The achievement of China

I agree with you that China has made its entrance to the ball in a most spectacular way. What remains to be seen is just how she plays her dance card at this and other balls. I am a bit younger than you, but all I can recall of learning about China as a child was "The Story of Ping", the railroad workers building the transcontinental route, "Thoroughly Modern Millie" and Nixon and the ping pong players. We have much to learn about our large and historically taciturn acquaintance.

I had a similar "Hey, the Chinese live a lot like we do" moment when I watched a video podcast called "Sexy Beijing" (half-styled after "Sex & The City," which I find to be an unfortunate model). This short episode stands on its own and is both entertaining and enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvtWAXoZjTc

great article! hope more western media can be objective and without that anti-china mindset, thanks.

I went to china, shanghai, beijing, hong kong, Chongqing, shen zhen... Etc, in 2005 ( my first time ever visiting china) . I was wiped away, I was so jealous. I mean china has skyscrapers everywhere,china is so modern yet traditional with all the old Chinese architecture. since 2005 I have been there 2007 and 2008. China is just amazing. There are no words to describe the place. fashion, pop music, young people, las vegas style, beautiful everything and actually very clean. The grass is always cut everyday, flowers are always in very amazing neat patterns, and workers in yellow cleaning up the streets everyday. being an American, 100 percent, I am here to tell everyone that you have missed out. I just hope that we as americans can wake up and improve our country to get it up to date with china. really shows what a communist country can do. China's amazing yet at the same time intimidating.

I totally agree with your views that China is progressing toward openness despite of certain problems. Every country has its own problems and China is no exception. We should give them some time and encourage changes and more openness. Unfortunately, a lot of people use our own standards to demand China make big changes overnight. Let's compare the China 30 years ago and today's China before criticizing every single thing about China. The China critics have never wanted to do such comparison. China has lifted over 300 millions people out of poverty since Mao's days and they continue to do so. Yeah, human rights and democracy are all great but when you are starving to death, you won't have any breath to shout out for freedom. So, I hope people think about that before bashing China. Work with them, encourage them, discuss with them. At the end, China will have to find their own path toward democracy, not copying the Western model.

China is indeed coming out in a big way, but it might be just to show off its power. They're still a one party Communist country and they're limiting freedoms. I just read about how they're restricting Christian worship, and how just this year 21 pastors of house churches (unregistered underground Christian churches) have been sent to labor camps, possibly in an effort to restrict the activity of house churches before the Olympics.

There are other not so savory facts, like how they used under-age girls in gymnastics. My sister went to China last year with the People To People program, and one interesting thing was that at one part they were visiting a town to see average Chinese families at home. When they went to the town they were talking to the people there, and some kids said they didn't even live there, that they were brought in and that it was like a fake town.

yeah, I was over there a few years ago after reading Pearl S. Buck's The Good Earth and Peony (great story about Chinese Jews) and Katherine Patterson's Rebels of the Heavenly Kingdom -- altho I think she's most known for Bridge to Terabithia [interestingly, btw, both grew up in China as daughters of missionaries] -- while also having viewed some of the films you have mentioned... so, eye-opening, to say the least :

anyway, I've recently been watching some films by Jia Zhangke, which I think help capture some of the changes (physical and moral) that 'modern' China is undergoing; reminiscent of Antonioni!

First of all, Mr. Ebert, I want to thank you for being among the first in the press to laud the Beijing Olympics as successful. It seems as if the American media outlets are weary of declaring the games successful.

That the Chinese were able to put on such a display under intense international scrutiny was certainly something to behold. I was somewhat baffled that one of the complaints about the games involved computer graphics in the opening ceremony. So many movies released nowadays in America succeed specifically because of special effects, rather than storytelling. And to be perfectly blunt, I don't blame the organizers for having someone lip-synching the "Ode to the Motherland;" perhaps they had seen video of Ashlee Simpson's 2005 Orange Bowl halftime performance and did not want to broadcast a similar disaster to billions of viewers.

And more importantly, as you mentioned in your second paragraph, it was interesting to see some Chinese citizens leading lifestyles similar to our own. Just like foreign films, it is a good reminder that people are more alike than they are different, regardless of origin.

hey, just read your review of "The World" (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050728/REVIEWS/50713003/1023">The World). Thanks! here's some docs if you're interested: http://www.metafilter.com/73393/A-whole-new-China

cheers!

"Of course there are vast areas of disagreement, issues of human rights, political disputes, questions like Tibet, the whole paingful list."

I heared a young Tibeten speak a few years ago, and he made a number of points that are seldom mentioned in the West. Under the Chinese, Tibet has gained potable water, hospitals, schools, roads, sewage treatment and other modern innovations. Under the Lamas, none of this was happening. He felt Americas' obsession with the celebrity cult of the Dali Lama was misplaced sympathy for the opressors of the poor.

Interesting thought isn't it.

Your musings on China are immensely optimistic and generous (not a criticism, but an observation; a welcome one). I have been to China for several months for work, and I admit that I have accumulated some negative feelings towards the culture because of how different many things are from a democratic/non-Chinese way of life (take note that I am from the Philippines, currently living in Malaysia, so I'm not a jingoistic American touting Western culture).

For instance, does anyone remember the mass culling of dogs (around 2005) and cats (2007) that occured some time ago (many were rabid/feral, but a lot of domesticated ones were needlessly killed)? The reasons behind these proceedings were to eradicate rabies and other cat related diseases which were rampant during the time (We know that SARS and bird flu originated from the Chinese mainland). Perhaps they got the job done, but the methods were brutal. To the Chinese government (at least from my standpoint), the ends justify the means.

There are a lot of regular Chinese folk who are a lot like regular Filipinos, Malaysians, Americans, etc., but the government is in such a rush to push economic prosperity at the sake of cultural/societal enrichment (be it human rights, personal freedoms, aesthetic appreciation, or what have you). Their road infrastructure is on par with that of the U.S, but my God driving in China is like shooting in the wild west. Restaurants are rife with the latest security systems and fire alarms, but even the most expensive ones won't take a VISA credit card. Guideline and warning signs abound, but people don't even know what they're for, or haven't been taught how to abide by them (Stop and Walk mean nothing to most pedestrians).

China is full of good people I'm sure, but it is also full of contradictions (at least to this person's eyes). The Chinese government is pushing its people so fast towards the Western idea of "progress", that so much I'm afraid is being lost in translation. Your piece today has warmed me a bit to the fact that true progress may take some time, and that some of the media criticism of this country is perhaps unwarranted, but a lot of sure is earned.

Indeed they did, Roger, indeed they did.

I sure hope London does something as charmingly British as this was spectacular. It's such a wonderful country, with a heritage as colorful and deep as China's. Perhaps the British will be inspired, not to "top" Beijing, but to give a properly beautiful tribute to their culture.

After the flame was lit at the opening ceremony with the breathtaking spectacle of Li Ning running with the torch around the edge of The Bird's Nest, I said to my wife "I don't envy those who have the task of opening the games in London". True enough, the visual spectacle will go down in history as one of the most beautiful displays in Olympic and certainly in television history. Happily, I repeated those words tonight as the ceremonies came to a close.

Yet, something bothers me. Over the past 16 days I have watched China put on it's best face, I've seen how they have spent billions to reshape their infrastructure to get ready for the games (shots from the air are astonishing) and I've seen China appear to open it's arms to the world. But can it stay that way? Can China rise above centuries of oppression? Can it overcome the memory of Tiananmen Square, Chairman Mao and it's long history of turning it's back on the rest of the world? Where do they go from here?

I think if China is keep up the spirit of good will that we saw at the games, it is going to have to change more than it's infrastructure, it's government is going to have to make radical changes to be open to it's own people. The poverty rate is horrifying, the restrictions on children are mystifying and their relations with the rest of the world, I think, are going to have to extend beyond bringing in Coca Cola and McDonalds.

Like a great third act of a film, I sit and wonder what comes next. Will they, in the face of what they have tried to establish with the Olympic games, use this as a springboard for radical change, for social change, for a change that really matters? I don't know, but I await the next chapter in their history.

I'm a young person and I haven't ever really given much thought to China's existence at all. It's almost as though "the other side of the world" did not exist, except on those little "made in China" labels I see so often.

It was so nice to be given the opportunity to at least take a peek at what the rest of everyone else has been doing. It's easy sometimes to forget that people who live in cultures that appear vastly different from our own are, fundamentally, just like us -- they just want nice, simple lives, enjoying their family and conducting their business in peaceful ways.

The entire concept of "China" will no longer be stored in the same part of my brain as it was!

Hi, everyone, I'm Chinese and now living in Sydney Australia. I am often regarded as Japanese or Korean or Australia-born Chinese here. Maybe because most people here don't expect that native Chinese girls look elegant, fashionable and rich-experienced. (I'm not self-praising. I'm from grassroot.)

I finished my master in Sydney and bachelor in Beijing and worked as a journalist in Shanghai for years during which period I was travelling around China and Asia. I think most young Chinese at my age may have similar feeling that our life has been in such dramatic non-stopping changes which might never happen anywhere to any other generations.

We endured so mcuh in such a short time, less than two decades.

In 1980s, I remebered when I was around 6 years old(take note that I was born in early 1980s in a small town in Southeast China), my daddy usually ate porridge instead of rice in rainy days, becasue he couldn't go to farm in that weather and porridge needs less rice to cook. Yes, we were living in poverty hardly conceivable to the West.

In early 1990s when I was 12, I went to middle school. My mum gave me RMB 5yuan every week. It was about USD$0.7 then. Fried chop is a luxury to me, let alone new jeans. But I started learning English and social sociece including China's open policy.

In 1997, I ate a fried chicken wing in KFC for the first time. My father promised me that he would not push me to go to farm working with him again (I hated putting my legs in mud)because I gained great results in examinations and he was confident that I could go to university in the near future.

In 1999, I went to Beijing for the first time and it was my first time walking out from my province.

In 2000, I flew for the first time from Beijing to Shanghai. The nervousness and excitement were still fresh when the plane was taking off.

Since 2003, I travelled around including China mainland, Asia, Europe, Australia where my parents have never dreamed about. Generation gap is obvious between them and me.

Young Chinese generation know that China still has tons of serious social problems mainly including population, human rights, and nature resource shortage(in the long run). But how can we solve all these problems? Rome is not built in a day. For example, imagine that we have 1.4 billion mouths to feed. One-child policy is a no-choice must(when the West is calling for human rights?).

Besides big population, the most I am worrying about China is it is one-party regime may provide too mcuh room for corruption. But the communist part knows where the root problem is and they are on the way in reforming the present regime. I look forward to its fruit and may the better being of China.

Ebert: What an amazing journey in one lifetime!

Like you, I used to have a somewhat narrow vision of China. Not my ideal holiday spot, not a place I'd want to visit. I think I imagined a lot of poverty and controlling government. Obviously I was wrong, but my eyes were opened even before the olympic games. When I started watching chinese dramas, I discovered a side of China very much like the US. They have their own booming entertainment business and the movies they make on a smaller scale than international really reflect how much they're a developed nation.
I guess China made her statement... they too can be a prosperous nation and host an international even better than anyone.

PS: This post will surely triple the number of chinese visitors!

Beijing, please move on. The next guy in line is London. I hope London can respect the minority rights and grant full autonomy to Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Gibraltar, Wales and Scotland. Welcome to the land of football hooligans and street-peeing, drunken Brits!

And this is from USA, the country who committed mass murder of native indians and completely wiped out many tribes in their entirety.

Free Hawaii !
Free Texas !!
Free Guantanamo Bay prisoners!!!

I was in Seoul on a stop-over to Paris the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. Knowing something of the political situation in North Korea I was struck by the obscurity of motivation which compels two groups of the same people to wage war on themselves; and the mystic mountains on the horizon; the cold and the cleanliness; the silouhette of a woman brushing her hair in a hotel window.

China repatriates Christian refugees to North Korea where they face brutal persecution. In turn Australia has repatriated pregnant Chinese women to China where they faced forced abortion and forced sterilisation. These facts are difficult to forget, forgive or understand - not specific to any one nation but to the incomprehensible coldness of humanity toward itself.

I am sympathetic to the North Koreans and the Chinese, their goals, beliefs and aspirations. Yet the people who suffer most under these regimes are the North Koreans and the Chinese.

I have to (and will take pleasure in) writing a 4000 word essay on Falun Gong persecution in China. Working in immigration I have become familiar with more authoritative sources like the US State Department and UK Home Office reports. Perhaps after a more careful analysis I can speak my piece about China. For now my response is not one of superiority, arrogance, ideology or even judgement but simply despair. Why are you doing this to yourselves? It isn't the West that suffers or to whom you most need to account, it is your own people (live with that).

I agree with your observations about China. What I observed during the closing ceremony was not enough explanation/translation of the symbols used in the pageantry. I was fascinated, but I would have liked to hear a whole lot more information on what I was looking at than the NBC commentators gave on the voice overs.

"I believe these Olympics will be seen as a turning point even more important than Nixon's courageous decision to visit China. Some of the walls we saw China hiding behind were built by the West. My mental images, my limited views, are possibly typical of many Westerners, even better informed than some".

I am agree with you and I hope so.
I think that the concept that community is more important than the individual is right; the West should try to learn something about this, above all to moderate its individualism and its selfishness. Maybe I am idealistic...
But I think that if on the one hand the Zhang Yimou's declaration about the human rights, which would make the West inefficient, is reprehensible, on the other hand the West tend to demonize every fault, forgetting theirs own ones.
The history of USA is peppered with wars and injustices towards other people and other nations, we have to remember this.

At last, we have someone who is open minded and fair when speaking about China. China has made a giant leap throughout the last decade. I was born in Beijing but moved to Canada when I was five years old. The last time I've been in Beijing was in 2001. I came back to Beijing this year to see my family and see the Olympics. And oh dear, what a difference. The moment I got out of the airplane, I sensed the change Beijing, and China, had underwent in the last 7 years. The newly constructed airport, the National Grand Theater, the CCTV Building, and last but not least the stadiums of the Olympic Green. All these didn't exist 7 years ago but here they are, standing alongside the ancient buildings of dynasties past. As a chinese-canadian I can say that I sincerely feel the west has a narrow-minded view of China's accomplishments. It had made great progress in both modernization and openness to the outside world. Western media tends exaggerate many of China's problems. To say what's fair and true, to paraphrase this wonderful article written by Mr. Ebert, every nation faces their own problems and challenges, but it is their responsibility and not that of other nations to lead their own way.

If you get the chance, do see Yung Chang's magnificent documentary Up the Yangtze. In it he takes a luxury cruise "up the Yangtze" as the massive Three Gorges Dam slowly submerges the poor and the left-behind, meanwhile the young learn to wait tables and bartend and get used to English names like 'Candy'. It's a cinematic perspective on modern China, it's tensions and it's conundrums - very moving, very layered.

I too think that the chinese did a wonderful job in making this olympics memorable. They provided a spectacular backdrop where athletes and fans could come together and presented this shared experience to the entire world with a graceful diligence.

I am a chinese-american who loves america, but also long to have the country of my ancestors be given a chance to shine, out of so many years of poverty, isolation and disrespect. I think this olympics did so much for china and so much for the world. Like you, I think many people will feel less wary about visiting the country. I got goose bumps watching the opening and closing ceremonies, and watching the mass of humanity assembled together, all heading towards an unknown future, but tied together in a spirit of fraternity. I cannot help but think why this olympic spirit cannot last all year round, for the next 5, 10, 20, 100 years. It's the same type of feeling I get when I watch a very good film, especially a good foreign film. That people, despite all their differences, peculiarities and faults, all really are looking for the same thing in life, they're all just like me. It feels liberating to grant them that.

Thanks for this insightful and honest reflection into what the 2008 games meant for China. I do indeed think we got fresh glimpses into what and who China really is, their flaws and triumphs. Though the games are always special, there was something truly remarkable about this olympics of which I will remember my whole life.

Did somebody have Roger play a game of solitaire recently?

I think it's important to draw a greater distinction between the Chinese people, who surely are not all that different from anybody else, and the Chinese government which is a nasty piece of work and shouldn't be given excuses for what it is (whether or not obtaining Western style Rights would bring "upheaval").

Dear ER,
In short, I believe anyone who has read your journal on the opening and closing of the the Olympics this year will get an exemplary image of a new world, even if he/she has not watched the event in details.
Fondly,
Sanjoy

I completely agree with you Sean. The genius of Communism is to tell its people that what's best for the community is always what the government wants and that if you're against the government, you're against China.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This country is not likely to attack its neighbours so most of the accusations against China are crimes against its own people, which Tibet is still part of. The Chinese dissidents needs to have their voices heard and since they live in a one-party country, the opposition party has to be the outside world.

We cannot deny the progress the country has made over the years, nor the fact that much of it has been made because of international pressure. It is our duty to keep making that pressure, at least until the Communist Party understands that they're not perfect and that a real democracy is needed. The Olympic Games gave the message they were already doing great, which could be counter-productive in the long run.

Mr. Ebert,

I think your take on China is one a lot of Americans have; a mix of admiration, criticism, and more than a little awe.

It is indisputable that since the 1970s the Chinese government has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty that we, as Americans, cannot imagine. Just as it is indisputable that in doing so they have displaced hundreds of millions of people through autocratic methods that we, as Americans, cannot imagine.

For every skyscraper in Beijing, there is a cave that houses a family in Western China. For every nightclub that caters to the new middle-class, there is a church that is forced underground. It is a culture that is over 5,000 years old but a government and system that will only see it's 60th year in 2009.

There is an urge to condemn China based on what we see now, an urge that isn't entirely misplaced. But if we looked back on the America of sixty years ago, we'd see a country where minorities were repressed, where miscegenation laws were enforced, where people were blacklisted and jailed for expressing beliefs unpopular with the government.

Even in holding China responsible for her mis-steps, we need to remember that as a modern nation, China is extremely young. And to expect them to adhere to our standards at once, standards we fought and bled for over many decades, is unreasonable.

But these Olympics were a remarkable success, perhaps in ways the Chinese did not consider. They opened a door to their country. And while we saw more of China than before, it is not inconceivable that someone, somewhere in China saw more of the West than before. How will that influence the country going forward?

