China Daily Review: Two interesting links about China today, both about America (and, of course, how it relates to China). The first is great for anyone looking for a quick chuckle about how power correlates with sports and the second is great for anyone who has seen the latest Transformers movie.
Football or Hegemony: Choose One
From the monolithic blog that is known as The Huffington Post comes the following hilarious hilarious post in reaction to the FIFA Confederation Cup Finals which saw the unlikely soccer-playing Americans square off against football-playing Brazil and nearly win the series up 2-0 before those Brazillians rally back 3-2 to prevent hell from freezing over. For the convenience and edification of our readers in China for which The Huffington Post is blocked by the GFW, we’ve reprinted the complete text of the post below:
So the United States lost to Brazil in the final of the FIFA Confederations cup, in that thrilling but painful tale of two halves, with the U.S. up 2-0 only to see Brazil roar back (or rather dance and prance and glide with balletic ferocity) and win 3-2. All I can say is, thank god.
For the past sixty years, the powerhouses of international soccer (a.k.a. football) either have been empires past their prime and on the decline or countries that dream fruitlessly of empire – England, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, and Spain. To bestride the world as a soccer power is to not bestride it as an economic or military power. In its period of global hegemony, the United States was manifestly not a global powerhouse in soccer. It was mighty in everything but the sport that is played by more people in every corner of the world than any other. And so if the United States had magically defied the odds and the gods and beaten Brazil, it would have been the final sign that American is indeed in decline.
Of course, the United States may already be in irreversible relative decline, its near miss against Brazil notwithstanding. But for a moment at least, order was maintained. The other rising global power, namely China, shares with the United States an historical ineptitude for the game.
Argentina – with its rich tradition of World Cup prowess, its intellectual sophistication and its astonishing natural resources – was once thought of a hemispheric challenger to the United States, before Juan Peron and Evita cemented the country’s fate as a montage for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. Its victories in soccer are in almost inverse proportion to its political and economic stability.
Yet, there is the case of Brazil, which has been defying the odds and has started to demonstrate real leadership and success in today’s globalized economy. It has a confident and thriving middle class, energy independence and cutting edge use of biofuels, as well as decreasing corruption. That may explain why the national team has struggled of late, as Brazil attempts the rare feat of having both an ascendant national economy and a dominant football team.
For now, the world order is not yet dramatically upended, but as the game demonstrated and as the last year has proven, that order is in flux and the old hierarchies are unlikely to remain in place for long.
So is this good news or bad news for Americans? Perhaps it is just a strong warning for the MLS to sacrifice their aspirations for the good of the nation? Read the original at The Huffington Post »
Transformers 2 as American Propaganda and Arms Advertising
Another one to categorize under “shits and giggles” is this China Youth Daily article, as translated by the ever-heroic Roland Soong of EastSouthWestNorth, which outlines three arguments for how Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a big showcase advertisement for the sale of American arms, propaganda for all countries to cooperate with the United States, and an idealization of American soldiers. An excerpt:
Watching Transformers 2 was undoubtedly an audio-visual feast. Just like the first movie, this was not just an entertainment film for the eyes and ears, because it also reflects the ideology and attitudes of America. Through this film, the intention of the American military to promote its global strategy and armament was expressed to its fullest.
First, the advanced weaponry of the American military was fully presented in Transformers 2.
The American Defense Department provided the White Sands missile testing ground to the film crew for the final battle scene. In terms of weaponry, it provided two A-10 jet fighters, six F-16 jet fighters, ten armored Hummer vehicles, two M1A2 tanks and the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis.
As everybody knows, these are the “traditional products” that America pushes in the international armaments market. The movie showed the mobility and excellent qualities of these products. They are going to be tempting for arms purchasers as well as nations in conflict zones. In reality, these are not the most advanced weaponry. For example, take the F-16 jet fighters that American likes to sell to conflict zones and third world countries. Although it has a mature technology, it is not the most advanced American jet fighter. The most advanced American jet fighter is the F-22, but it is not being exported. Technologically speaking, the F-22 is a complete generation ahead of the F-16.
In conclusion: You can watch my advanced weaponry in this movie! Come and buy some now! But I won’t sell you my best stuff! So even if you spend a lot of money, you won’t be able to beat me!
Is that whining I hear? Yes, definitely whining.
But then again, this is an article written for the home (Chinese) audience and insofar as it’ll negate or counter the possible propagandic influence such a movie might have, it’ll work. While many of us, when prompted, can easily see the commercial and patriotic tie-ins such a film certainly incorporates, there are many Chinese (and us) who might need a government mouthpiece to spell it out for them. This article does just that and, regardless of how juvenile some of the complaints or criticisms may be, one really needs to sit back and appreciate how fearsome American pop culture is influence is. After all, can we really argue that other nations can’t find American ideology and attitudes to run counter to their own national interests?
