef im-ports was more akin to nationalism, as “it repre-sents the sentiments of the majority and it was
to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens.
Seen in that light, this (reaction to Kung Fu Panda) should not be perceived as na-tionalism”.
Of course, in the overall scheme of things, the debate in China over Kung Fu Panda was a storm in a teacup. Most Chinese are avid fans of Hollywood productions, and this is clearly no excep-tion.
But, the minor controversy it has gen-erated is also a clear indication that, just as more Chinese have no com-punctions about airing their displeasure over perceived slights targeted at China, there are just as many cool and level-headed Chinese who understand that knee-jerk paranoia should not get in the way of good, clean, wholesome entertainment.