Dear Mr. Ebert,

As a devoted reader I have long been curious about your career as a screenwriter. It is obvious that you are one heck of a writer. It is also obvious that BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, UP! & BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE ULTRA-VIXENS (the only films you have written, that have been produced) are intensely entertaining.

Did you wish to pursue screenwriting after your successful collaborations with Russ Meyer? Are there any scripts that you have written that you hope will one day be transformed into a cinematic reality?

Thanks for your intelligent and honest insights into cinema.

Best Regards,

Nick.

Ebert: I don't think a movie critic should have scripts on the desks of the people who make the movies he reviews. To be sure, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" was a Fox picture, so I violated that rule. But Russ was somehow outside the studio system even when inside. The studio hired him, he hired me. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. Anyway, no, I don't have a drawer filled with unproduced screenplays.

Very interesting point, one that is missed almost entirely by most Western media. The bottom line is that China has come a long way from the dark days of the Cultural Revolution and Chairman Mao but it still has a long way to go.

It surprises many Americans to know that Beijing of today is fairly modern and efficient city in many respects similiar to a Western city. Most Chinese today do not wear gray and grim mao suits. Many do enjoy a degree of personal freedom and economic prosperity unheard of in the previous generation. They can own cars, travel & shop like anyone else. Many have become rich by seizing the opportunities offered by the rapidly changing country. Most Chinese today are not the poverty-stricken and isolated people the West imagined.

Of course, China still has a long way to go. There is wide gulf between the relatively rich major cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou etc) and the vast hinterland. Pollution and human rights problems still dogged the country, not to mention the increasing social contradiction between the increasingly capitalistic and individualistic citizens and an undemocratic regime bent on political control.

So it must be recognized that China has made remarkable progress over the past 30 years, from the madness of Maoist purges to economic boom of today. But this progress is incomplete and the the destination has not been reached. Whether China can truly become the new superpower remains unknown.

Indeed, what is "America" but a microcosm of sorts of the world's cultures and economies? As China is a far-reaching community continually etching its way into the future, many, many countries throughout the world follow along this shared path.

To quote Ned Beatty from the film Network: "We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, the world is a college of corporations, inexorabily determined by the immutable bi-laws of business." -- While perhaps not so bleak about the sad state of the world, much of what he says holds true today, and it would perhaps behoove many to appreciate that no matter how old, young, small or large.

In other words, China is just as so-called 'modern' if you will as the United States, as the United States is just as sound as Europe, as Europe is as diverse as Canada, as Canada is to Uganda, and so on and so forth. We are all interconnected, we are not islands onto ourselves. For if there is indeed such thing as a singular superpower in the sense of both religion, business, culture, ideals, it is not united by a single front but is rather a flow of resources stemming from the internal flow of the whole.

If I may say so, I believe that what unites us as a race of beings is our capacity for the arts and exploration of knowledge. What divides us however are our means to do it, our ideals, our rules of engagement and our physical limitations. So of course, in this sense, we are not at all different from one another.

Long gone are (I pray) the days of 3rd grade children in America, China, or anywhere for that matter, who think of their neighbors as crude exaggerated examples of themselves, revolving around a misconception of representational culture. I hope to God (hopefully soon) one day that gone will be the days of systematic categorization based upon ethnicity or race, separation of class both in physical and mind, the misinformation, mistrust and disorganization of ideas. Though I still feel China, The U.S. and the rest of the world have a long, long way to go.

And yet, hopefully what these games do for us is bring a further awareness of our similarites, perhaps to those who aren't aware of them. For many it will remind them of the joy and beauty of China, its arts and people, its government both good and bad. It will illuminate and remind the rest of the world why people work together to succeed in a common goal. And if we can put our differences aside for one moment, without all the extra trimmings unnecessary to arrive to conclusion... Well, we might have something there.

I hope that someday China will get to do something like this again, and perhaps then it will truly be on the world stage in the greatest sense of the word: People will realize that the Chinese are not simply from China or Chinese, but instead, simply people, like America, Europe, Uganda, Brazil, Denmark or all the rest of the world. That's an Olympic games I'd like to be alive to see.

I am a Chinese living in the US for a decade. I am very happy with the progress that China has made during the past 20 years.
This is an unbiased article.

The Chinese nowadays are a lot more open minded than you think. They come quick to defend China not because they think the Chinese gov is perfect, but because of the often biased reporting of the West Media. If all criticisms are as balanced and unbiased as this article, the Chinese are more likely to look at them with an open mind. But this is hardly the truth.

Communism is just a name in China. No one cares about Mao or Communism any more. Money talks in China. As you can see, the Chinese athletes can be very rich if they win Gold. The Government gives them a handsome bonus. But the fattest checks come from corporate sponsorships. I do not see anything communist left in China anymore.

What I hope now is that we can have a truly people elected government. One party ruling is the same as 2 party ruling as long as peoples votes count, which is not the case in China.
Once we can truly elect our leaders, other problems will be solved too. The current Chinese System is Authoritarianism + market economy.

Authoritarianism has its owner advantages. That is efficiency. It is like a household. When the kids are very young, you as the head of the house run the family with a tight grip because your kids can not tell what is good and what is bad yet. When your kids are on the right path, you loosen the grip and make a peaceful transition to a full democracy.

It is certainly important to recognize the true implications of China's rapid modernization: a wealthier state and a culture that will be increasingly familiar to ours in the years ahead. And yes, the Olympics went off without a hitch.

I am not sure, however, if the scrutiny that the Chinese state received during this period was a bad thing. This is not a black-or-white situation where we either appreciate the wonder of the Olympics by offering no criticism whatsoever, or demonize a country to avoid really understanding its complexity. [Incidentally, there are times that complexity served by the acknowledgment that one is -never- going to "understand" it...]

My point is simply that the heightened attention to state policy in China over these past two weeks should be applied, at all times, to all the countries of the world. The exigency of human rights as an ethics of watchfulness demands nothing less.

Why did China's authoritarianism receive so much coverage? There is an obvious answer: the Western media felt that there was a -desire- for this information because of the insecurity the splendor of China's Olympics were going to create. Everyone in the media knows what human rights abuses are going on around the world at any given time-- including the egregious acts of the U.S.. But how and when these abuses are actually reported comes down to business decisions, unless there is an atrocity so significant that it must be reported.

The story of two elderly Chinese women who were slated for "re-education" for simply applying to protest at the Games is a classic example of how media coverage should be looked at. Our response to the story should not stop at "how could the Chinese government actually do that?" but at the question, "where else in the world are other states, including my own, doing such things?" Human rights should not be used as a tool of national pride, but should provoke self-reflection. In what ways is -our- government as authoritarian as China?

It is always easier to look at the misdeeds of another country than those of our own. All of our sanctimony over Russia's recent bellicosity is really about our own guilt over the precedent we set for such madness in Iraq.

The noble gesture that Roger is making above-- to embrace the positive similarities between the Chinese and ourselves-- should be made on the order of politics, and the more difficult business of critique, as well. The governments (not necessarily the people) of the most powerful countries in the world today are up to some creepy things. We should care about what -all- of them are doing, and expose them without prejudice.

Roger, Thanks for the entry. It shows that a great event produced with care and art, not unlike a great movie, can not only ignite the imagination but also reveal some common groud.

Of course there are vast areas of disagreement, issues of human rights, political disputes, questions like Tibet, the whole painful list.

And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln ...?

"I also pictured tens of millions living in poverty and age-old conditions. I am sure there are indeed many millions living like that. But until fairly recent decades, almost all Chinese were living in poverty hardly conceivable to the West."

By recent decades, I correct you to "decade" (without the s) by virtue of my own impoverished experience growing up in China in my infantile years. I was born in the city of Guangzhou and that was in the middle of intensely economically hard and backward world in the dawning 90s. I never saw much of China beyond my home city so I don't know whether there was some perverse form of Civil War-like dichotomy of wealth (this is before I learned the existence of Hong Kong) that divides the population or whether everywhere was this poor or whether as history tells, it was still very much a communist country which governs that everywhere must've been like my village.
Motorcycles and bicycles were very much the main means of transportation - there's a gray lighting to the way I remember everything despite brilliant shafts of light piercing down in crepuscular angles illuminating what was still a happy childhood despite poverty. Well, I wouldn't really know because in China my family was much better off than they are in America. There we had a house to live (or was it an Apartment we owned?) I haven't returned to my native city in quite a while but I still remember the deep personal anecdotes my parents would tell about in attempts to humor or make light the deep impoverished conditions.
By impoverished I mean more... Backwards... Not necessarily in a depraved sense like most real Third-world countries today. Just, it was an impoverished neighborhood but filled with such entropy and spirit that you can easily mistake it for Pigtown in Stephen Chow's Kung Fu Hustle. A certain flexibility to the scarce economic utilities - a handiness with it one would say. Every morning we'd go to a local restaurant with rusty wooden tables beneath a gray morning canopy over the patio. There we'd be served a form white noodles (I don't know the English way to say it, I don't even think they're in the same species as noodles) with soy sauce and then soy milk afterwards - not your typical fancy European dish but definitely sentimental and savory in a simple way.
I'm not trying to glorify it though, mind you, as I don't want to downplay the fact that many neighbors probably suffered under these extreme conditions. I was just at the more advantageous hand of it all. A tricycle was my most luxurious toy but my greatest wealth came from friends and family (which is a odd thing to recall as I was only a toddler).
Its a rich experience to grow up an immigrant. It's no joy luck club, pardon the inevitable pun - but it is a wealthy bundle of emotions worth translating onto screen but nobody looks beyond karate movies these days (or I'm just displaying my ineptitude in my knowledge of Asian cinema)...
Whatever the case, I'm sure my experience growing up in China is quite the foreign mile from growing up in Gotham City, eh Roger? But it's good to exercise cultural entropy. Nobody gets anywhere being single-cultural these days...

P.S - If you found out if they're going to market those spectacular colored-lights single-wheeled cycles piloted in the closing ceremony, let me know.

I lived in China from 2003 to 2005 and I can say that Roger is completely correct. The Chinese people are wonderful, friendly, and pretty much the same as us. Most are quite aware of their government's human rights problems and are hopeful for progress in the future. It's not unreasonable to expect progress, considering how much has changed since 1976(when Mao died).

The Chinese people deserved these Olympics. They are a huge participant in the Olympics and they love competition. Their government is not great, but the people certainly are.

I highly recommend everyone visit there if you get a chance.

this is my second trip to china my first was 2006, i was amazed by the development here, the 3 gorges dam project is huge, the displaced people were given alternate places to live , whole cities were created, bridges were built across the river where foot paths had been the roads will be built later. This year trip was planned as another vacation to tour china, till the earth quake happened when 5 million people became homeless, the Chinese govt. responded quickly to supply temporary shelter and made plans to rebuild entire cites to replace those destroyed by the massive earth quake in 3 years. Having done volunteer work for 18 yrs as my first career and being an empty nester, i decide to this trip to china would be for helping the homeless victim of earth quake, when i first got here i call a minister of the central government his secretary told me, he not responsible for that ,and i should go to local government so i went to Sichuan foreign affairs office and was told go local government, i finally got in touch with a county party leader he travel to the city of Chengdu to meet me,within a few days he was called and ask if my foundation would build dormitories for several village boarding schools, I'm now in the process of making a proposal in writing to get a written acceptance for the help I 'm offering the rural poor.China is opening up in many unseen way!

Should we also have considered the 1936 Olympics to be "like Nazi Germany accepting an invitation it had long ignored, to open its arms to the world community."

The global acceptance of a regime actively involved in the brutal oppression of its people is not a fact we should accept lightly.

Look at little bit deeper before you uncork your wonder, Mr. Ebert. The reason the streets you saw were full of baseball capped, t-shirted, snap-happy middle class Chinese folk is because the destitute were literally removed and dumped out of view by the government. The people you saw were vetted, pre-approved, and sometimes even bussed in by the thousands to provide the view of China that the government wanted to display. Mr. Ebert, rather than having a deeper, richer, more complex vision of China, you've been duped into having a more superficial one.

I think the Chinese did a great job with these Olympics. I always enjoy the Olympics, but I thought this year's was especially memorable. Not only for the great things that happened in the competitions, but for the way China put it all together. Sure, they may have been trying to show off their power, but I think opening up to the whole world and welcoming us into their country was a huge step.

Joamiq,

You are quite right-- but let's use your point as an occasion for the kind of thinking I am advocating above.

Instead of using this outrage as a way to distance ourselves from a foreign nation, try to find a corollary to it right here at home. The question then becomes:

If we abhor what China is doing, in what ways are WE mistreating OUR urban poor?

Hopefully Katrina is coming to mind, but I'll choose a more subtle example: gentrification in the city where I live, New York. While not as rapidly or severely, a very similar sort of displacement of working class and poor has occurred in New York over the past two and a half decades. The center of the city, once filled with minority and lower class populations, is now almost completely filthy rich. The poor have migrated to the periphery or, if they have remained, have become the victims of rising rent and goods prices. In short, they have been squeezed out so that a "Sex and the City"/"Friends" white-wealth fantasy of New York can prevail.

I am not comfortable with Roger's language when he likens the obfuscation or displacement of poor neighborhoods to making a bed. But we do need to recognize that the capitalism that we know and participate in is inherently directed against the fortunes of the poor, regardless of nationality. Today, the "improvement" of any city on earth guarantees the geographical marginalization of those of its citizens who are worst off. Any measures to help such people, you can bet, will not be profit-driven.

Should we also have considered the 1936 Olympics to be "like Nazi Germany accepting an invitation it had long ignored, to open its arms to the world community."

I didn't want to mention that because it I thought it would be unfair to compare China's current political climate with the Nazi regime but I must confess that it came to mind. China's government is far from the tyranny of Adolf Hitler but I cannot deny that during Beijing's opening ceremonies, I thought about the 1936 Olympics when Germany put on it's best face in the eyes of the world. The difference will come in what happens next. Will they continue the same rigidity that they have displayed before or will this lead to the radical political change that their people have longed for?

If there was a hypothetical situation where I could ask one question of China and receive nothing but the truth, this would be my question: How much of the Olympics was real?

You mention the treatment of foreigners, but I read that at least 8 American bloggers were held by the Chinese government.

You mention the beauty of the sight of the country: walls were erected in front of the slums to obscure view and deny easy entrance to the less desirable areas of China. And of course, we weren't seeing China with our own eyes, we were seeing them through cameras. We had no control over what we saw.

The Olympics was a tool the Chinese used to present themselves to the world. But don't all host countries use them as such?

What are the Olympics? One man can run faster than another? One country is more this or that than another?

I suppose the Olympics are simply the only global rivalry that does not routinely involve bloodshed.

But what does it say about us as a species, as living, cognizant beings when we meet every four years to prove ourselves? But we do not prove "ourselves." This is not a moment for humanity to shine. Do the Olympics end with a greater understanding of ourselves or our place within life and the universe? It ends with simple recognition for the goal is acceptance.

What do we prove? What are we trying to prove? What is the purpose?

Heh, from reading all of these comments I've realized China is like Roshomon - everyone is absolutely confident in their own version of the truth.

Sanjoy was correct in his assumption- your work has done wonders to open my eyes to a changed country. I did not see the opening ceremony this year, but your previous entry describing it inspired me to search for the footage online. Do you have any idea where I can find it?

Ebert: You can rummage around on YouTube, or NBC.com is selling a DVD of the whole event.

Hi Nick Young,
Here is a link to the opening ceremony in Chinese page (40mins).

http://video.google.cn/videoplay?docid=-6923636195015969939&ei=1n-zSIGwM4bIwgPb08T6DA&q=%E5%A5%A5%E8%BF%90%E4%BC%9A%E5%BC%80%E5%B9%95%E5%BC%8F&vt=lf&hl=zh-CN

It was broadcasted by Singaporean media. For more links, just copy and paste 2008北京奥运会开幕式 via Google video. Enjoy

As background, I should say that I'm a Chinese-Canadian-American, I've grown up 19 years in North America, and I've lived/worked for the past two years in China.

I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but it requires a long set-up. I have split it into two parts.

One of the things any country has to do is create a "story" for itself. This isn't just "history," but has to do with how a country sees itself, and how it generates nationalism among its people. It also paves the way for the future, setting a template for action.

To me, this whole Olympics thing is the clearest way to see the difference between two huge narratives that have not collided in a long time, and they go something like this:

The American narrative is that Red China is a Communist nation. The three most potent examples are Mao, the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square. In this story, a huge number of Chinese lived in poverty and under repression from the central government, which was a shadowy organization that controlled everything, and often had disastrous economic policies. Moreover, it was a shadowy government that liked to keep its trash hidden: Falun Gong, Tibet, missiles pointed at Taiwan, etc.

The American narrative focuses on the powers of China's leaders, claiming that they have enormous control over the country's people. The great irony is that it is impossibly hard to control Chinese people with laws; Chinese culture has about 600 laws, of which most people selectively follow 12. There are only a few key forces in Chinese culture (the really big ones are "face" and "guanxi" and perhaps "filial piety") and understanding these is the key to understanding the country, not "Communism" nor any other political ideology.

Unfortunately, mainland Chinese films compound the problem. Few present any sort of view of modern life, partially because the government likes to focus on history, partially because none receive distribution outside China, and partially because artists cannot possibly plug up all the holes in their audience's understanding of a nation. (Though I will always remember being ten years old and watching Zhang Yimou's "To Live" with my parents, who gave the best review I've ever heard: "It was exactly like that.")

The Chinese narrative starts at an earlier date in history. It focuses primarily on the "Century of Humiliation," which begins with the First Opium War up to the present. Here, the emphasis is on the destruction unleashed upon the country when foreigners were allowed to land and unload drugs. Concessions were made in coastal cities, foreigners took autonomous control of areas, palaces were looted or burned to the ground. The culmination is Japan's invasion during WWII, which is why the "Rape of Nanking" is so symbolic. It's not merely one event, but the sum of an entire century of "rape" in Chinese eyes. That's why historical accounts vary in the numbers - some people say 100,000 died while others say 300,000 - but the numbers barely matter, it's the feeling that the entire country was raped, repeatedly, by everyone.