Read the Chinese version as posted at KDNet » or read the English translation at EastSouthWestNorth »
July 7th UPDATE: Imagethief’s Will Moss just published a great response to the same article, with a somewhat pornographic title – Hard robots, soft power »
Great stuff; and the humor…. is excellent. Economic and political power being inverse to football playing ability is hilarious and scary because it’s true. Japan is also not so good at soccer, although they might win the next worldcup the way things are going for them lately.
Typical whining. If China made a similar movie, wouldn’t it display all the same elements? Wouldn’t they portray Chinese soldiers in a positive light like Transformers does with American soldiers? To say that a country spreads its values and beliefs through its cultural products is barely saying anything at all, and warrants only one response: “Of course they do.”.
Luckily, from what my limited grasp of Chinese can offer me, it seems the responses on the China Youth Daily forums are not all unilaterally retarded.
Transformers is nothing. The biggest propoganda coup for the American military has and still is Top Gun.
I thought it was Saving Private Ryan.
Are you joking? US Navy recruitment soared after Top Gun -
“When Top Gun, starring Tom Cruise, opened in the US, navy recruiting booths were set up in cinemas.”
“Hollywood film-makers have frequently changed plot lines, altered history and amended scripts at the request of the Pentagon, according to recently released military documents.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews
It still is the most successful PR push to date.
Someone explain to the author of the China Youth Daily article that the reality is much simpler. Director Michael Bay has an infantile love for war shit.
>>Director Michael Bay has an infantile love for war shit.
American people have an infantile love for war shit.
(Actually, I have an infantile love for war shit too. Explosions! Yay!)
New Zealand is terrible at football and even further from global hegemony.
@daesong: The only country I can think of whose films regularly portray its military as saving the entire world (and the world, of course, bowing down in humble gratitude) is the USA.
Yes, but that’s only because it makes sense in context. If the US was only a regional power, they wouldn’t portray it that way because it’d make no sense. On the other hand, if China was the global dominant power, you don’t think they might do the same?
It’s possible, but I doubt it. Hollywood ties in with American mythology (y’know, manifest destiny, and all that). China’s mythology is quite different.
Roland Soong makes comments (albeit few) that sound like the writers for China Youth Daily. But I do generally enjoy his site.
“While many of us, when prompted, can easily see the commercial and patriotic tie-ins such a film certainly incorporates, there are many Chinese (and us) who might need a government mouthpiece to spell it out for them.”
Roland Soong is a government mouthpiece? I must admit I’ve had my suspicions for a while.
You mean you didn’t know?!
Oh such naivety! Of course he is a 50cent-er. Anyone who says anything good or less than Naziesque portrayals of China is a 50cent-er. Why would anyone of their own free will want to defend a regime so inhuman, so barbaric that it makes Adolph Hitler look like Mother Teresa?
The truth that the brutal Chicom totalitarian regime controls every molecule of thought that passes through our little brains. Scum like Roland are part of the diabolical propaganda organs relentlessly working overtime to portray insidious mindless Chinese drones as human beings, but in reality we are of course miserable pathetic hollow unthinking shells. We desperately require the wisdom and guidance of a big whiteman like yourself to teach us things like freedom, democracy, liberty, justice and fairplay. Oh please save us Mister whiteman! I beg of thee! Spread the word! Boycott all Chinese goods! Me Love You Long Time! Wait! There is a knock on my door? They are coming to get me! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! arrrghhhh!!
…………………..don’t…..let….my….death….be…in…..vain…
er, sorry, i think i got sidetracked somewhere
“Scum like Roland are part of the diabolical propaganda organs relentlessly working overtime to portray insidious mindless Chinese drones as human beings…”
Why do you hate China?
Roland…is that you?
I can’t imagine Roland writing like that…but that’d be awesome.
Dude…reading comprehension…
Dude … lighten up.
Anyone remember the bullshit commentary from Westerners that saw shadows of Chicom propaganda in the (rather mediocre) movie “Hero”?
Here is a quote from wiki to refresh your mind:
“The film’s director, Zhang Yimou, purportedly withdrew from the 1999 Cannes Film Festival to protest similar criticism,[8] though some believed that Zhang had other reasons. Defenders of Zhang and his film argued that the Chinese government’s approval of Hero was no different from the U.S. military providing support to films such as Top Gun and Black Hawk Down, in which certain filmmakers portrayed the U.S. armed forces in a positive light. Others have rejected entirely the notion that Zhang had any political motives in his making of the film. Zhang Yimou himself had maintained that he had absolutely no political points to make.”
The author obviously hasn’t watched Behind Enemy Lines.
No, I did not write that China Youth Daily opinion essay.
I translated it only because of its quality as parody.
Don’t you think that it has entertainment value?
But it always make valid points about the propaganda aspects.
If I were to write this essay, I would have probably added: While some American film companies produce films such as Tranformers 2 or Independence Day about American exceptionalism (not necessarily for direct payment but possibly as the price of cooperation from the military), other American film companies are capable of producing movies such as Jarhead (2005) and television series such as Generation Kill (2008). By comparison, it is possible to have Hero in China, but there could not be any equivalent of its opposites.
