Von Blog

I really enjoyed Braester’s piece concerning the film “In the Heat of the Sun.” Most critics and many viewers, it seems, have viewed the film as a poor reconstruction of life during the Cultural Revolution. Moreover, the film appears to have been dismissed as an unfortunate attempt to color the Cultural Revolution as a nostalgic time, with the horrors and political turmoil dismissed from the historical record. Which brings me to our quote:

“From the very beginning, the film blurs the distinction between history and fiction. While the narrator tells of his experience during the Cultural Revolution, “In the Heat of the Sun” touches on neither that momentous political upheaval nor on the social turmoil of the period. Instead, the film disregards official history and weaves together memory and fantasy.”

This quote summarizes what Braester is trying to get at throughout the piece. Namely, that there is more than one way to tell the story of the Cultural Revolution. Like it or not, many people existed on the fringes of that movement, and not everyone was embroiled in the “political upheaval” or the “social turmoil.” If anything, only re-telling the same history, as barbaric, horrific, and terrifying though it was, does a disservice to those who lived during that time, who’s lives were informed by that struggle, and yet who functioned outside of the movement.

Moreover, the decision to disregard official history in favor of lapsed memory and fantasy was an effective choice. Truth can be derived from completely untruthful events. That is not to say that I endorse a wholehearted attempt at deceiving the reader, i.e. “The Things They Carried,” but an honest attempt at telling historical truth only to by stymied by faulty perceptions and delusions of machismo (as detailed in the diner scene) tells its own sort of truth about the Cultural Revolution and Maohistory.

Interestingly, while reading this review, all I could think about was the film “300,” and the connections between myth, fantasy, selective memory, and varying forms of truth. The film “300″ depicts the Spartan army and their king Leonidas as bastions of freedom and liberty, set to crush the heathens from the far East. The Spartans are depicted as upright and moral, while the Persians are depicted as backward, mystical, engaging in wanton sex and body modifications of the highest order.

And while many people criticized this seemingly racist depiction, everyone seemed to forget that the entire film is being narrated by a warrior attempting to invigorate and motivate an army. We can’t trust anything he says. He is free to run rampant with half-truths and wild inaccuracies. Of course there were no men with saws for hands or multi-legged women clinging to Xerxes, the effeminate leader o the Persians. But it makes for good dehumanization of the enemy, which is exactly what the warrior at the beginning of the film is trying to accomplish. And this attempt to alter history, while not rooted in fact, reveals another kind of truth about these Spartan warriors: they are just as savage, barbaric, and backward as the enemy they intend to defeat.

Likewise, Braester’s reconstruction of “In the Heat of the Sun” depicts a narrative that presents a different version of history that isn’t historically true, but reveals a great deal of personal truth, especially regarding the narrator’s feelings about Maoist “heroism” and the emotional and social baggage that accompanies this political commandment of the Cultural Revolution.

And still a question remains: how is “In the Heat of the Sun” viewed now, in modern China? In the fifteen years since its introduction, how is the film viewed in China today?

I found almost all of the propaganda posters interesting at some level. Either the subject matter, colors or text were interesting in their own rights. However, the posters that most caught my attention were those in the  “PLA and Children” section. In that section, a specific poster from 1987 caught my eye:

I'm a Little Sailor, 1987, Stefan Landsberger

It sticks out for obvious reasons. First and foremost, it’s a child holding a loaded AK-47 and smiling. That is enough to stop anyone in their tracks. According to Landsberger, the compiler of all of these propaganda images, images like this were commonplace. Young boys in China were inundated with images of military grandeur, in the hope that they would join the PLA when they came of age. This was a goal shared by both the government and the parents of these young boys.

A career in the PLA was a perfect way for young male recruits to climb the Party ladder and establish themselves both politically and economically. As Landsberger says in his commentary on these posters, “the PLA functioned as one of the main avenues for social mobility.”