This is why Mao received such a mandate in 1949. It wasn't that he was pro-Communism but that he kicked out all the foreigners. Chinese people value their privacy and like being "closed-off." I mean, our most famous national monument is the biggest fence in history, followed by a walled "forbidden" city. It doesn't take a genius to notice the thematic link. At the same time, though, there is an arrogance within Chinese culture that hasn't been addressed; it comes from being the world's longest continuous civilization (apart from Mesopotamia) and feeling that your culture is better than everyone else's, and that everybody copied you (see: the average Chinese person's opinion of Korean or Japanese culture) or looted you (see: Century of Humiliation).

Neither the American nor the Chinese narrative resembles any sort of reality I currently live in. And I've reached a point where I'm incredibly annoyed with people who only espouse one side, without considering... well, everything else. When given a chance to vent, most people will stick to the simple narrative their country has given them, and this infuriates me.

And that’s why the high point of the Olympics is what Zhang Yimou did with the opening ceremony. Six years ago, when he made "Hero," some critics accused him of selling out to the government, but I don't think those people watched the film with their eyes open. To this day, I consider it the most subversive film in modern Chinese history, because Zhang took all the money and he made something far more subtle and nuanced than the average historical epic. In fact, he made the anti-historical epic.

I remember most people focusing on Hero’s beauty and completely missing its structure. It was not a nationalistic story, but a story about nationalistic stories. The entire film is two men talking; each man tells a story which the other man refutes, but the stories are a distraction from the motives of the storyteller. The film was about using “stories” as deception, and the film itself was a deception. The Chinese government had to approve the screenplay, which of course is littered with ponderous lines and those prologue/epilogue text boxes that “explain what happens.” Government censors thought they were watching a film that approved the actions of the King of Qin (and implicitly, the current leadership). The film, like most historical epics, was supposed to give the Chinese audience a better grasp of their national narrative.

Instead, Zhang made a film that did the exact opposite. Instead of certainty, he gave ambiguity – we never really discover which story is true. Moreover, the images reveal a different theme: each story has a different color, because each story is “tinted” by the motives of the storyteller. None of the battles matter; in fact, at one point, Jet Li and Donnie Yen imagine a fight in their minds. The real battle is between Nameless and the King, who battle stories. At the end of the film, the protagonist chooses NOT to fight. He dies in a hail of arrows (a callback to the attack on the school) and we never see his dead body, only the negative space he leaves on the wall. For Zhang, the point was to deconstruct nationalistic stories, looking at the gaps and poking holes in the walls.

So now, six years later, he’s at it again. Except he’s gone much further. For the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, Zhang was told to focus especially on China’s history, its art, and its children, leaving out its dark Mao years (I received this information from a friend of mine whose family is well-linked with mid-level Politburo members).

But the crazy thing is that the Opening Ceremony actually has a narrative, which I call “The Story of a Scroll.” It begins with a short film depicting the creation of paper (considered one of China’s four great inventions), which is rolled up as a scroll. That scroll unfurls in the middle of the arena. From then on, almost everything takes place on that scroll: dancers paint it, children draw on it, everybody walks on it. The funny thing is that you can actually tell which parts were Zhang’s idea and which parts came from the government. The government loves anything simplistic and cute, and they run a similar show every year (the CCTV Spring Festival Extravaganza), so their list of contributions includes: the minority children holding the flag, all of the songs and their irritating singers, the soldiers marching in lockstep, the kids with the umbrellas, the insipid slogan (One World, One Dream) which is actually mistranslated (it should be Same World, Same Dream).

Having said that, the Zhang parts are fantastic. As part of the “Story of a Scroll,” he sets up lots of symmetries. Just one example: the Olympic rings are introduced by acrobats hanging from wires. After that, we see puppetmasters playing with puppets, who are also hanging from wires. Later on, similar acrobats (without wires) work together to form the shape of the Bird’s Nest. Then a huge globe comes out of the center, and there are wired acrobats running around the world. And, at last, there is Li Ning (a former gymnast) who is raised high and literally made a bird as he runs along the top of the Bird’s Nest. Across these five moments, Zhang paints a picture about how the people make the Olympics, which is the world, which is the Bird’s Nest, which has birds, who are people suspended by wires, held by other people, who make the Olympics, which is the world… and so on.

There are many other symmetries like this that are too numerous to count (and even require familiarity with one of China’s canonical novels). But ultimately, all of them become conflated with that scroll image. That scroll is laid out on the floor, and everybody walks on it. In the grand finale, Li Ning flies across the top of the Bird’s Nest, which is now a digital scroll. And if you look closely at the giant torch atop the building, it is actually (ha!) a scroll that has been rolled up at an angle. (And if you need any more proof, watch the Closing Ceremony where the British reps walk up the airplane ramp and stare at the torch. What does the guy pull out of his bag?)

So the Opening Ceremony is really not just a spectacle, but a narrative. It is a narrative about people – how people control other people like puppets, how people work together to create an image greater than the people, how some people focus on images and then realize the people behind them (remember those “digital” cubes you were surprised by, Roger?), how people use discipline and art to attain spirituality (there is a woman doing tai chi who becomes water, which becomes a ring of kung fu fighters), and how people represent things that are abstract (for instance, each flag carrier represents his country).

And ultimately, all of these things are written down on that scroll – which is created, unfurled, colored, stepped on, raised, curled into a torch, and then passed on to the next person – a perfect metaphor for history and art and hope for the future.

Honestly, this is the only time in recent memory where I have seen a Chinese artist attempt to re-write the Chinese narrative, not for party leaders but towards something better. The old story (focusing on the century of humiliation) is no longer relevant. This new one by Zhang Yimou just might be.

So that shall be my fondest memory of these Olympics. Two old narratives were proven outdated. And a new one started to take hold. Hopefully it’ll stick.

Bravo Zhang Yimou.

Ebert: Thank you for an eloquent and illuminating comment. You create a context for China that helps me better understand the world today. Like you, I admired Zhang Yimou's "Hero," and went to look at my review again. I understood the conflicting narratives, but did not realize the film was offering an alternative to the traditional Chinese narrative. I also now understand the opening ceremony in a better way.

Dear Ebert,

Thanks for your comment to my life journey. As I mentioned before, I'm lucky but my case isn't exeptional. Lots of young Chinese at my age probably have similar experience as mine. It to certain extent reflected what was happening in China in the past two decades.

I don't argue Beijing Olympics as a complete triumph of China. Problems, disagreements are still existing. I've no idea how many people were forced to sacrifice their interests, their rights, their home for the preparation of the Olympics, for the magnificent looking of Beijing, for the superficial proudness of the nation, but I'm sure there are a large group behind the high wall along the stunning street, crying, weeping, protesting, in silence.

Chinese surely welcome democracy when having the ability to enbrace it. There are still bubbles among the whole society, in economy, statistics, education and wherever bubbles could be made. But now, the only way is keep walking and correcting.

I agree - I think to be a screenwriter and professional critic would be a conflict of interest. I have come to realise that as an aspiring novelist I am actually a poor literary critic: I love and I hate too much to be objective. So was Nabokov, reading his essays on Russian literature, discussed with a novelist's pettiness and precision. The office of critic, at least at Ebert's level of success, is total.

Of course as law student I spend my time subjecting totalities to exceptions and I think writing camp porn flicks is permissible (not that you asked my permission). Two or two dozen, it doesn't make a difference.

Political observations are as valuable to film criticism as any self-observation. The line is crossed when you start to campaign, for yourself or for your ideology (which is the same thing), rather than advocating quality in film. I think Ebert seems to err on the side of the apolitical, as much by conviction as from journalist's objectivity. As such it would be fascinating as a long-time reader to read his work without the level of self-censorship to which I have become accustomed.

Ebert: Uh, I don't think either film qualifies as "porn." One of the hallmarks of Meyer's style was his reluctance to prolong sex scenes; he incessantly intercut them with demolition derbries, rockets blasting off, men carrying a bathtub up a mountainside, etc. He often told me his greatest inspiration was "L'il Abner," that he was making comedies, and that the sex allowed him to work as an independent. Another factor: Unique among the genre, his films are obsessed by women's bodies above, not below, the waist. He never filmed a "money shot," that requirement for every porn film.

Mr. Ebert:

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on this subject. It's quite safe to say that the Chinese people are just like any other people in that they desire good lives for their families and hope for the future. But I think part of the disconnect between China and the West is due to the fact that Chinese culture traditionally has focused much more on questions of prosperity than the post-Enlightenment value of unfettered individual expression. Not that the West doesn't seek prosperity, but it is generally couched in a broader notion of individual rights - "the pursuit of happiness," and all that jazz. In China, there is not such an overarching conceptual link between the freedom to pursue financial gains and the freedom to express oneself in whatever way one sees fit (including by choice of representatives in government).

For example, I watched an interview with the supremely talented Jet Li on NBC during the Olympics (which was almost certainly one of the most impressive spectacles in human history...for better or worse). He went to great pains to explain how free he is in China to do what he wishes - including the freedom to make a prosperous life for himself and his family, to run multiple lucrative businesses, to start a charity (I believe it was for victims of the Sichuan earthquake), and other similar economic accomplishments. But of course markedly absent from his list of freedomes is any mention of the freedom to speak his mind without fear of reprisal or the freedom to have a real say in determining the leaders of his country. But he clearly didn't exclude those topics from the discussion because of external pressure. Those matters simply don't come into the equation for him when determining how free he is.

I don't believe many Westerners grasp this fundamental conceptual difference. It might be that no amount of discussion between East and West can bring complete understanding on this point. It's been shown that people generally have difficulty at the neurological level processing sounds not found in their native language (such as the issue of transposing Ls and Rs). Could something similar (but on a psychological/sociological level) occur when it comes to understanding different concepts of freedom? It's hard to say, but we shall certainly see in the years to come. I certainly hope I live to see a time when the people of China proper, as well as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan can live under governments of their own choosing.

However, I actually think that the enormous success of the Games (and the stunning intensification of economic ties between China and the U.S. especially) have quite possibly dimmed my hopes that such a day will come anytime soon. As numerous astute observers have pointed out, the fact that so many Chinese have risen from poverty to a conspicuously-consuming middle class has greatly empowered the government. And with the much-lauded Olympics proving such a source of national pride and further economic growth, the Party has proven its continued worth in the eyes of many.

Indeed, compare Chinese youth today (rapidly becoming as homogenized and enraptured of material excess as those of any Western country) with the Chinese youth of 20 years ago. Then, frustrations over the government's economic policies played a major role in convincing students and laborers to strike in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Many in the West took those events to mean that the end of authoritarianism in China was just around the corner. But the Party was wise enough to realize that fostering economic opportunities for some (and the illusion of opportunity for everyone else, a familiar model for most Americans) would allow it to maintain its political power with relatively little serious challenge.

So far, that tactic has proven quite successful. Are iPod-adorned Peking University students or twentysomething industrialists in Chongqing going to risk everything over some fairly abstract ideas about "freedom" when they've never been as well off as they are now? Of course not. The very question wouldn't even make sense to many young Chinese. That moment has passed. All this and I haven't even gotten into issues of torture, labor abuse, corruption, and racial and gender inequality. And then there's the matter I consider most worrisome of all...the fact that China has left even the U.S. in the (coal) dust in the race to be the world's greatest polluter. It's the devastating, unavoidable byproduct of Chinese prosperity.

Despite all this criticism, I truly love China. I'm thrilled that the Chinese people have received such attention and such praise, as it's been so long overdue. I'm only sad that it comes with the diminished chance for an honest accounting of the actions and policies of the Chinese government (the sort of honesty that the people of each and every nation deserve).

Daniel Quiles:

I fully understand the rationale for drawing corollations between the actions of one's own government and those of another. However, what about for those who readily acknowledge the sins of their own people (or even themselves)? My country has been the site of profound viciousness for centuries. Truly reprehensible acts at all scales, from the micro to the macro - including some of the worst crimes against humanity and nature ever committed. Many of these sins continue at this moment...and I (like all competent citizens of my country) am fully complicit in a multitude of misdeeds.

Since admitting all of that freely, does that it's now okay to cast harsh gaze on other governments? Or must I jump through some other hoop before I've earned that right? Must I first renounce my citizenship? Or perhaps commit self-immolation and simply leave the international critique to someone more pure and just? I'm sorry, but no thanks. I realize I don't have the moral high ground. It's something I can never have on a subject such as this. But that doesn't mean I'm ever going to throw my hands up in the air and refuse to call a spade a spade simply because I contribute to the sad state of affairs (along with most everyone else).

Larry Jones:

The Dalai Lama himself praises many of the economic developments that have occurred within Tibet under Chinese occupation. This is one of the main reasons he does not call for independence, but simply true autonomy within China. The recent upheavals have been in large part due to the desire of many Tibetan youth who are dissatisfied with the Dalai Lama's approach and desire a fully independent Tibet. While I would agree that the Dalai Lama is responsible for much of Western sympathy for Tibet, you should understand that he does not actually disagree with the anonymous young Tibetan you described when it comes to the advances in Tibet's economy and infrastructure.

But as for the charge of oppressing the poor, I will say that Dalai Lama and his fellow *ascetic monks* were not exactly in a prime position to thrust Tibet into the modern era. But since children are taught both in Tibet and China proper that the "Dalai Lama clique" abused and exploited the Tibetan people until the armies of Han Chinese saviors arrived, historical understanding has become quite clouded on all sides.

I apologize for being so incredibly long-winded. But these are issues about which I'm extremely passionate (and to which I've devoted a great deal of my personal and professional lives). I didn't intend to write anything nearly so lengthy.

Ebert: The desire for prosperity may be greater than the desire for freedom and justice among many peoples. In our recent history, the story of the Enron Corporation shows that process at work. It was praised for its wealth, obtained by theft, fraud and conspiracy. Any reasonable person regarding Enron should have realized something was fishy. But its "success" was blinding. Corporate profits now outrank all other factors in the board rooms.

Democracy Now! (www.democracynow.org) did some excellent reporting of the police surveillance apparatus installed for the Games that included 300,000 security cameras and an estimated 100,000 security officers on duty in Beijing. -Maybe that's how downtown Beijing looked like a movie set? Also, the vendors? American! Hmmmmmmmmm.......what's illusion and what's reality? -Especially noteworthy when compared and contrasted to our current show in Denver with its heightened security and televising of events. That's my 2 cents, thanks.

Thanks for the link Lynn, the ceremony was indeed spectacular. Also, though I didn't get the chance to comment on the 'Confessions of a blogger' entry last week, I wanted to say how moved I was by your kind words, Roger. As a twelve-year old kid tirelessly reading your Great Movies books, I wanted you to know that I genuinely cared about film as much as you did then and continue to do. To know now that you dreamed of having such readers, that the longing for others who shared your appreciation was mutual, gives me great comfort.

Oh! I almost forgot- did you get the chance to read Jim Emerson's recent entry, 'Yes, but is it art?' It's a life-affirming read (or should I say art-affirming?)

Ebert: I sure did. I wish I had one of his rubber stamps. And he is so very right about Buster Keation, who oddly enough is the center of a debate in Bertolucci's wonderful "The Dreamers," mentioned in one of the comments.

The tragedy of China is what it has done to please the West and re-affirm the supposed success of communism in that country, to look better and brighter, in a way that only an oppressive regime can.

When all was said and done, I thought about the dead cities that we didn't see, I thought of the dead rivers and I thought of the last river dwelling porpoises, the Baiji, dying out in the Yangtze River. I thought of a little girl who was told she had a beautiful voice but wasn't pretty enough to be on TV and represent China to the world.

The Olympics can be a country's PR campaign and filled with political meaning, but they do not have to be so. The purpose of the Olympics is to compete and see others compete on a world stage. For the person who doesn't understand the purpose of that, I suggest that this is one of the few opportunities for people to meet other people not only to compete or watch sports competitions, but also to be part of or spectators of cultural events.

Not all sports competitions are cultural events. To have both is rare. Most other competitions are focused on one or the other--sports or arts. In that respect, there are actually many competitions that are global rivalries that do not involve bloodshed in terms of war. There are various world cups and world competitions and those events have their fans, competitors and spectators and they do tend to be limited and focused.

We do prove ourselves as individuals and human beings through competition that is honest and friendly--in academics, in the arts and in sports. By competing, we can push the limits of our knowledge and abilities. There are so many rewards for just trying and one must try to achieve. There are also many rewards for sharing.

What are the achievements beyond physical skills? Imagine how athletic competition has changed the image of women, from fragile beings to be protected to fierce competitors that can run a marathon. In 1896 a woman ran the marathon the day after the men's race to show it could be done. When the top female competitors can do it better than your average weekend male competitors, concepts are changed and stereotypes are broken. Women's marathon came to the Olympics in 1984. That was a long wait.

While current Summer Olympics focus on women's gymnastics, that wasn't a competitive sport in the first modern Olympics. Women's gymnastics became a part of the Summer Olympics in 1928. Men's in 1896.

Imagine how Jesse Owens challenged Social Darwinism and racism in Germany and in the US when he competed in Berlin in 1936. And who can forget the man who was Cassius Clay and became Muhammad Ali? According to his autobiography, he threw his 1960 Olympic Gold away when he was refused service in a restaurant. In 1968, there was the black power salute. That's a real time line of change from 1936.

Imagine how people were inspired by seeing women and men compete.

For these reasons, I do not feel that the Olympics are "simply the only global rivalry that does not routinely involve bloodshed." The Olympics can be a measure and a means for change.

If you wish to see something of the real China from someone who is both American and Chinese, there's a thoughtful documentary 2007 called, "Up the Yangtze."