“By comparison, it is possible to have Hero in China, but there could not be any equivalent of its opposites.”
Exactly: no anti-heroes allowed.
While we’re on the subject of stifled opinion, when are you going to allow comments on your site, Roland? There exists huge potential to raise the level of debate on the issues you raise, so why not hire a couple of cyber-bouncers to keep the riff-raff out and give it a go?
Dude…lighten up.
“Dude…lighten up.”
I think you forgot to acknowledge your source.
Dude… lighten up.
I grew up watching Steven Spielberg, even before I knew his name. From his professional directorial debut, in Rod Serling’s Night Gallery series (“Eyes” episode (1969) starring Joan Crawford as a blind wealthy woman who covets a transplant to restore her sight), to Duel (1971), a tv-movie about a man on the road hunted down by a mysterious 18 wheeler truck; to Jaws (1975), Star Wars (1977), Close Encounters (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)….etc…all the way up to Transformers 2. With a couple of exceptions, I’ve seen and enjoyed every Spielberg movie. There are very few directors/producers who can tell a story like Spielberg, and hit all the right buttons to bring a lump in your throat, a chill up your spine, revulsion in your gut, a tear to your eye, all at the moment called for in the script to have maximum effect.
A couple of years ago when I was rewatching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), I was surprised by the stereotyped and racist depictions of Indians. It was somewhat of a jolt because I watched it with my kids thinking to enthrall them with some entertaining family fare from my own youth, but halfway through I wanted to turn it off and throw the dvd into the garbage. Here was a movie that I once thought was funny and exciting and totally okay before – and if you thought there was anything wrong with it, you were a hypersensitive humorless whiner – and now I could barely stomach it.
What had changed? Perhaps it is that when I first saw the movie 25 years before, I hardly knew any Indians, and what few I knew were the exceptions to the Hollywood depictions. Of perhaps 20+ years of growing race sensitivity awareness in America since 1984 (and some of that time personally spent in Asia) has made it impossible for me to enjoy negative and ridiculous depictions of any racial group.
I wondered if anyone else has reacted the same way to this film. A bit of googling turned up this interesting essay (with the ponderous title “Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as Virtual Reality: The Orientalist and Colonial Legacies of Gunga Din”) http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue12/templeofdoom.html
On reflection, I concluded (rather simplistically put, I know, but bear with me) that Spielberg is so popular not because he is good, but because he has figured out a way for his films to tap into deeply held preconceptions (such as prejudices, hatreds, disgusts as well as loyalties, hopes, dreams) and amplify them so they resonate, and one can come away (mistakenly) that on screen he has depicted something like “truth”, when actually, he has manipulated some symbols to provoke a visceral emotional reaction. Many of his most popular “serious” films are not only entertaining, but have a moral or historical message, representing some kind of greater moral truth of human goodness and integrity triumphing over blatant and unrelenting evil. So we leave the theater with a sense of how we ourselves should live. This makes it very effective as propaganda.
This June 2008 blogpost http://brutus.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/spielberg-the-propagandist/ has some interesting thoughts and references on how Spielberg-style has influenced American filmmaking so much that watching a film means “being goosed and prodded and egged on by a rapid-fire series of propagandistic moves where one never has time to settle and sink in before the next comes along to destabilize the viewer.”
With that as background, one of the key messages that came across as political propaganda was that it is foolhardy to treat the battle between the Decepticons and the Autobots as a mere “centuries old tribal battle of vengence”; rather, the human race must trust the Autobots when they insist that the Decepticons are really out to destroy the human race, and we must work together with these loyal allies to destroy the Decepticons before it is too late. This is of course a thinly-veiled reference to Israel as the loyal ally of the United States; the Arab/Muslims are like the Decepticons; the wiser U.S. military leaders and soldiers are betrayed by the out-of-touch political functionary (appointed by President Obama who is hiding in an underground bunker) who reveals key military secrets to the enemy who is listening in to our every move. The final showdown battle takes place in the Middle East where the key to mankind’s salvation is hidden by an age-old legendary caste of warrior kings. Did anyone note how the Egyptian border guard is depicted as a midget with a squeaky voice and very small brain?
I think it is very easy to read a lot into anything. A lot of the propagandic elements you’re reading into Transformers 2 really aren’t that unique to American movies, though. They’re quite easily reduced to very basic themes prevalent in a lot of stories.
Also, I’m not so willing to go too far into the Israel vs. Arab/Muslim connection. I feel the simpler and more general “this movie tells everyone to cooperate with America” suggestion from the China Youth Daily article is more plausible as a conspiracy theory. The Jewish connection seems a bit forced. That said, I still think Chaon’s comment above is the most likely. ;)
Duel scared the living bejeebus out of me though…I mean, when I was a kid…not like, now, or anything.
“I think it is very easy to read a lot into anything.”
I agree. In John Belushi’s immortal words, “Sometimes a banana is just a banana.”
roland song was just trying to offer a gramscian perspective, a simplified version though.