This picture in particular is interesting because it glorifies military service in such a way that the viewer is asked to equate the naval ship in the background with the brightly colored flowers in the foreground. This juxtaposition of the man-made and the organic, war and peace, aren’t juxtapositions at all, but rather seen as moral and philosophical  equivalents. The depiction of a child in military garb instead of in the company of a military officer, implies that from an early age, young boys are seen as possible and altogether desirable recruits to the PRC cause.

The use of children in this manner is nothing short of ingenious. Seeing as though this poster was made in 1987, it is apparent that the PRC came to the realization that a new generation of revolutionaries, children with no direct connection to the Maoist movements or the Red Guard, were in need of an intellectual and patriotic indoctrination that was once provided by the real-life churnings of revolution. Without that cultural impetus, the government relied on  these child-centric propaganda posters to do what government-enforced social upheaval used to accomplish so well.

For my paper, I’ve decided I want to explore the differing internet cultures in America and China. After watching the “Grass-Mud Horse” video in class, I was struck by its similarity, both in terms of vulgarity and satire, to many American internet “memes.”

A meme, for the uninformed, is, according to Dictionary.com: “A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” According to Encyclopedia Dramatica, a wiki-website composed of sarcastic, epithet-ridden articles written by internet junkies, has this to say on memes: “Originally used to describe packets of cultural information, it was adopted by the internet to describe viral lulz . . . In short, memes are just inside jokes for people who have no friends with whom to have real inside jokes.”

I wanted to explore this idea. Encyclopedia Dramatica, because it is an American site, has a specific take on what memes are, and to a larger extent, what it means to use the internet as a hub of satirical exchange. The “Rick Roll,” for example, is probably the most prominent American meme. Most commonly, the Rick Roll’er will send a link to a hapless friend, informing them of an interesting/mind-blowing video he or she has found. When the unsuspecting victim clicks on the link, they are greeted not with whatever the Rick Roll’er had led them believe, but instead with a music video of Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give you Up.” Classy.

However, I wanted to explore the Chinese side of the coin, and juxtapose my findings. While it appears that Chinese internet culture, most significantly memes, are mostly political in nature, I have stumbled upon a few that were created for no specific reason other than personal enjoyment, but, much like American memes, have caught on and have propelled their creators to unimaginable levels of stardom.

I want to try and find other instances of memes for the sake of memes, if meme-culture revolves solely around political satire, or if there is some middle-ground. By comparing Chinese internet culture with American internet culture, I hope to discover exactly what shapes the online debate in terms of memes, and how both cultures differ in their development, dissemination, and promulgation of internet culture.

Also of note, the Chinese viral video  “Back-Dorm Boys,” beyond providing a good jumping off point for my research, also proves to me that regardless of nationality, heritage, culture or societal norms, college students pay money to ignore doing work at all costs.

Behold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBlCtqsat…

Also, here’s a link to a pretty controversial video I found in my research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgX…

Historical Outline, selective though it may be:

1949: The Chinese Communist Party defeated the Nationalists lead by Jiang. The Nationalists escaped to Taiwan, and Mao established himself as the President of China and the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP soon grew indistinguishable from civil government. The CCP government was rigidly hierarchical, with a top down power structure. The military was not neutral politically. In fact, members of the PLA were indoctrinated with communist political theory, and were regularly used to enforce CCP programs.

Winter 1949-1950: Mao established an alliance with the USSR and Stalin. Stalin loaned China capital, and urged Mao to intervene in the Korean Conflict and send troops. China diverted resources to the war, at a great fiscal and military loss.

1950: Adoption of the Agrarian Reform Law. Incited the anger of the peasantry. In many instances rich landlords were executed and their large land holdings redistributed.

1950: The Marriage Law. Established, in theory, a society where men and women were equal. Allowed marriage only in instances where both parties agreed, and allowed women to get a divorce. Proved troublesome and tough to implement.

1950’s: The CCP addressed basic health concerns, educational/literary concerns, and the recognition of large minority groups. The CCP also established a new social order. The socialist individual was supposed to be loyal first to the Party, then to the State, then to the Family.