Nothing to add except my thanks to Tony Zhou for helping me gain insight into (for me) an enigma of a nation and culture. I never saw China as a great evil (I was born after the Red Scare here), just as a huge question mark. I have to confess I still do (for the most part) but that is due in part to the insular nature of American news and media coverage (and my own ignorance). Certainly the Chinese immigrants and descendants I have met and known are not so!
Perhaps nations would do better without chips on our shoulders. We have as many (if different) problems as China does. As Roger said in another entry, we hold no moral high ground re human rights issues. I do ask this: if the national character can be said to prefer to be "walled off", how is the potential ally, friend or stray visitor to come to know or to come to terms with China? You cannot hold the world at a distance and then complain that we don't know you. I say this not to offend, but because I am truly puzzled.

When I think of China, two things, in particular, come to mind. One would be Zhang Yimou's story of country life, depicting children in the poor Chinese farming regions, called Not One Less. In that, I saw that, yes, there were people who lived more-or-less radically different than we do here, but their morals are similar. A little boy leaves the community to find work in the big city because his mother and father cannot work any longer, and they have no way to make ends meet. Many people here would do the same (although the age of the children here would be a bit older).

The other thing I think of would be a video I saw delving into '82 (or '83) China, one year after they enacted the one-child policy. In it, we viewed many different regions of China, from the farmlands to the industrial cities. It seems as though their views were obscured by their nation's views, and that, even though family had been more or less destroyed compared with old Chinese customs, there was still a sense of community among the co-workers of these complexes. People would beg a woman to not give birth to a second child, for her to get an abortion, so that their section would not come under scrutiny by the companies owners (the people lived in small regions around each other, in groups, and each group member had to watch out for the others, because, if something went wrong, as in, if a second child was born to the same mother, they would lose priviledges with which they had started with). It was a devastating portrait, but more-or-less understandable because of the growing number of people at the time (which is, of course, still growing).

The fact of the matter is that 95 percent of Chinese people live on 45 percent of the land, because much of China's land is uninhabitable. Think of all of America's people scunched into a little less than half of the US, and then add another 700 million or so more people. That is the way China exists. For it to NOT be more industrialized, more economic in those regions, those cities, would be an incalculable error on their government's part.

In a way, what I'm saying is that there are very different views of China, and all are correct. For you to say that you see a poor, economically distraught country, well, that would not be false. Perhaps ou were recollecting older memories of a time when they were not attempting to build themselves up in a way they are now. Perhaps not. I think that what China has done now is marvelous, that we cshould applaud their efforts, as we have done. It is a place that has been under hard times for a long time, and has now risen above those obstacles to come out and show the world what it's made of. Truly inspiring work they have done.

Savvy

Your column is interesting, but a pretty face can make anything seem entrancing. You, like others, fell into the trap. You bought the pig in the poke.

You failed to add importance to the fact that China censors the Internet and did so during the games when it specifically told the IOC there would be full openness regarding communications. It's a country that can completely shut down the movement of its people. It's a country that sealed off the population from desert areas in northwest China so those people could not travel out of the region or to Beijing.

You neglected to mention that there is no full freedom or religion, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of speech against the government, and no right to redress wrongs.

The government controls every aspect of Chinese life. It imprisons people for believing in God, for protesting the brutal murders in Tibet and the suppresion of the Tibetan people, and for homosexuality. It brainwashes its citizens to follow the Communist Party line. Step out-of-bounds and you are re-educated.

You seem amazed that the Chinese "look" like us - writing they had on t-shirts and baseball caps. What did you expect them to wear? Flowing robes and chopsticks in their hair? That, my friend, is a little bit racist on your part.

China will import anything it wants in any condition it wants - tainted food, for example, and will only stop when it gets called out on the act.

China is decades away from being anything than what it is now - a totalitarian nation with a brutal dictatorship wearing bespoke suits, men (all men - ahem) pretending to be honest and open when, in fact, they are no less thugs than any other brutal despots in any society from history.

Richard R.:

When did I say we are not allowed to cast a critical eye on other governments? If you read my first comment, I argue that it was good that the Chinese government received so much scrutiny during this period.

I merely question this scrutiny's timing-- precisely at the moment that China is publicly celebrating its success (all of the hullabaloo over the "gold medal count" is evidence of our insecurity in relation to this new superpower).

My point was that human rights can be used disingenuously to define categories of "us" and "them." Americans tend to define themselves positively through other countries' faults. "Over there" people have no freedom or economic opportunity, not like "over here." This is self-deception.

This is why I have sketched a view of a politically and economically interconnected world in my comments to these posts about China. There are patterns of behavior that powerful governments engage in. If we find one, we are likely to find it elsewhere. This sort of investigation is not served by "we don't do what they do" sorts of statements.

Tony Zhou:

A very compelling read of the opening ceremonies. But please summarize for me precisely what narratives are being revised, and how.

I am intrigued by your mention of puppets as metaphors of control. Do you feel that these metaphors are directed towards a singular meaning or critique, or that they are left open?

Mr Ebert:

Your point about the Enron travesty is quite well taken. Grand-scale corporate malfeasance will likely maintain for the remainder of human civilization, whether it's in the form of Enron engineering an energy crisis that threatens lives or a Chinese manufacturer bribing local officials to look the other way on matters of product safety and worker abuse. (And admittedly, not all plants in China operate under such conditions.)

It seems broadly understood at this point that many of our goods in the West are produced by Chinese and other Asian laborers working under conditions we would generally consider abhorrent.** This knowledge might inspire a pang or two of guilt but little real change in behavior. But I would say it smacks of hypocrisy or at least naivite for any American to be shocked by the actions of Enron (or the subprime mortgage lendors). We are complicit in all of these corporate crimes by allowing such cycles of exploitation to continue unabated.

Because of the virtually inextricable links (economic and otherwise) that connect the world, the sins of the Chinese government become our sins as well - and vice versa. It seems to me that this makes speaking out on the actions of any government all the more important. They're our actions too. We cannot shrug off such a responsibility by claiming that we should just mind our own business. Even if there were a time when such things truly weren't our business, that era is ended. Nor can we remain idle under the excuse of not understanding a culture fully, as a complete understanding will likely never happen. Nor can we simply claim we're trying to promote "progress." Progress at what cost to ourselves, to all peoples, to the planet?

But this isn't a one-way street. I welcome the criticism of the Chinese people toward the actions and policies of the U.S. They have as much of a stake in our future as we have in theirs (perhaps even moreso, if a film like "I.O.U.S.A." is any indication). Most people may bristle at supposed outsiders commenting on the affairs of their homelands, but few concerns remain truly local today. Perhaps the huge success of the Beijing Olympics will help at least a few people in China, the U.S. and throughout the world to realize that we need to consider the global repercussions of our actions. None of us can afford to simply plug our ears to any "external" critique of our behavior. Too much is at stake.

**Chinese and other Asian laborers, in addition to those in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. Exploitative labor conditions exist within U.S. borders as well, of course. You don't have to go far to find evidence of them. Just take a look at the upper floors of countless buildings in ethnic neighborhoods across the country, not to mention fields, groves and orchards nationwide. Likely the most repugnant conditions within American territory can be found on the Northern Mariana Islands. Everyone should pay Wikipedia a visit on that one.

To whom it may concern,

The Chinese people are contented, if not proud, with the way their government has been running things. This is part of the reason why any obtrusion of democratic values by the West simply falls on deaf ears. It is simply a case of the West thinking that China still has a long way to go, while China trumps that she has come a very long way. Two discrepant sides of the same story.

But here's a more pressing question: Why do we still feel the need to impose our ideology when our very own democracy is falling apart at the seams? True, democracy as an idea may be less faulty than most forms of government, but for it to sell successfully, you first have to prove that it works better. So does it work better than most?

Fact of the matter is, the U.S., the modern bastion of democracy, seems to be headed into a democratic nadir: an erosion of civil liberties all done in the name of security. Illegal spying on the people, torture and use of coercive tactics adopted from the (1950s) Chinese to juice out confessions, airport detention of innocent citizens whose names happen to be in the 'watch list,' Rovian politics, and a seemingly belligerent attitude towards foreign policy, to name a few. For sure, these are not a plus to democracy, but instead haul it down to the level of totalitarianism, a thing which we despise and rant against, a thing which we accuse others of practicing. The word 'humane' is regressively being pulled out of democracy, to be substituted by 'Orwellian.'

_________________________________________________

To Mr. Ebert, I lament these facts much as you lament the encroachment of religion on U.S. politics. I have always regarded the U.S. with high esteem. I'm sure a lot of people do, too. But lately, I have been mulling over these frightening developments and wonder if these are not, in a way, a projection of the future, the preliminary stage of things to come for the whole world?

Best regards,
Robert
Taoyuan City, Taiwan

I studied Chinese Law in law school. The fundamental difference between our cultures is best described in our constitutions.

In America, the Bill of Rights are "natural rights" which we believed our derived from our creator. The Declaration of Independence details the collective conscious of the founding of our nation. We see words and phrases like "inalienable" (formerly "sacred and undeniable" in Jefferson's first draft) and "endowed by our Creator", etc. The Bill of Rights, at least the philosophy of penning those rights first identified in the Declaration, enumerates our freedoms.

The Chinese Constitution is much more complex and specific than our own. It enumerates quite a bit more than our "organic" constitution. The difference is that the rights as identified are granted by the state, and as such can be denied by the state.

It is an interesting dichotomy and shows how we view our respective places in the world. The debate can go on about which philosophy is better (I know which side I am on), but I cannot find fault with a government in the creation of its own laws no matter how barbaric or backward some think it may be.

Lynn and Tony and so many of you,
This is the best blog I have ever read on the Beijing Games! There is almost no name calling. Most of you offer a wealth of knowledge, personal stories, insights and deep understanding of issues. As a Chinese having spent half of my life in the West, I really share so many sentiments and stories of some others that posted here. The picture of Lynn was like yesterday once again... This blog itself shows how much the Games have helped the world to bridge gaps of understanding. The IOC chairman Mr. Rogue took enormous political risk, blame and pressure from the world to promote his visionary decision! I think the world owes him a big 'thank you'and I hope his name will be forever remembered together with the legacy of this historic Olympic Games! James Shen wrote a piece about Western media staging China Blemishing Marathon which attracted a lot of debate as well. Link here:
http://www.chinationreport.com/ChinaBashingMarathon.html
There are a lot of problems in China. China is making right moves in all directions. But it is not easy to track progress from day to day. The tough environmental policies and labor laws are being inforced. The government is focusing on social harmony in every aspect of peoples'lives. Again, it is not easy to track changes everyday, but it is moving in the right direction. I can say,'for the first time in their entire aldult life, many Chinese are feeling proud of their country, of the progress they have made.'Even if they know they have a long way to go, they desire to take this moment to savor the taste of their victory. It might be hard to understand for many outside of China why the government would spend $40 billion on 16 days of glory. This is part of the Chinese culture. Even in my poorest childhood days, my parents would save or starve for a long time in order to spend a 'fortune' on one big Chinse New Year dinner. It is symbolic for a family to make this statement after one year's hard work! For the Chinese people, after 30 years of hard work and sacrifices, they want to make their statement and indulge in their party. All they ask from the West is: Don't spoil our hard-earnt party. We can exchange criticisms later.

When I read the blog here, I must say these debates are healthy and needed to perfect the world! Through understandings and engagement, we can build a better world for all of us. Never before like today America and China need each other to succeed. I run a small newswebsite to link China news from balanced sources and views. Please visit if you are interested: http://www.chinationreport.com/

I find it interesting that people like Ebert who fall all over themselves and twist logic into knots to praise China at every opportunity aren't lining up to become residents. For a contrasting opinion, I suggest you talk to some of the people whose homes were bulldozed without compensation to make way for Olympic venues, or who have been thrown in jail for expressing political or religious views that were not to the government's liking, etc., etc. So they put on a good show. Big freaking deal. If America did half the things to its own people that China routinely does to its people, Ebert and his liberal ilk would be spewing anti-American vitriol left and right. But because its only the Chinese who suffer, apparently vague, spineless statements like "there are criticisms to be made" are sufficient.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I had never read your review of 'The Dreamers' before this day, but in a way I'm glad. I think discovering it today allowed it sink in deeper than if I had read it years ago, when I was living in a cocoon myself. You mentioned in your review the immediacy of the movies of that time - comparing the works of Godard to the center of a maelstrom. If you had spoken to me one year ago, I would have believed movies, or simply art in general, could stir the world again. I was the optimistic teenager described in your review of 'Last Year at Marienbad', hoping to find truth in art. As the bubble around me gradually dissolved and I discovered a little too much truth, lyrics from Okkervil River frontman Will Sheff began to sound with sad resonance until it was all I could hear:

"And your world is gonna change nothing"

Ouch...that's painful to accept. In spite of it all, I find hope in movies like "The Dreamers". We all have to wake from our dreams at some point, but it doesn't hurt to return to the unreal beauty of a movie or a memory to escape a world so concrete. In Buster Keaton films, especially shorts like "The Scarecrow", I can sense the radiating wit and beauty of his invention in every shot. I think to myself, who would attempt to craft these Rube Goldberg contraptions today? Other than the stop-motion animators behind the Wallace and Gromit shorts, I'm drawing a blank.

Watching "The Scarecrow" recently, I felt similar to Woody Allen's character in "Hannah and Her Sisters" when he finds a reason to live in a wonderful movie. Though his ecstasy is fleeting (he'll be unhappy again in no time), the images in the movie are not. They have been preserved, and are still being watched by people like you and I. For all the dreamers in the world, they provide a refuge. Too easily and too often do I forget that.

Before I sign off, I have a question. I watched "Weekend" the other day and noticed something strange in a key early scene. Having just finished reading "The Story of The Eye" I was surprised to hear a passage that seemed lifted from the book. Did Godard ever acknowledge borrowing the orgy scene (the one described but not shown)? I wouldn't be asking if both stories didn't mention broken eggs, but that just doesn't happen everyday in a fictional story.

Thanks for reading,

Nick Young

Ebert: Wiki reports: "Jean-Luc Godard’s Week End begins with a scene recalling the book." Godard did not acknowledge it as far as i know, but with such a well-known text perhaps his very reference acted as the acknowledgment. I sometimes drop a few words of famous poetry or prose into my writing in the same way. For example, asked to describe my first sexual experience for Time Out magazine, I responded: "She and I stripped, covered ourselves with talcum powder, and went 
bareback riding on a water-smooth silver stallion under the smiling 
Norwegian moon. We found bliss beside an ancient fjord where the 
Vikings sailed their dragon ships. Oh, what a night it was!"
 That quotes e. e. cummings, an old Budweiser ad, and an internet rumor.

Michael,

Not sure when and where you attempted to use a Visa card in a Chinese restaurant. I was there in 2004, and virtually all restaurants in Shanghai take Visa and Master cards. Indeed, even the cabs in Shanghai take Visa and Master cards.

What you said simply wasn't true.

Also, I noticed that traditional Chinese culture thrived, rather than being compromised, as a result of the economic boom. So rest assured, we will see more cutlural and humanitarian developments in China as long as the economy stays on the right track.

I applaud Ebert for his conscientious article.

I'm fairly sure that saying "China is not as bad as I had been raised to believe" is not the same as saying "China is better than America."

To be sure, the government and their actions definitely bear watching out for. But the nation overall seems to be moving in a better direction.

the author forgot to mention that there are still wide spead of corruption in China, Chinese still need to do a lot of learning from democratic countries like USA, where corruptions are pretty much invisible, or should I say, legallized. you hear terms like campain donation, congressional lobbyists... people who do these kind of things in China would be getting a bullet, while in USA, they are the ones who are actually calling the shots.

so China sill have a long way to go.

Tony Zhou:

A very compelling read of the opening ceremonies. But please summarize for me precisely what narratives are being revised, and how.

I am intrigued by your mention of puppets as metaphors of control. Do you feel that these metaphors are directed towards a singular meaning or critique, or that they are left open?

--------------------------------

Daniel Quilles:

Um, what do you mean summarize? I wrote the long post because I couldn't summarize.

I guess the short version would be
American narrative of China = oppression of people (by government)
Chinese narrative = oppression of country (by foreigners)
Zhang's narrative =

Actually it's impossible to summarize Zhang's narrative, because it's so dense and textured that even I don't fully understand it. It is, however, a substantial break from the other two stories. It makes numerous references to other art. And the overarching theme is that scroll - which is both a physical piece of paper and a digital screen (how's that for mixing past and future, eh?)

At the very least, it doesn't focus on oppression, and it doesn't require one side to be victimized by the other. Which is saying a lot, considering that both the Americans and the Chinese seem to insist that somebody here MUST BE the victim. It almost seems to be what drives both sides, the idea that they're "helping" someone who is not being helped by the other side.

--------------------------------

And no, the metaphors are not directed towards a singular meaning. For instance, the Opening Ceremony depicts humans holding puppets, but it also depicts humans being suspended by wires. Does it diminish these flying acrobats to realize they are being held by other people? Or does it awe more? No matter what, we are watching people supporting other people. And if you want to look a little further, notice that the design of the Bird's Nest is one where you can see the support beams, but they are so dense and intertwined it seems to enhance the experience. I believe Zhang's idea was to show both the puppets and the wires simultaneously - how you want to interpret that is largely up to you.

Moreover, the four men holding puppets are all dressed as characters from Beijing Opera, which is complex in its own way (many of the stories do have to do with control, but are ambivalent about its goals). Normally, the puppets will act out a story, but I couldn't tell which story this was, so I'll have to defer to somebody else who wants to explain it.

Zhang also used a similar metaphor in his film "To Live" (at least I think it was this film, somebody check for me) with shadow-puppets, which are an old folk artform. So this is not his first time referencing puppets or puppetmasters - it just seems to be his style to reference other types of art within his own art. "Hero," for instance, invokes the idea that a swordstroke is like a calligraphy brushstroke. Does this mean that all writers are also warriors? Or does it mean that "how" a man writes (rather than "what" he writes) reveals much about himself?

I'm glad Zhang doesn't spell out the meaning. That would be blunt Communist propaganda, no? I mean, I don't know about you guys, but what I saw on August 8th was the exact opposite of propaganda - if you look past the initial spectacle, there's a lot of subtlety and nuance, rather than a message being blared. The only time the message is blared is when the government takes the reign (see: every moment involving little children, theme songs, smiling faces, or soldiers). But apart from maybe 12 minutes of gag-inducing, the rest is a very complex story. Hell, if you want to, buy the DVD and watch it as a film - I think it merits that sort of analysis, no?

Mr. Ebert,

I sincerely applaud your change of attitude towards China and encourage you to finally take a trip there to discover first hand all that it has to offer. Having spent the past three years living in Beijing I can attest to the beauty of Chinese culture and its people and can assure you that you would be a most welcome visitor and treated quite hospitably. Such warm, noble, and cultured people certainly deserve to host the Olympic games and what it has meant to such a large number of Chinese people both in China and abroad should not be taken lightly. Their - the Chinese people's - ability to host such an event is a testament to their ingenuity, work ethic, and pride. That being said, I do feel the need to argue a few of your statements made in this article.

First, the matter of the welcoming to foreigners being "manifest" is debatable. In the lead up to the Olympics Beijing enacted very restrictive visa policies forcing many of Beijing's long-term expat population to leave the city. The response to the March uprising in Tibet was to significantly alter the number of outsiders who would be allowed to enter China legally. (Proof of this can easily be found in the drastic reduction in hotel room prices in Beijing as rooms failed to be reserved).

Secondly, I must say that the Beijing that you have witnessed is exactly what the Chinese Central Government wanted to project itself as. Cleaning up a house before a visitor comes is human nature, but denying people their constitutional rights (as stated in the Chinese Constitution, not our own) and violating human rights is, I hope, not in our nature and should not be commended. Petitioners, many of whom sold their worldly possessions to come to Beijing in hopes of legal redress, were systematically removed from the city lest they negatively affect "social harmony" by exercising their constitutional right to petition. The city's homeless, too, were shipped outside the city so as not to create too ugly a scene to foreign guests. The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) estimates that 1.5 million people were forcibly displaced in Beijing to make way for Olympic and other developments. Housing activists like Ye Guozhu, who dared stand up for those who did not want to move or were inadequately compensated, were imprisoned, threatened, and ill-treated (Ye Guozhu being imprisoned for 4 years). Scores of activists living in Beijing were placed under house arrest, arbitrarily detained, or enforced to disappear. All of these things are a direct result of the Beijing Olympics, not mutually exclusive occurrences. Having seen these things happen in Beijing with my own I can assure you of their validity. There is nothing celebratory in waking up one day and finding out that one of your colleagues has disappeared; that she cannot be reached; suspecting that it was the government who has taken her; hoping that she is alright; and knowing that you are essentially powerless to help her.

The hope of the CCP was that viewers like yourself would not care about such boring information and would instead focus on the pomp and circumstance surrounding the opening ceremonies and modernity of Beijing's buildings. I too am in awe of China's potential and agree that logistically they put on an unprecedented performance. Nevertheless, I feel it shameful of us to commend an event that has caused so many hardships and such injustice to so many innocent people.

I can only hope that the Beijing games serve as a long term "force of good" as the IOC labeled them. Only then will I be able to look over the abuses that directly occurred from them and declare the games to be a success in anything but logistical reference.

I have come crossed many websites and found the understanding of China and Chinese from western world is at least 15 years behind time. In some cases, the China and Chinese in westerners mind is simply non-exist in real world.

I am glade that Rodger and so many people realize the distances between what they believed and what they found now regarding China. But I don't know yet if anyone have realized why the western world knows China and Chinese in such a twisted way.

I found it when I came to the US and Canada more than ten years ago - the media in the US and Canada never tell the true story of China and Chinese. On purpose or not? I don't know. But the fake stories and lies spread by media in North America have created big problems between the US and China. Well, also in Canada, but Canada is not that important in international play ground.

The typical issues are (those I can list in few minutes):

1- Tibet. This is simply a fake "issue". Have anyone talked with real Tibetans in Tibet? I know the answer is NO. All the media interviewed are those Tibetans who fled with Dalai Lama in 1960s, who were the "elite" class in Tibet society.

But in real Tibet, many Tibetans still have Mao's pictures on their walls and worship Mao as a "Buhda".

Think about why.

Don't forget how Americans wiped out natives and Mexicans just few generations ago, which the Chinese never done to Tibetans. Also keep it in mind that 99.999% Chinese do not live in Tibet but 100% Americans live on top of native's died bodies. So, think about it, when Americans and Canadians protest Chinese on "Tibet issue", 100% Americans are morally guilty but 99.99% Chinese are innocent.

The guilty ones are blaming the innocent ones, how that works??

2. Democracy. The Chinese believed in democracy in 1980s but not now. Why? Simple. The biggest democracy in the world, the US doesn't show the Chinese how a democracy respects human right; the other democracies don't show the Chinese too much better ways neither. In other hand, the non-democratic Chinese regime works better and better. China now improves faster than anyone else in the world in terms of economic and governance. So why would Chinese try the democracy that had been proven not a great thing to do anyway?

Democracy is as unrealistic as communism, a true democracy will never happen in this planet. When Americans believe in they have the right to choose whom to be the leader of the country, it is simply not true, it is brain wash.

I am a Chinese who have lived in America and Canada for 12 years, believe or not, my feeling is, Americans and Canadians are much more brain washed than Chinese.

The good thing is, people start realizing the truth after they washed Olympic. Honestly, I hate Olympic because it spent so much money while so many people are still living in poverty. But ... Olympic at least has done one good thing - people here have realized the China in American and Canadian media was a lie.

China has a lot of problems but most of the "problems" western world concerns, are simply not true, or not even existing.

I think everyone would understand why the Chinese government does its business that way if they realize that China is run not like a state, but like a corporation.

In a corporation, a powerful executive can manipulate the shareholders to place his favorites in the Board which in turn perpetuates his power and offers continuity of the company's vision and strategies. The executives make quick decisions daily without counseling the shareholders. Else the company won't survive. In a corporation, the company will monitor your Internet activity and censor your voice regarding the company's business (all reporters have to talk to the public affair office). You can curse the President of the USA and be fine, but try cursing your immediate supervisor in public and see what happens. The company will close down a department (demolish a neighborhood) to make room for another, more productive department (build Olympic venues). When visitors come, the company moves troublemaking employees out of sight. The list goes on and on...

It is not democratic, but very efficient and competitive. Maybe there's why many people in the West don't like it, because it is intimidating, not because it is immoral.

I was in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Beijing during a period of 3 months early this year, and I stand by what I wrote. Perhaps not all high-end places in China are bereft of International Credit Cards, but they certainly were when I was there. It was quite embarassing, as I along with an Australian colleague, whom I was treating, were left fidgeting our wallets for cash after a nice dinner.

So glad to see your comment on the olympics hosted by Beijing. As a Chinese student studying in the States right now, I am so proud of seeing my country provide such great feast to the world. Some vistors may feel the volunteers' hospitality overdone, but please understand Chinese' eagerness to show the world who they really are and how they really live. The wall of misunderstanding is largely built by the media, which I should admit upon viewing the major broadcasting here in the States. Cliches, stereotypes and bias are planted and proped to warp peoples' opinions. Since most informations we see here,esp. on TV of China and many other countries are edited, selected and colored for specific effects. China's fast development in resent years are mostly due to its openness to the knowledge of the world. In China, people hunger to know all things happenning in the world and try to learn from others, no matter it is the US, Russia, Korea or India. This kind of cosmopolitanism deep-rooted in our media, our people has boosted our vision, our spirit and the development.
Like all other countries, China is far from perfect and has a lot to achieve and overcome in the future. While mutual understanding and respect will benefit all countries including the States and China. As a child born in the late 70s witnessing China growing under its openning up policy, I haven't experienced any totalitarianism, oppression, poverty while knowing clearly that corruption and fakery exist just as what many fast-developing countries are experiencing. However, most Chinese strongly believe that things are getting better and better.
Development and democracy have more than one mode. Every country has right and duty to choose the one which suits them best. The Olympics tradition is honorable just because it celebrates the wondrousness of all races and all countries. In many aspects, I like the US way, but honestly, it is my overseas experience which boosts my fondness of China and understanding of its culture better.
I would like to say, the United States is great and China is great too although in different aspects. If you would like to know more about China, welcome to go there and see with your own eyes. Hate it or love it, it depends on your own real experience. By reading, I would recommend two books written in English by two Chinese men of letters: The Spirit of the Chinese People by Gu Hongming, and My Country and My people by Lin Yutang.

The New York Times opinion offers important information about why Chinese society (state, government) operates its way. By the way, it's like this for thousands of years, has nothing to do with communism (a Western idea) which existed in China for less than 100 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"The world can be divided in many ways -- rich and poor, democratic and authoritarian -- but one of the most striking is the divide between the societies with an individualist mentality and the ones with a collectivist mentality."

"The individualistic countries tend to put rights and privacy first. People in these societies tend to overvalue their own skills and overestimate their own importance to any group effort. People in collective societies tend to value harmony and duty. They tend to underestimate their own skills and are more self-effacing when describing their contributions to group efforts."

For example, one-child policy. The state decided China has too many people, and most Chinese agree. Then the one-child policy came. Ask Chinese, very very few (I would say less than 5%) will say one-child policy shouldn't be there. Some Chinese may be not happy about it, but most did that what Chinese do in thousand years: sacrifice their interest for the state. Nobody is above state. High officials (emperors in the past and chairmen now) in government will be removed if they were regarded harmful for the state.

DeaconsGreen:
Seems to me that it's not the chinese that is been brainwashed, rather it's you and ppl like you that are been thoroughly and completely brainwashed.

-Imprisoned for been gay? Men and only men?
Any credible evidence to back u up? Any at all?

-Completely shut down the movement of its people? Sealed off the population from desert areas in northwest China so those people could not travel out of the region or to Beijing?
Do you even use a brain when u say things like that? So tightened securities after some serious terrorist act and the fact tat hundreds of national head of state from 84 nations(including US president Bush) arriving in beijing does not need a tightened security?! And stop exagerating, my friend who's a ethnic Kazak-chinese, didn't hade any problem traveling from Xinjiang to watch olympic, how come he's not been "sealed off"?

-No freedom of religion?
The only religious organization and worships that are not allowed in china are unregistered ones, why can't they register like all other religious organization? Why are they underground family katholic churches? Maybe cuz china doesn't have any relationship with Vatican and the chinese Katholic church are independent from Vatican. But I hardly call that No freedom of religion.
Moslem mula scholls are monitored in china, same mula schools that are the source of extremist as alqaida and taliban, and as I have heard both US and Britain are monitoring moslem mula schools as well?

Democracy and Humanright are all nothing but a by-product of prosperity, I havn't seen a single democratic country becoming prosperous, I hve only seen prosperous country become democratic with improvement of human right, USA reached today's standard of democracy and human right only as late as 1960s.

Nick Young:

One of the joys of Godard is his incessant use of quotation, not just verbal but also art-historical. In -Breathless-, -Contempt-, and many other of his films, postcards and prints of famous paintings find their way into shots-- hints from the director that film is an art capable of assimilating all others.

One of the best image-quotations in film history, however, belongs not to Godard but to Tarkovsky in -Solaris-, when a print of Pieter Bruegel's -Hunters in the Snow- is subjected to a zoom that uncovers such profound painterly depth that it is as though this 16th-century picture has itself become a short film.

Richard R

Very interesting reading from your posts.

A friend of mine tells me a story that when she (a 40 years old Chinese woman) told a little Chinese girl how poor she was and no enough food when she was a child, the little girl asked her - why didn't you eat cookies?

That is a good question, as good as Americans asking Chinese why don't have freedom to this and that.

A friend of mine, actually one of my American colleagues, who was in his 70s when he told me in a trip to a very poor Chinese village, that, when he was a kid, American farmers farmed in exactly the same ways as the Chinese farmers - farming with horses, donkeys and cows, and as poor as Chinese farmers.

I am not sure if the poor American farmers really cared if they could vote in a presidential election when they had no enough to feed their families 60 years ago. Even right now, you only need step from white house and walk half an hour to talk with the blacks who live in the deviated houses in Washington city, they would tell you how much they really care about who will live in that white house from end of 2008.

Your conclusion of Chinese care more about prosperity than freedom sounds similar to the question from that little girl - why don't you eat cookies?

When I dealt with different people from many different nations, my feeling is, human nature is the same - when you have no enough to eat, cookies are not that important; when you have enough to eat, you will complain why have no cookies. When you read human history, all goes the same way.

I am a Chinese lived in the US and now living in Canada. When I complained some issues in China with my Chinese friends when I was travelling in China, most of them just don't agree with me. I felt I am the little girl who asked why don't eat cookies.

To be honest, I have the same feeling that the Chinese in North America Chinatown do have the character that care prosperity more than most other people. But, it is not the character of the Chinese in China. If you read Chinese American history, you would realize that the Chinese had no basic human right in the US until recent few decades, making money was probably the only thing they could do to their families.Even right now, many Chinese who live in Chinatown are struggling hard to make living.

A great piece and very enlightening comments too.

Political systems are rooted in social and cultural heritages. I think that it is presumptuous to declare that the western politic system is the best for all human kind and that is the end of the quest, as so many western countries and their politicians have bluntly asserted, and most in the West believed.

I think that Adam Smith's work provided the theoretic foundation for the modern Western societies. He asserted that individuals are selfish and only watch out for their own best interests, and that in turn, is the best way to achieve the best collective good. It is a no brainer that the market economy is the result of that thinking, or rather, fits that theory perfectly. Looking closely at the democratic election process reveals the same assumption, that is, individuals, be them leaders or not, cannot be trusted. Therefore the only way to minimize the damage to the collective good a leader could do is to make sure that he is approved by the majority.

Chinese culture views the virtues of mankind somewhat differently. There have always been the debates of whether individuals are sinister or virtuous in nature. For the most of its history, the second view (virtuous) has been more prevalent. Many throughout the history do not believe that mankind only watch out for their own interest, and that's the way to advance the society as a whole. What it means when it comes to leadership is the quest for a virtuous leader, who may or may not be recognized by anyone beforehand. A more direct way to look at this is that a good leader is virtuous by nature, not by the opinions of a majority. This view is expressed in lots of Chinese literatures throughout its rich history, not the least by the works of Confucius himself.

What is happening now in China is the realization of this profound cultural heritage. After years of turmoil, a group of virtuous leaders (starting with Deng Xiaoping) finally emerged. Live TV coverage of premier Weng JiaBao's handling of the Sichuan earthquake this year provided the direct proof and reinforcement that these are indeed virtuous leaders who are not only desired to do collective good but actually doing it with enormously visible results.

To the Westerners, it is baffling that a so-called totalitarian government has been enjoying extremely high approval ratings as many surveys conducted by western polling agencies have shown. The condescending explanation, as we often hear, is that the Chinese are brainwashed or simply too stupid. The profound reason, however, is rooted in the culture, that they do not believe that the Western democracy is the only way, or even a better way, to manage a society and advance individual's needs and desires. Yes there are rampant corruptions, tragic individual stories of all sorts and other glaring problems. The Chinese, more than ever, believe that the progressive solutions are right in their own cultural wisdom, not something peddled by the West, as Zhang Yimou's Opening Ceremony so intelligently showed.

Talk about the clash of civilizations, or rather the positive competition of the civilizations, as there is no sign to believe that this is leading us to armageddon. It is truly an exciting time.

Armageddon is another interesting cultural topic since I mentioned it, as there is no such a notion in Chinese culture. It's for another time though :)

Jeff,
The comment you made about Chinese not being compensated for lost homes is totally groundless. The Chinese families might want more than they are given but they are all compensated!! If you ever visited those old houses, which had no private kitchen or bathrooms with shared these facilities within the compound, you will not want to live there for ONE single day. It is easy for you to complain because someone may have complained for being underpaid. The fact of the matter is that they ALL got an upgrade in their housing a little further away from the city. I can assure you, those that moved, do not want to go back to their old shabby houses any more. You wouldn't want to either. http://www.chinationreport.com/ Go visit China and talk to real Chinese.

I have been trying these past few days to think of China as a threatening country, as it was in the cold war, and I just can't do it. I have met too many Chinese people, and fear is my least likely emotion. My concern over human rights is more rational than emotional. I feel like I should be more offended, more concerned.

I think what is coming into focus in the West now is the sheer mass of people in China, about 20% of the world's population. Napoleon's tag that China is a "Sleeping giant" still thunders through the centuries. I am more concerned about the lack of reproductive rights in China than religious freedom, but there seems a curious lack of concern on these points. I think people of all political stripes are concerned about over-population and there seems a tacit acceptance of the "One child" policy and sometimes even complicity in the vicious methods by which it is effected.

Birth and immigration are intimately connected as they both deal with population and the birth canal is one of the most effective avenues for trafficking people into a country, from the inexhaustibly populous land of nowhere. I like newborns in part because they arrive without asking permission, without a passport or visa and without knowing the native language or customs even to the point of declining to think it necessary to wear clothes. They scream when they want to.

It seems to me it is the pro-life conservatives who seem to be the strongest on human rights in China, not something which suits me, but so be it. The pro-choice movement has spent its life-blood dehumanising the foetus and so isn't left with the technical equipment to properly argue against forced abortion (to me forced abortion is murder and should be called murder. How to reconcile these feelings with my pro-choice beliefs remains problematic and unsolved. Perhaps I will convert.)

For a few years now I have thought of Australia's place in the world as a kind of anabranch through which US-China diplomacy might flow, especially now through the empty sieve of our Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister's head. I doubt that the 'rise' of China, whatever precisely that means, necessitates the fall of the West. I suspect the notion that we are the last of a clan is a kind of egotism, common to all apocalyptic predictions.

I notice the limits of my own tolerance of an over-crowded world standing in a train with other passengers. I am filled with rather intense, almost fascist hatreds for others, a phenomenon which is totally absent in more spacious, and so tender, environments. I have come to the conclusion that it is not the qualities of China which are inherently threatening but the sheer quantity of people. The mind cannot encompass at any one time a billion people. In our little individualised world, with the dissolution of religion and traditional social insitutions, I think we already live lives characterised by neglect and ultra-competitiveness. To have to incorporate another whole universe of people into our calculations is difficult, perhaps too difficult. Population questions seem to cause spasms in the body politic whenever the powers-that-be think it necessary.