1957: “100 Flowers Campaign.” Invited criticism of the CCP’s policies and initiatives. The harshest critics were labeled “rightists” and forced out. This lead to Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” program in 1958.

1958-1961 – “Great Leap Forward” – reconstituted the peasants into communes, and introduced women into the work force. This program led to growing economic and agricultural problems as the rural areas struggled to conform to Mao’s unrelenting vision. Poor harvest returns were inflated, and a food shortage developed. Led to the “Three Bitter Years,” and Mao’s resignation as president. In 1959, the Dahli Lama was exiled to India prior to a Tibetan uprising. China also split with Russia that year.

1966 – The Cultural Revolution. Mao felt China had strayed from the Socialist path. The formation of Red Guards created a cult of personality around Mao. These groups had the charge to destroy that which was counter to the revolution. There were attacks and beatings of anyone deemed “anti-Maoist.” Mao used this fervor to attack and discredit critics. In 1968, the Red Guard groups began to fight amongst themselves, and in 1969 were recalled. Half a million people died as a result of the Cultural Revolution.

1976 – Mao died. China is a unified, although deeply flawed, state.

1978-1984 – Deng Xiaoping took over leadership of the CCP. Deng Began by pursuing the “Four Modernizations”: agriculture, industry, national defense, and science/technology. Agriculturally, Deng implemented “Free Markets. In 1984, the government allowed certain businesses to function without state intervention. Deng also opened China up for foreign investment. Deng also implemented the “One Child” Policy, a revamp of the 1950 marriage law.

1978-1980’s – Democratic Movement in China. Rural areas were granted free-elections to fill local council positions. Students and intellectuals began demanding more freedoms and increased liberties. In 1988 there were protests across the mainland. These, in turn, led to “Beijing Spring,” mass gatherings in the capital city, marked by student protests and the inclusion of live rock music.

1989 – the massacre at Tiananmen Square resulted after the CCP’s attempt a declaring martial law went unnoticed. Untold thousands were killed by the PLA.

1992 – Jiang Zemin was appointed the new head of state, although Deng remained influential.

1990’s – China began dismantling government run business and supporting free enterprise. Agricultural output, on the other hand, began to dwindle, as people began to seek work on urban centers. Women were often left to the agriculture when husbands left to find work in the cities. When Deng died in 1997, Jiang continued his reforms and reached out to the west. Beautiful Writers, young women writing for a living, increased in popularity. In many ways, the 1990’s brought an infusion of economic and social prosperity unseen in China.

Currently: Some of the problems currently facing China today are environmental concerns, corruption and vice, the CCP’s policy towards religion freer access to education and employment. These issues, although far-reaching, are tolerated by the majority of Chinese citizens because of the booming economy and a resulting nationalism. And yet the CCP may not be able to continue working in secrecy in the face of popular demands for accountability.

In “China since 1949,” the narrative offered is one of a decidedly political nature. Discussions of the inner-workings of the CCP hierarchy come to mind. However, social history, in the form of peasant and Party interaction, and the plight of the working farmer throughout China’s late 20^th Century history, is also included. Gender history is also included, albeit sporadically. From the Marriage Law during Mao’s tenure to the urbanized female of the 1990’s making a living by writing romance novels, gender history has definitely colored the narrative. Being such a thin volume, “China Since 1949” does include mentions of minority history, mostly in reference to castigated Muslim communities.

The category I found to be under-represented was the narrative regarding American and Chinese relations. I actually found this lack of detail refreshing, because most discussions of China occur within the confines of American economic relations. A narrative about China kept within the confines of China itself was well appreciated.

The text answers many questions, especially regarding Mao’s differing attempts at implementing a socialist state, the problems his CCP heirs inherited, and how China evolved economically while still maintaining the pretense of a communist state. However, I would like to see more political history developed. There were brief mentions of members of the CCP who dissented from accepted Party wisdom and as a result were forced from their position of power. However, I would be interested to see if there were any of these political dissidents in high positions in the CCP who challenged Mao early on following the 1949 communist revolution.