I think as Fitzgerald has Nicole Diver say: "Yes she is lovely but there can be too many people."

Mr. Ebert,

This is a note of appreciation for writing your piece. No need to publish my comment. Some of us are fatigued by the constant China bashing by popular figures like Jay Leno.

Bebo

Hello, Mr. Ebert and friends.

The last act of my movie watching ritual is to look for the review on Roger's site either to confirm what I saw or reveal what I missed. Last night I watched "Lust, Caution", timed accidentally to perfection with this current discussion.

Thank you all for your comments which gave me a far better appreciation of the film. One example: as Mr. Lee forcefully takes Wong for the first time, I sharply recalled the comments above about the rape of China.

From here, I'll go and read the review, but before I do, I wanted to acknowledge the commentators of this blog for enriching that movie for me.

Ken Shipley.

Hello, Mr. Ebert and friends.

The last act of my movie watching ritual is to look for the review on Roger's site either to confirm what I saw or reveal what I missed. Last night I watched "Lust, Caution", timed accidentally to perfection with this current discussion.

Thank you all for your comments which gave me a far better appreciation of the film. One example: as Mr. Yee forcefully takes Wong for the first time, I sharply recalled the comments above about the rape of China.

From here, I'll go and read the review, but before I do, I wanted to acknowledge the commentators of this blog for enriching that movie for me.

Ken Shipley.

mr. ebert,

because of your occupation, you'll see more of china's positives than the rest of us might ever realize. however, no matter how many positive strides they may take, i can't respect them until some of the smaller steps are fixed.

for example, the government attempted to be more open to certain freedoms and allowed people to apply for a right to stage a protest in a designated protest area. two elderly women, ages 78 and 79, applied to protest against the shabby construction that caused mainly schools to collapse during the recent earthquake. most other buildings were fine, but it seemed suspcious that schools didn't get the reinforcement needed to protect thousands of children who died.

the two women who applied for the right to protest were not only denied that right but sentenced to a year in a labor camp.

chinese officials loved the voice of the girl who sang at the opening ceremonies, but they didn't think she was "cute" enough. so she sang while a young actress from television commercials lip-synced. when asked about that, the organizers were not shy about stating that the girl of lesser cuteness was just not good enough to be the face of the opening ceremonies. now, i live in america, and i'm sure things like this happen every day in televisionland. but couldn't they find a better way to say it? couldn't they just say that while the child has a lovely voice, we needed someone with acting experience?

these are just the things they're willing to share, so imagine what they're doing to their own people behind closed doors.

Does Lynn in Australia like children. If so, she had best stay in Australia!

To luf,
Hi, good comment you did. I used to try to wash Australian's brain by explaining the issue of Tibet and Democracy. you know what, a lot of Australian here asked me: hey, why Chairman Mao wasn't mentioned in the Opening Ceremony? My reply was FAINT.

To Tom Caria,
What do you mean by children? It isn't a bad idea to go back Shanghai. At least no need to cook:)

I lived in Beijing from 2003 to 2005. It's wonderful city, there's no doubt about that. But they only showed the Beijing they wanted us to see. They didn't show the empty office and apartments buildings that dot the skyline. they didn't show the slums where migrant workers live. They certainly don't show the hutongs (traditional chinese houses) that were demolished to create the 'modern' boulevards and roads for the olympics.

Beyond Beijing is a very poor and under developed countryside, where the majority of China's population live. Go an hour outside of Beijing and you can find villages where people wash their clothes in streams, use wood for heating, and get their drinking water from wells.

China is developing rapidly, but don't get the idea that all of China is like Beijing, or even that all of Beijing is like the Beijing you saw on TV.

All that being said it's still an amazing country, I recommend you go before you die. Just don't believe everything you see on TV.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

Don't you just love this, this congress of free opinions coming from all over the world? Each of us presenting a piece of a differing opinion to further understanding and openness, and each not creating an atmosphere of animosity at all (well, almost.)

It may be that you have excluded certain egregious comments from reaching this page. And yet, the people on this page have shown that discussions can be done civily, and still not lose the effect of one done in aggressive rhetoric. The power of soft democracy?

Sir Roger, the Olympic festivities are indeed grand and all, but nothing beats the true celebration here.

Sincerely from your anglophile friend,
Robert
Taoyuan City, Taiwan

Ebert: Those were some of the very thoughts I was having. And no, I haven't excluded "egregious comments " because there haven't been any. I have excluded a few comments that were perfunctory, but almost all have contributed to the discussion. the comments are increasing my knowledge, and painting details into my generalizations from many points of view. It is clear there is no one China, and no one truth. And by the way, you in Taoyuan City and me in Chicago are both anglophiles. Of course the London and UK I love are not entirely the wondrous places of my visits, readings, imaginations. For example, I think the Underground is one of the great achievements of mankind, and set myself a task years ago to get off at as many stations as I could, and just walk around aimlessly. That led to countless discoveries. I would say I know London pretty well. But if you talk to a Londoner, you will hear about the ticket prices, breakdowns, crowding, crime and grime. They complain about the buses, too. I agree with Henry James (I am quoting from memory): "The greatest theater seat in all the world is in the front row of the upper deck of a London omnibus."

To Jeff and "China Nation Report",

Your comments reflect two sides of the argument. I would argue, from first hand experience, however, that the truth falls somewhere in between. Jeff is incorrect that Beijing residents had their houses demolished without compensation. This is a gross overstatement. Chinese in accordance with their constitutional rights are guaranteed compensation in such disputes. Since private land ownership is still outlawed per the Chinese Constitution, the government is required not to compensate for the land but to compensate for the value of the apartment which individuals can own and derive profits from.

China Nation Report, however, also incorrectly classifies the nature of the compensation as universally adequate. It is true that many have been upgraded to "nicer" more modern apartments on the outside of the city. What needs to be stressed here though is that there were a sizable amount of people who did not want to move and were INADEQUATELY compensated (though they still were compensated). Some residents have strong family ties to their original homes and did not want to leave. Others staked their livelihood on their residences and without them are unable to make ends meet. Many now live far removed from their jobs and have to commute multiple hours per day to work (anyone who has ever taken the bus in Beijing can understand how arduous a commute may be in store for someone coming into the Center of the city during rush hour).

There are numerous cases available that highlight wide discontent with forced relocation in violation of basic housing rights. Whole communities built on strong social networks and dense stocks of social capital were forcibly destroyed. In many cases this was not just to make way for modern olympic venues but also commercial and residential developments that were approved at the benefit of developers and the government officials who grant approval for such projects. Indisputable is the fact that those who did seek to stand up for their rights and fight what they saw as illegal housing destruction had no legal recourse. These people, in turn, were often threatened, ill-treated, detained, or imprisoned. Most notably would be the case of Ye Guozhu, a lawyer, who was sentenced to 4 years in prison simply for trying to stop what he saw as illegal forced eviction. Moreover, there is also well documented evidence of Chinese citizens applying to protest during the Olympics on account of anger towards house evictions in Beijing. These people, however, were not granted the right to protest.

I would further argue that being in Beijing I have easily found people who are displeased at being forced to move. While it is impossible for me to talk with all 1.5 million of these people to see if they are in the majority, the fact remains that China Nation Report is incorrect to say that everyone's life has improved as a result. All of the people did not get an "upgrade" as living in a high rise is not always better than a hutong and its sense of shared community. I have visited these residences and can say that I could spend more than one day in such accommodation; quite comfortably actually.

Thanks, that was more or less what I was looking for. Unfortunately, you haven't convinced me that there was any coherent counter-narrative or counter-history presented. Yes, there is the absence of enemy-identification, one of the basic political acts. But wouldn't this only be appropriate for the Olympics, with its message of openness and togetherness? You suggested that there was a subversion of State ideology, which I would assume would involve the message that China is the world's new political and economic superpower-- that's something I would be interested in picking out of Zimou's "dense" spectacle.

I hope it's clear that what I am arguing is that you should make an effort to distinguish Zimou's work from the easy reading, which is that it was "just a spectacle," utterly WITHOUT message, designed to dazzle and overwhelm in an affirmation of China's power and greatness. This is the potential danger of leaving meanings -too- open-- the result could be that there is no meaning to be found, only eye-candy. [I am not saying my reading is the easy one, as I am not as familiar with Chinese iconography as you-- but I do think this is YOUR task, as a defender of the work.]

I like that you pinpoint the centrality of the scroll, and I wonder if you could push it further. Writing is the chief mode of recording history. Is Zimou really making a comment on China's self-historicization, and if so, what might that comment be? This interests me because of what I see as a reluctance to historicize the Cultural Revolution, which could amount to something like official amnesia. Is this scroll perhaps a "spectacularized" image of writing, one blown up to giant size and utterly divested of meaning-- standing in for the idea of history but in fact representing its total absence?

I also wonder if meaning might be found in Zimou's employment of dualities such as control/support. This is a very, very interesting dyad. The two terms are inextricable. One person holds the other up, keeps him from falling; this very act of aid is simultaneously one of control, because the suspended person was already in a compromised position. Very powerful formal device.

By Dave on August 26, 2008 8:20 PM

the author forgot to mention that there are still wide spead of corruption in China, Chinese still need to do a lot of learning from democratic countries like USA, where corruptions are pretty much invisible, or should I say, legallized. you hear terms like campain donation, congressional lobbyists... people who do these kind of things in China would be getting a bullet, while in USA, they are the ones who are actually calling the shots.

so China sill have a long way to go.

---------------------------------------

I get the sarcasm of this comment, but I’m gonna go ahead and elaborate on this point anyway.

WARNING: Another long post.

Corruption in China is as common as rainfall, and basically, just as legal. It has been this way since time immemorial. Chinese students are taught about famous [i]uncorrupt[/i] officials, largely because everybody else [i]was[/i] corrupt. But this has nothing to do with some flaw in the culture; in fact, it goes straight to the foundation.

One of the pillars of Chinese culture is called "guanxi." It's often translated as "relationships," but that's just wrong. "Guanxi" refers to the "pull" one person can have on another. For example, if I am your cousin, I have a certain amount of "pull" on you; you are actually [b]socially obligated[/b] to help me (or at least, pay attention to my request). If I do a favor for you, then I have earned a certain amount of guanxi; at some point in the future, you will have to pay me back by doing me a favor.

Family members automatically have guanxi with one another, regardless of whether two people even like one another. If I deny an important request from my cousin, that's considered a blow to the structure of the entire family. I'm not exaggerating; the basic idea is that a family sticks together, no matter what. Moreover, friends have guanxi with one another, as do students and teachers, as do coworkers. And the network is long and complex: for instance, I have a lot of guanxi with my mother's college roommate, quite a bit with her son, a little less with his friends, and then a lot more with their teachers (who are my coworkers). Juggling these social connections is a fact of Chinese life.

But the truth is, Chinese people sometimes don't like it either. Let's face it, at its worst, it's a tedious obligation. And in times of plenty, when an individual can succeed by himself (as now), you'll see younger Chinese people try to shake it off by striking out on their own. I am one of these young fools (or so my mother tells me).

But in bad times, guanxi is arguably what keeps people alive. For instance, during the disastrous Great Leap Forward, there was widespread famine. The central government wanted to hear that grain production was at an all-time high. Local officials (not just a few, but MOST of them) felt socially obligated to report that it was, even though it wasn't. Millions starved. A few local officials followed their job orders and then salvaged grain for their extended family members and friends - which arguably saved their lives. Chinese society dictated that these officials could not criticize the plan, for if they did, they would lose their jobs, and then how could they help those family members and friends? Now, would have it have been the morally correct thing for them to criticize the plan? Or would they have to acknowledge that the plan would continue, regardless of their opinion, and that they should try to keep a few friends alive? By analogy, is Oskar Schindler less of a hero for not openly denouncing the Nazis? Or is he more of one for making the practical choice of publicly playing along?

There are other similar ideas in Western culture. For example, the military follows a very strict hierarchy in order to maintain discipline and a clear chain-of-command. Grunts on the ground often complain about the decisions of men higher up. And officers may even privately agree with the grunts, but they have to publicly keep morale by disciplining the soldiers. Is this a violation of individual rights or the best overall strategy for the group? Perhaps the two are the same.

But really, the closest analogy to "guanxi" is not even human, but chemical and extremely common. The water molecule (H2O) is actually very unique for having something called "hydrogen bonds" - small bonds between the weak hydrogen atoms that bridge the gap from one molecule to another. Hydrogen bonds are incredibly weak when you look at them from one molecule to the next, but the sum of their effects changes the entire structure of water. They give water "surface tension," which is the quality that lets some insects walk on it. They also give water the strange property of freezing into a larger shape, so that ice floats atop water and allows marine life to continue even in winter. Guanxi is like those hydrogen bonds - seemingly small from person to person, but ultimately very influential on the society as a whole. You could say we owe human existence to those goddamn hydrogen bonds. And ordinary Chinese people would say that their civilization has lasted so long (5000 years) in part because of guanxi. Yes, it can corrupt when times are good, but when things are bad....

What Westerners describe as "corruption," then, is basically built into the system. To a certain degree, all Chinese officials try to help their friends and family while ignoring others. Taking bribes isn't really "taking bribes" but "accepting guanxi from someone else in the form of money." Do you see how this is corruption from one view, and common sense from another? If you benefit from it, you'll call it common sense; if you're screwed by it, well....

Now I'm a pretty vocal critic of the guanxi system today. But I have benefitted enormously from it. For example, I currently teach at a university, but guanxi got me to the interview stage. I'd like to think that I got the job due to some innate skill, but on sleepless nights, I have to admit I got it because I knew someone who knew someone who knew someone.

I know I'm a hypocrite for criticizing the system, but I still don't like it. Because "guanxi" is linked to your family, you are given a huge head start if you are born into a major city (where connections are numerous) than if you are born in the countryside (where you have only your small town). This is why Chinese people often ask one another which province they are from when they first meet. Hopefully, if you get lucky, the other person is from the same province as you, and you might have a common ground for building up guanxi. (This is also why Chinese communities are so well established around the world, because if you're both in South Africa, you're so far from home that you automatically have guanxi with any other Chinese person).

My father can be very critical of "guanxi" as well. But he left China on a student visa in the late 1980's. He was on a visa waiting list for a long time, and he eventually got bumped into the right slot because he knew somebody who knew somebody. He works for a big American company now, and he rather likes it. He claims that, though there are office politics everywhere, he doesn't have to deal with it as much in the U.S. as he does in China. He feels reasonably pleased that his hard work counts.

At the same time, though, he still has to keep up his guanxi with Chinese friends. After all, a Chinese friend got him out of China. Last year, my family went on a vacation reunion with my dad's college friends - many of them still in close touch with one another. My father had fallen out of touch, but he used the trip to renew a few relationships. Soon after, the American economy took a downturn, and my dad was afraid that even his big American company would lay off a hard worker like him. So he put a call into one of those old friends, who assured him that if anything happened, there would be a spot for him. My father hasn't taken the offer (I doubt he’ll lose his job anyway) but he likes to know that he has a backup in case his job goes south. Does that make him corrupt or human?

Criticizing corruption in mainland China is kind of a futile exercise because it has NOTHING to do with the government and everything to do with the culture. Consider that the most public corruption scandal is currently focused on the ex-president of Taiwan, which is a democratic country. Chen Shuibian is being investigated for some mysterious money that has appeared in his account, via his son-in-law. I daresay a good chunk of Chinese people have some money that came from their sons or daughters-in-law. I’m not even married, but I bet there’s money in my account that has mysterious origins. However, Chen is the highest public official in the land, so he must have clean hands, right? Nonsense. If we dug deep into the accounts of any Chinese official, we’d find the same thing. And not just money, but extramarital affairs, too: some Chinese people keep track of the rumored mistresses of various party officials. As a matter of fact, during the Closing Ceremony, a friend of mine gleefully pointed out every onstage face that had slept with or made donations to the leadership.

And as for shooting these corrupt people, the only reason that the Food Administration Official was shot last year was because it was considered a good publicity decision for the West. There was some yammering in the American press about the quality of Chinese imports, and the leadership felt it would be prudent to show the world that China makes an example of these things. Naturally, they shot the man. Which brought on a lot of yammering in its own right. Now, was the Chinese government at fault for shooting the man? Does the press bear responsibility for its coverage? In a Western context, that coverage would have led to a press conference; in China, it went to the firing squad. I consider it a colossal cultural misunderstanding that resulted in death. But the dead man was corrupt, so where does he rank on the scale of “oppressed victims?” Hell, where does he rank on the scale of “corrupt officials?” In my eyes, he was just a player in the system; he’ll be replaced by someone just as corrupt as him, but probably smarter at avoiding attention.

Quite simply, Chinese people tolerate corrupt officials. And Americans do the same. After all, if you’re from California, you might argue that the Senators from Iowa are corrupt for kicking back farm subsidies to their constituents. On the other hand, if you’re from Iowa....

I think denouncing something like Chinese corruption is a bit silly, not because it’s right or wrong, but because if you look at it closely, it’s connected to something far deeper. And well, it’s hard to say whether guanxi is right or wrong. Americans have a bit of it, too.

I mean, if you really want a sleepless night, consider this: “guanxi” is inherently selfish – you help other people because eventually they will help you, and together you will survive. “Capitalism,” too, is inherently selfish – the idea that each individual, working for his own interest, will somehow be guided by an invisible hand that will help everyone. Notice that these are essentially the same idea with different wordings and different ages: “guanxi” is older social capitalism, and “capitalism” is younger economic guanxi. Roger, when you said Chinese people are born capitalists, you were more correct than you think. But sooner or later, “capitalism” and “guanxi” will fuse globally (in fact, they already have in China) and then you’ll be left with a pure system of economic and social favors. Which means, in the long run, American politicians are more likely to become Chen Shuibian than the other way around.

@Richard Voza,

Just to provide my comments a few things in your comments.

Even in the United States, you need to get a permit before you can protest publicly. Or you will be arrested.

Secondly, there are a lot of story about the two olderly women. The story spread around chinese discussion forums suggested they have been protesting for at least a few months, in various ways, including using fireworks to minic gunshot around Zhong Nanhai. If it happens in US, the press will try to dig all the facts behind it; and a few brave reporters will win awards. But since this is a negative news about china, the western press just repeat what they were told.

After the ceremony the western media found the girls were lip-syncing. As a good chance to show how bad chinese government is, they invented the story of the singer is ugly, published it, and repeated it word by word. I did not see that report from a chinese source. Sorry. You should blame who write that story, not the chiense director.

So much negative reports on China, but they are all made-in-USA.

@Solomon Wakeling,

Good to know your true feelings. As a chinese, I do understand it. Now I just want to point out, most of the chinese still live in China; they are not yet overrun Sydney's public transportation yet.

Even with the risk of sounding like chinese government, I would like to point out the population problem in China was not being denied. It was picked up and a solution was in place 30 years ago. Namely, the one child policy, which has drew huge negativity in western media. As of 2008, the one child policy is still a legit reason for chinese citizens to apply for political asylum in US.

I just want to say that chinese is not managed by irresponsible leaders. The many issues surfaced now are already being discussed and (at least tried) solved a few times already. I do believe China still need to focus on its domestic problems though.

If you want to find government that is not acting in a responsible way in terms of managing population, you have to pick India. Although I have a lot of Indian friends and I love them, I still cannot see how the India population problem can be solved by their government. More cover-up will come later; but what if you find your continent full of Indians in 2050?

China is the new west, economically for sure. The Olympics were a display (politically based, as in every Olympics), of China's "coming out party." However, how can anyone dismiss the $100 million plus in military weapons that China has given to the "government" of Sudan to kill the people of Darfur? I don't care how wonderful the Olypmics looked; China is directly supporting a massive genocide in Sudan, Africa. GWBush called it "genocide" a few years ago and wanted to send in troops. C.Rice said no because Sudan is a muslim country and the U.S. has already invaded muslim territory (Iraq). How in the world can all of you praising China do so with such optimism when the "government" of China is directly involved in the torture and killings and displacement of millions of people in Sudan? Go to miafarrow.org for more information. See the documentary, "The Devil Came On Horseback" and read the book of the same name. China's government, like many governments, could care less about human rights and treats people horribly. Think the Dalai Lama has been lieing all these years and the people of Darfur are making stories up? How about the little boy in Darfur who just lost both arms, and half his face and one eye when his village was blown up by Russian airplanes then attacked by Sudan's Janjaweed, with military weapons provided by CHINA? How about the father of three in a village in Darfur who had his eyes gouged out and was left to die? Now his three little kids guide him around a IDP camp. How about all the women and girls who constantly suffer rape every single day by the Janjaweed, who are in existence because of support from China? And all for oil? Think China is so great now? Go to miafarrow.org.

@Richard R.

Your comments on chinese culture focus more on prosperity than domestic rights provokes a lot of thinking. Thank you.

However, I do not fully agree with you on that. If you look at the chinese history, every 200-300 years there will be a major war; an old empire is overthrown and a new one is established. Thousands or even millions of people will die during the course of the action.

In history China was not lack of heros who sacrifice life for their cause. Many times it was related to human rights. Why are they failed? They have not provided a full solution that will work. Instead, the revolution after revolution caused social development to stop and even regress. It is the problem, not the solution.

I believe what the chinese people today are asking for the government to be stable so that at the minimal they do not have to experience war or chaotic times any more.

In today's china, anti-government is a fashion just like Free Tibet in the West. However, the silent majority overwhelmingly supports the central government on the following issues:
* Keep china as one piece, keep Tibet as part of china.
* Allow gradual changes rather than sudden revolution in domestic rights

If you read the AP report on "human rights dissents" being arrested in China, you will see these are indeed Westerners going to china with one single purpose looking to be arrested. You should watch the youtube video that the regular chinese throw water bottles at these foreigners to show their disapprove. In the end, most chinese consider 1989/6/4 was caused by the West provoking the relation between the government and the students; and those student leaders have shown they are indeed ignorant of what they are doing in that year. There is another youtube video in which a French reporter asks a chinese man on the street what he thinks of 1989, the guy simply said, it was all your westerners provoked.

My conclusion is, educated chinese people love freedom, understand domestic rights will be respected in the future; but the majority do not want to see their country being controlled by the West. China sets its own pace for going to a democracy system of chinese flavour. As more people are better educated, more people will realize it.

For example, in 2002(or 2001?) the Chinese constitution was changed so that respect and protect private property is added in. Before that, even this basic idea is not even in the law. But today, the police is required by law to protect private property, as well as public property. This is a tiny little step in a westerner's eyes. It is a baby step toward the right direction.

In the current stage, China is still a very poor country. A very large portion of the entire population is still under the poverty line. We need to face the reality and first feed people and improve the standard of living. Domestic rights will come, in fact easily, when the whole sociaty develop into a higher stage. I do not see this as a cultural issue. I see this as a ecnomical issue.

So go back to your message. I do not think any west government is capable of managing a country with 1.4 billion people. Democracy in the West version may lead to inefficiencies and, quite contary to common belif, uncontrollable corruptions. Taiwan has a poster-child of adopting west democracy system. However, their formal president was just caught money laudury of a huge sum. It does not see their system can even bring the guy to justis.

So, it is important for the West to realize how different nations are and stop applying the values to chinese.

Why is it that all these post are postive, are all the negative posts deleted? Just wondering because almost all the posts are a paragraph or more long and seem to have a laid back attitude toward the Chinese government(Tibete ring a bell). I just feel like speaking my mind on this, which is why my post might be deleted.

Ebert: There are quite a few negative comments.

@ good day,

If Mia Farrow is your source of information you need to be careful that she is not angry about anything east Asian due to personal feelings on ex-boyfriend. Many of her allegations were proven to be wrong, as a matter of fact.

The West's wrath toward Chinese's involvement in Sudan is a mis-information to say at minimal. To start this, you have to realize it was it was CIA (as reported by Washington Post) who in 1996 DONATED $20 million worth of weapons to Sudan rebel so that they can continue with the civil war. US, not China, has close military relationship with the current Sudan government, even in 2005. (as reported by LA Times)

China, on the other hand, is doing business with Sudan. China never donated weapons to Sudan. It was all "small arm" trades and China won the contract due to whatever reason (price, quality, etc). China's total arms sales to developing countries is much less than those of the U.S. if you count the big picture. Certain low level weapons like bullets are no longer being manufactured by US. Could the weapon be used in civil war? Yes. But, to be fair, each country, including Sudan, needs to protect itself. The military needs weapon supply even there is no war. That is a normal purchase allowed by UN. You or I may not support that action, especially when there is a civil war going on. However, if Sudan government do not get it from the chinese, they will get it somewhere else, maybe slightly costlier.

According to:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/SIPRI_Backgrounder.pdf/
"In the period 2003–2007, Sudan received 87% of its major weapons from Russia and 8% from China. " It is not like China is even the main player in here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
"Human Rights First" claimed that over 90% of the light weapons currently being imported by Sudan and used in the conflict are from China[55]; however, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)'s "Arms Transfers Data for 2007", in 2003-2007, Sudan received 87 per cent of its major conventional weapons from Russia and 8 per cent from China.[56]

It is true China cooperate deeply with Sudan on oil. That is pure economic topic, though. By not developing the oil industry, Sudan can only be poorer. China argues foreign investment, not sanction, can only improve the situation in Sudan. I do not see a complete economic sanction is the solution here.

Lynn in Australia. I was referring to the China "one child" rule. I love all four of my children and can't imagine having stopped having children after number one. In Australia you are free to do what you want in the line of children and how many you want. Not so in China.

As a chinese lived most of her life in china, I want to point out that MR. Tony Zhou's interpretation of Director Zhang Yimou (both his movies and his artistic contribution of Olympic Opening Ceremony) is too exaggerated. The over-interpretation of symbols in this level is laughable. No wonder it is hard for the Westerners to get the truth of Asian culture and politics.

I think a lot of discussions out there (maybe not here) are carried on with no more supporting evidence than a question mark, or personal feelings, etc. We're not sure if Beijing will move the country forward after the games so I will err on the side of pessimism (with no research!) that they will/won't ...

I long for news pieces that report only facts, and then let the readers decide. Everyone is in a hurry to arrive at some position. I am Chinese (as well as a few other identities), and my position is still open. Frankly, I can’t grasp a subject of this magnitude. I am just going to let history unfold itself in front of me.

For example, how about news that 28 million primary school students will now go to school for free starting this year? Before anyone retort with, "What about all these other things that China does wrong ....?" Just slow down and take it as it is: a fact. You are still free to dislike that nation as much as before.

So I get a bit defensive because every night, Jay Leno cannot stop making snide remarks about how Chinese children are sent to labor camps. In both contemporary and ancient traditions, the Chinese place a premium on their "flesh and blood", their next generation. So much that societal atmosphere is driven by it. Primetime soap operas must carry a moral message (most of the time with a happy ending) where good people are rewarded and bad people get their just ends. It's mind-numbing boring IMO but TV stations get a flurry of public criticisms if this principle is not adhered, every night, or ratings take a dive. (Other Asian countries like Japan go even farther, they soaps are mind-freaking numbing goodness.)

I got carried away. Ask any Chinese person, immigrant, second-, or third-generation immigrant, or someone deep in that country, "would they send their kids to labor camp?" You are more likely to hear that parents sell their farm, work two jobs or take out a loan so that they can afford better schools and their kids may have a better future. It’s certainly in our culture.

Am I taking jokes too seriously? No, when a rhetoric is repeated often enough, it becomes common knowledge. In this case it is not justified. Even if you believe Mr. Leno, pounding the same jokes over and over again gets really old. I’m not happy that 1.3 billion people get smeared so that comedians can make it through another night.

Richard R:
I like your enthusiasm on these issues but there are quite a number of errors in your message. Not to discourage you but the biggest one pertains to Taiwan. The Taiwanese people do live under a government of their own choosing. They have had democratic elections since the 1990's. Most subjects you covered are google-able.

Roger, I find your comments, and others here, disturbing. The Olympics should never have come to China in the first place. This is a country which oppresses religious freedom, forces families to have one child, and there are many documented stories of brutal infanticide. To suggest that China has really impressed us with their "showbiz" would be like saying how impressive Hitler looks in an Armani suit and top hat. Have we so quickly forgotten what's behind the bright lights and fireworks?

In fairness, you point out that they have humans rights problems, but I feel you have glossed them over. China should never have hosted the Olympics; it was not a triumph, but a glaring compromise by the world community.

Have the Olympics ever NOT gone somewhere due to human rights concerns? I wouldn't argue that they're completely apolitical, but the actual selection of host countries does not seem primarily to be guided by how non-evil their governments are.

Some people like to mention Hitler and 1936 Olympics to 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Please consider those facts:
Hitler was voted to power in a Western society. His first step after voted to power was to kill communists.

Adam Bleser,

Your arguement is very well known in every piece of western media - TVs, newpapers, websites ...etc. I respect your effort here but you have not brought anything new rather than repeat the old arguement.

If you do have desire to discuss, my following eplaination may help you, otherwise, it would be waste of time again when people have fixed mindset and no desire to learn - this is what I encountered frequently when I have discussions with westerners on this.

China, as the same as every other countries, has many aspects - good looking ones and ugly looking ones.

When you talk about either the good looking ones,or the ugly ones, you are both telling the truth.

But when you only tell the ugly one, or only tell the good ones, you are not honest.

The media in western countries tell only ugly stories of China, although, most stories they told are true.

That is purposely brain washing people.

Chinese have many many issues need to concern. What you mentioned "human right issues" are part of the issues Chinese concern about but they are on very low priority list, not on top list.

Always be careful your attitude when you point fingers. What Chinese don't like is, morally, westerners have the worst human right records in human history, and are still the worst human right abusers in current world, what make them have a position point fingers to Chinese?

Well, I guess most westerners don't even know their history, or only know the nice looking side of western history.

To By Michael Mirasol on August 26, 2008 9:14 PM

I confirm the shrinking of number of shops that takes VISA in China. In fact I was working as a consultant for VISA (technical side) and I was shocked that compared with two years ago, VISA virtually disappeared from the shopping streets I frequent and where I had no problem paying by VISA merely two years ago. What I found is that a new Chinese "Bank's Union" took over all the credit card issuing business and is funded by all the Chinese banks. A great business move: why do you pay VISA when you know you can have all the Chinese banks together to form its own VISA! I told VISA about this, they had no answer:-)

Dear Tom Garcia, thanks for your advice.

yeah, I like children but it doesn't mean I only like my own children. To have more children isn't any part of the reasons I chose to stay here a bit longer.

The one-child policy is a need, a must to China as a responsible nation for the better being of the people, the rest of the world. As a Chinese, I feel responsible and happy to follow this policy if I am in China. To Australia, encouraging ppl to have more children is also a need. Australia is nice, China is nice, US is nice, and even Afganistan has its nice part, their people. Every country has its own starry part and painful lessons.

Dear M Mallett, I respect your right to comment but I feel so sorry on what you commented. So, no comment to you!

Sorry for this long plus:)

Again for the one-child policy.

Take myself for example again. If my parents gave birth more children, I couldn't imagine how hard we could be then. A family with one healthy and well-educated child is better than a camp full of starving illiterate members.(Here I shall take a note to non-Chinese commentors: Chinese characters are different from 26 letters in English. it normally takes 9 years to study full time to become literate) It had already once happened to my parents' generation, both of whom have 8 siblings when my grandparents were given complete freedom to the number of children. Several of my parents siblings starved to death in hard time, let alone good education. Lack of good education lead my parents once to struggle and suffer for many years when moving to Shangha from a small town at the beginning. Thanks to TV which partly compensated the classes they once missed, and thanks to their endevor.

Ok, education system. It is just about insufficient welfare, then we have to talk about population again. So, control the polulation!

The Tony Zhou message from 8/27 at 10:59 a.m. was by me!

Steve Rose:

How nice for you that your country is utterly incapable of ever doing anything morally questionable. Most countries, in my experience, are not like that. What a bright future we all have ahead of us.

I am not always the biggest fan of this news service, but I find this VBS report on Sudan very compelling. It matches Naomi Klein's arguments in "Shock Doctrine" that disasters, including genocides, are increasingly engineered for economic purposes. The argument below is that violence in Sudan can be linked to recent oil exploration-- it is a convenient, if barbaric, way to displace people from a given area that is to be surveyed and/or drilled.

http://www.vbs.tv/shows.php?show=570487902&source=sc

I am Chinese who lives in Beijing now, graduated from Peking University 10 years ago(That's why my boss, a New York guy, always calls me "trouble maker")
I am not intended to defend for my country, although you guys have criticized a lot. I just want to give you some thoughts, hope you could understand sometimes we must make some choices, although they may be really painful.
1. Birth controll.
First of all, I would like to present some figures, which comes from WIKI, not our Statistic Bureau. In 1949, the population of China was 550 million; in 1974, 900mn; in 1982, over 1 billion(noted that we started to adopt the birth controll policy in 1971), now, at least 1.3 billion. Please imagine the population number if we didn't do anything in 1971. We have strict policy about transforming farm land to construction land since we don't have extra land to feed all the people. The territory size of USA is bigger than ours, but you only have around 300mn people, right? If you have 1 billion people, could you still have the same life quality? do you really think there still will be enough jobs for these people? Will you still say "ok, we are open to everyone"?
BTW, It is Yinchu Ma who proposed this policy first, in 1960s, who was ever the president of my University, but the government rejected it at that time.
2. the "faked" Beijing, I admit that our government did a lot of things to make the city look "better", which even caused some troubles to the local residents, the transportation, shopping, even medical treatment(Some hospitals need to postpone some big surgeries because we need to keep the rare type blood for the potential injury of the foreign athletes). Believe it or not, it is kind of tradition to Chinese people, it is about "face", sort of reputation. If you guys ever visited a Chinese family, I am sure they will present you a clean house, and entertain you with the best things they have, for us, it is what a host should do. If you live in China, I think you could ask some ordinary persons how they feel if the foreigners could see the poverty or other things bad, and I am sure most of them will feel ashamed.
3. Tibet, I will not argue anything about this, because I don't need to.
My country is not perfect, and we still have a lot of things to improve. I do think the world is not as simple as black and white, everybody has his strong point, and weakness. I just hope we could understand each other more, then it is easier for us to communicate.
BTW, please stop to feel you know everything if you only saw some movies, if that were true, living in US would be really dangerous, considering the gun-shot, car chasing and all the other things

I enjoy reading all the comments about how the IOC should not have awarded China the Olympics. They all seem to be from a narrow America-centric point of view. Many Americans seem to forget that there are many different cultures in this world and most of them are very different than ours. It doesn't necessarily make one 'bad' while another is 'good.' Just different. But, different people will have different points of view, which also doesn't make one 'wrong' and another 'right.' Like movies, just because one is black and white and another is color doesn't make one bad and the other good. And just because I like "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" or "Waittress" and someone else despises them, doesn't mean that they are bad movies. Just that you don't like them. Different opinions, that's all.

Personally, I don't believe that many Chinese people feel oppressed because they are 'forced' to have one child. Their government has told them this and explained why. If they don't like it, then they can rebel against it and take their chances. As for religious freedom, it seems like most of the troubles are religious people coming into China with their own beliefs and trying to encourage other people to follow them, knowing full well that that is against the Chinese government's laws. If Americans would make an effort, M Mallett, to see things from outside your narrow point of view, you would have a better understanding of how other cultures thrive in this world.

Chad

I'm eager to enter the debate but eager to go to bed! I have read some of the posts above, but not all, so I hope I am not repeating ad nauseum a sentiment already posted.
I walked away from the Beijing Olympics with a similar feeling as you Mr. Ebert. My notion of "China" and what day to day life there is like was radically altered and complicated in so many ways. What struck me most, however -and I hope this message become a by-product of these games- is that consumer freedom does not equal democracy.
I was thinking about the jolt of seeing all these Beijing citizens walking around dressed exactly like me and my friends here in Canada, driving BMW's, Ford's and Buick's, drinking Starbuck's coffee and talking on their cellphones. Why was it such a shock? Because I equate all those consumer goods to Western society and Western society to democracy. Didn't Hershey Bars fall from the sky whenever "our" side pushed back communism or fascism during WWII, the Berlin Blockade? Didn't freedom mean being able to choose whether you wanted to be a punk rocker or a preppy kid?
Freedom and consumer goods. How could you possibly have one without the other? I see now how simple it is. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. In fact, maybe one keeps the other from developing not only abroad, but here.
It's what surprised me most about this new vision of China.
Now I am super sleepy and should go before I start rambling about bread and circuses or Michael Moore:)
Will come back and read some more of the posts when I am more well rested(and possibly be embarrassed by what I just wrote.) It is so rare to find such forums of intelligent debate online and I thank you for bringing us all together with your thoughtful criticism and analysis, Mr. Ebert:)

Many thanks to Mr. Zhou for his reading of the Opening Ceremonies and in particular for retelling of the story of how "Hero" should be seen.

However, no one in North America has seen "Hero" properly, for the Weinstein Bros. chopped 8 key minutes out of film, effectively reducing it to a series of fight scenes. The film is nearly incomprehensible in its narrative and the key historical aspects, which Zhou reads allegorically, are missing.

The film is a very pretty, but enormous spectacle of CGI with little investment in the characters and less in the key 'meta'-structural level, that is, in the telling of stories as the story itself, which Mr. Zhou has told us is the kernel of truth and deception.

I have not been able to see the full version of "Hero" and have tried in vain, in New York City, in Toronto and in Vancouver to locate a Region Zero, full-length, decently subtitled version of "Hero". I've given up. Just one more reason to curse Harvey Scissorhands and the supposed reverence of Tarantino who helped bring the film a wide audience--but only in a marred state.

I wonder how Mr. Zhou feels about "Red Sorghum", which is to me still Yimou Zhang's masterwork, a first film as important as Truffaut's "400 Blows". "Red Sorghum" closes with the central act of the 'century of humiliation', as Mr. Zhou puts it, the unspeakable cruelty of the Japanese invaders.

I was in China in 1987, when I was a teenager. I was shown Guangzhou's first escalator in the 5--star Swan Hotel, nothing in Beijing was more than 5 stories high and there were few trees, few cars and one million bicycles. The changes since then are unfathomable to me as the rate of change shows an acceleration exceeding all human history. Shanghai is the new world capital and the shift of technology and human migration and engineering projects of the last twenty years in China are the greatest change in human history. Yes, it comes at a price, as the documentaries "Manufactured Landscapes" and "Up the Yangtze" show.

But this change and rate of change is impossible to comprehend from an external perspective; hence we must suspend our critique, even as we would wish for basic freedoms to be had. Mr. Zhou is right--so much of the problem is the day-to-day ungovernability of so many people and projects. Only the very big and the very small cases can get notice.

But I will say one thing: until the giant portrait of Mao comes down from the entrance to the Forbidden City--surely the most weirdly empty glory-museum in the world--, until that poster which bizarrely combines reverence for a dictator with monarchial solitude comes down, China cannot make a symbolic advance. Mao already has his building in Ti'ananmen Square. His face needs to be removed from the gate where it surely does not belong. I'm not arguing one system is better or wronger than the other, but that the symbolism is crossed, and the country cannot befree until it has the courage to hang the most potent symbol in the right place, over his tomb, not the tomb of the monarchy.

Same world, Same dream. The correction is appreciated.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I knew it! Somehow, I have always felt that you're an anglophile. This is because a certain fondness always exudes from your reviews of English films, especially those classics that were adapted into film. Your revelation prompted me to go to Wikipedia and check out whether or not your name is included in the list of celebrities who are confirmed/alleged anglophiles. Unfortunately, that list had recently been trimmed down and all that remains are Hitler, Richard Lowenthal and Guy Mollet. There used to be a longer list which included the likes of Madonna, Hayao Miyazaki and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Frankly, I don't know what got over me to reveal my anglophilia. I believe it had something to do with Jim Emerson's blog about the difference between a cinephile and a cinemaniac. The standard that was set in that blog, by the way, reveals that I am actually an anglomaniac and not an anglophile. This is because my anglophilic activities are mostly confined to viewing BBC period productions (the most recent being the adaptations of Elizabeth Gaskell's "Cranford" and Flora Thompson's "Lark Rise to Candleford,") and writing pastime reviews at Amazon. Shallow pursuits these are compared to having a true and deep understanding of the English culture (such as what you have.)

Mr. Ebert, thanks for mentioning The London Underground and the omnibuses. I'll be sure to include these activities WHEN and IF I ever get to the U.K.. I've never even set foot on any of the European countries. Someday, though, I hope to do to the Coast to Coast Walk that was pioneered by Alfred Wainwright, and along the way visit the Lake District and other national parks, all the while reflecting on the poems of Wordsworth, and indulging in fish and chips. Two things that shouldn't go hand in hand, I know.

Alas, that is not to happen anytime soon, if ever! But I do have my imagination and some pictures from the Nat Geo magazine to feed it. I think it would be wonderful to have you, along with a party of film enthusiasts, anglophiles and anglomaniacs, for a day trip through the Yorkshire Dales. We could be like the Pickwick Club members in their meanderings through the countryside, muse about the adventures of James Herriot, wonder when "All Creatures Great and Small" will be remade into a movie, and discuss how to make such a movie work for today's restless generation without losing its soul and Britishness.

Then Mr. Ebert would turn to me and say, "Have you already seen "Kind Hearts and Coronets?""

In my nervousness, I reply, "Not yet, but I've seen "Colonel Blimp" through your Great Movies recommendation, and loved it."

________________________________________________

Today, I found this picture of you in the internet. The blog author was making a reference to "The Queen," and by some impish whim, decided to replace Dame Helen's face with yours. I'd say "Spivving!"

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/10/more_ebert.html

Which reminds me: With all due respect to Queen Elizabeth, I think she should knight you, Sir Roger.

Truly,
Robert
Taoyuan City, Taiwan

Ebert: Wainwright was a wonder. He not only walked all the fells in the Lake District, but produced a series of exquisite handbooks on each, reproducing his impeccable calligraphy (with right margins justified!) and his sketches. These are among the marvels of the book world, yet still relatively afforable, since you don't need a first edition; they went through several.

I am re-posting my questions to Tony Zhou, so that they do not get lost, and so that he can answer them. My original request to Tony was for him to clarify his claim that Zimou was offering a different narrative to the US's conception of China, and the traditional nationalism in China that situated that country against the rest of the world. Tony responded that Zimou's narrative was so dense that it was hard to pinpoint, but that for him it nonetheless represented an alternative. Here is my response, which I have edited slightly:

Thanks, that was more or less what I was looking for. Unfortunately, you haven't convinced me that there was any coherent counter-narrative or counter-history presented. Yes, there is the absence of enemy-identification (a basic political act). But wouldn't this only be appropriate for the Olympics, with its message of openness and togetherness? You suggested that there was a subversion of State ideology. Surely this ideology includes message that China is the world's new political and economic superpower. Is this really critiqued in Zimou's "dense" spectacle?

I hope it's clear that what I am arguing is that you should make an effort to distinguish Zimou's work from the easy reading, which is that it was "just a spectacle," utterly WITHOUT message, designed to dazzle and overwhelm in an affirmation of China's power and greatness. This is the potential danger of leaving meanings -too- open-- the result could be that there is no meaning to be found, only eye-candy. [I am not saying my reading is the easy one, as I am not as familiar with Chinese iconography as you-- but I do think this is YOUR task, as a defender of the work.]

That is, a "counter-narrative" would have a clear point to make, as it would be -countering- a different message, opposed to it. It would be harder to make that claim for a more "open" message-- unless that very open-endedness was, in itself, a way of countering the state and its attempt to make all meanings the same...?

I like that you pinpoint the centrality of the scroll, and I wonder if you could push it further. Writing is the chief mode of recording history. Is Zimou really making a comment on China's self-historicization, and if so, what might that comment be? This interests me because of what I see as a reluctance to historicize the Cultural Revolution, which could amount to something like official amnesia. Is this scroll perhaps a "spectacularized" image of writing, one blown up to giant size and utterly divested of meaning-- standing in for the idea of history but in fact representing its total absence?

I also wonder if meaning might be found in Zimou's employment of dualities such as control/support. This is a very, very interesting dyad. The two terms are inextricable. One person holds the other up, keeps him from falling; this very act of aid is simultaneously one of control, because the suspended person was already in a compromised position.

Roger, regarding your comment "but I also pictured tens of millions living in poverty and age-old conditions. I am sure there are indeed many millions living like that. But until fairly recent decades, almost all Chinese were living in poverty hardly conceivable to the West.," the numbers are still quite dramatic; China is on the verge of having a middle class of 300 million people - roughly equal to the entire population of the United States - but in a country of 1.4 billion people, that means over a billion people still live in poverty.

We all wondered about the meaning behind many of the opening routines. But what of the Chinese? Morphing London buses, dancers with umbrellas? Jimmy Page's wailing guitar... They must have wondered what that old man was doing.
They might have asked 'what was the meaning behind all this, to the inscrutable western mind???'

I wanted to thank Mr. Ebert as well as all the participants here for a very thoughtful and respectful discussion. Honestly I can't remember the last time I saw one of this level on the Internet (so often a cesspool of ugliness, hatred and ignorance), especially between different nationalities and cultures. I don't know if I ever have.

I don't have too much to add but I really felt these Olympic games in a lot of ways were inspiring and a needed breath of fresh air and hope, as is seeing such a positive discussion here. Issues still exist, yes, but I feel like these games definitely did more good than not. And so many people across the world learned something positive about one another, which is what it's all about.

The question with China is not whether the citizens of the country are like us, but whether the government of China allows its citizens to be just like us. This is why I believe it was a mistake for the citizens of China for the IOC to reward the city of Beijing with the Olympics. The Olympics allowed for the Chinese government to put its best foot forward, and to convince the world that they "are just like us." They did this by requiring protesters to recieve permits, projecting buildings onto giant screens, and closing factories and jobs to clear pollution and traffick from the city. So the question is who did the Olympics benefit. Perhaps the American and world citizens, who were allowed to understand the great country better. Definitely the Chinese government, who were able to build a house of semi-permanent cards to show the world they are just like us. However, were the Chinese citizens benefited by the ganes? I would sumbit that they were not. it is actually ethno-centricism that leads to the perspective that the Chinese citizens benefited because we understand them better. In other words, there better off because we know more about them. But are they free? The idea that the Chinese do not care to express themselves, or vote for political leaders, or our happy to be repressed in most forms of free speech is similar to the arguements in support of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. All the Olympic Games served to do was to bolster the strength of the Communist regime.

What a great discussion here. most people are exchanging their ideas than name calling. I just want to share an article written by Mr. Tony Blair.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970878870671131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

to steve rose,

here's a link to cnn's story about the opening ceremonies and the lip-syncing thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/olympic.ceremony.lip.synche.ap/index.html

it wasn't made in the usa, but it was reported here for sure.

I agree that China pulled off a great Olympic games. I agree that China today is a much better place than China 30 years ago. But I really think that neither of these things is something for which they should really pat themselves on the back. I visited China as a very young child with my family, and grew up knowing only the wonder of China's fantastic history. My mother learned to prepare Chinese cuisine while we lived in Taiwan, so Chinese food has always been my comfort food. It wasn't until adulthood that I learned of China's more troubling modern history. Tibet is still just inexcusable to me, and I cannot congratulate a society that allows so little freedom of the press and imprisons dissenters without trial or explanation. Neither do I find it particularly remarkable for a country of over a billion to be able to organize an athletic event, no matter how big. Yes, it might have been a debacle. Yes, the Chinese government refrained from imprisoning protesters. Avoiding a scandal when the world's eyes are glaring doesn't seem to be a great feat to me. I am not anti-China, but I refuse to be happy because a country with enormous human rights problems and unending corruption managed to pull off one three-week event. Hoping that China will improve but not patting them on the back for each small step is not being anti-China. Yes, they're better than they were, but just "less" unnecessary human suffering as opposed to none just doesn't cut it in my eyes. Here's hoping the U.S. can be a better example in the future, and that China will truly deserve our congrats before too long.

Here is an interesting point for those non-Chinese: many talked about China or Chinese government should be this or that. But it seems not many people care about what Chinese people think China or Chinese government should be. At least it seems not many people tried to find out.

A better thing to fake the Olympics than a terror attack. They have that on us and probably much more. To evade the clearly corporate media in America is to realize we have a lot of catching up to do. And to think we once had it...

@ Steve Rose. I am not sure I would describe my post as my "true feelings". I was trying to define precisely the cause of conflict and hostility to China within my country, and I certainly don't think that it has anything to do with human rights or ideological differences; this is just the politically correct expression with which it is given form in the press and the political sphere. I do hear anti-Asian comments occasionally, but most of those who make them are not articulate enough to provide a reason, except "Bloody Asians." If they do the complaint is generally that it is difficult to communicate, not solely for language problems, but because of a lack of common culture. The most common response in Australia to Asians is to ignore them. They are the invisible people.

I have many feelings towards China, the most prominent is simply acceptance. It exists, as it should, and if it spills over into my country then we're better for it. My relation towards others is more child-like; I try and ignore racial or religious differences and treat people according to what they present to me. A Muslim girl attempted to hug me today, I think, and I declined always having been taught that Muslim women are not permitted to touch men other than their husbands, thinking the gesture must have meant something else. I think I was wrong. It is odd to watch my soul's pantomime unfold; she has a face like an angel, the virgin Mary. A law student - articulate, precise, compassionate, soulful.

I live in communal housing and we had some problems with the fridge in the common room. I helped the Chinese student who lives near me, a damsel in distress, by calling for help, and she thanked me by giving me an orange. This was actually the second time I have been given a piece of fruit; the first time was in Paris by a Chinese woman who seemed to think that because we were staying in the same dormitory that politeness dictate that she feed me; an orange, or whatever it was, was all I agreed to accept. It's cute, really, if somewhat baffling.

Most Chinese in Australia, of course, are naturalised to the extent that such a process has meaning (and is reasonable) and so I notice a distinct difference between them and international students. Working in immigration if someone calls in and their country of origin is "China" I don't automatically assume they are applying for a protection visa (or are on a protection visa), as I might with a country like Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq. There have, of course, been Chinese in Australia since the gold rush. Chinese proper, that is, people who live under and are influenced by China to the exclusion of any other place, are more rare.

But still the same girl who gave me the orange raised the issue of Tibet with me, after it was on the news. I thought perhaps it was impolite to get into a political discussion, but I was probably mistaken. The truth is I have never met a Chinese communist. It is difficult to believe that the ideologues presented in Communist propaganda exist. I would have to go to China, see how people are really living. Human Rights is one prism through which we look at the world; that it tells only part of the story is something which I take for granted. Perhaps I am lucky to have been brought up in a time which my education allows me to take such a broader view, and I am not presented with "Yellow hordes" or the "Red menace".

The desire for prosperity, once realized, as seems to be the case in China very soon, will give way to the desire for political freedom as was the case in South Korea, which until the late 80's was ruled by a military dictatorship, and free speech was just an "academic theory". With expanding economic prosperity came the desire to have its voice heard in government, and the middle class and university students were instrumental in bringing about this change. Having said this, I must disagree that the Chinese are not interested in political freedom, they will be, sooner than we think, whether they like it or not, and this will create chaos and confusion in the short term.

Also, I must agree with the comment that Zhang's HERO has been over-analyzed. More surprising was the fact that the original comment was made by a Chinese. I would understand if an American or European had made that comment, since there still does exist a notion of the exotic Orientalism. Movies from Asia are routinely over-analyzed and poked, when all it actually tries to show is pretty visuals and Western influenced narrative.

Solomon, your most recent post belies your claim that "My relation towards others is more child-like; I try and ignore racial or religious differences and treat people according to what they present to me," because you spend the rest of your message revealing your hypersensitivity to racial difference in your country.

It is a fantasy, uttered by many white Americans, to be "color-blind." The very utterance itself contradicts the claim. Were one truly oblivious to race (and incidentally, children are not either) it would not even occur to one to mention it. Race, along with other markers of ethnic difference, are powerful things, and it is better to face our awareness of them head-on.

I have been thinking about these issues a great deal lately watching the Democratic National Convention, and in particular Obama's speech last night. The DNC has tried mightily to play down Obama's minority status, but not for the reasons that people think. The reason it is so important to Obama that he not present himself as The Black Candidate is that he views himself, rightly, as BIRACIAL-- a concept which the white-dominated American media barely comprehends.

It is my view that biraciality as a category and a potentiality is responsible for much of the racism on our planet. To intuit racial difference is to understand implicitly that races can mix, and that racial borders can fall away in the most material and biological manner possible. This is the quiet radicality of Obama's message, which he need not speak but is right there in his appearance, if we only care to see it.

Mr. Ebert, loved this article, love the blog even more, especially Tony Zhou's comments.

I dont have anything intelligent or insightful to say. But I did go to China on a business trip this year: 2 weeks in Beijing and 1 week in Shanghai.

It was nothing like I thought (cold, communist country). Well, it was cold (January) but it was every bit as hustling bustling as New York (grant it was only in the cities) and the economy and entrepreneurship was equal to what I've seen in India.

I was very pleasantly surprised to have visited the country, would recommend it to everyone given the opportunity, and would suggest people to not pass judgment on something that's different or something one doesn't understand.

On a different note, oddly, I found myself unsettled a bit when people began literally fearing the smog, pollution, haze of Beijing. I was surprised at my reaction to these reports.

later

Hello to Daniel Quiles on August 29, 2008 11:12 AM,

The DNC was right to play down Obama's minority status. But I think the primary message that they wished to get across is that the ability to lead and effect good governance really have nothing to do with one's color. As such, any issue on raciality (black, white or mixed) is actually contradictive to the platform. To touch on this issue, at its worst, will only feed the racist ego of people who know no better.

The Obama tenure will be unprecedented. What he needs to do is get America out of the rubble (the trillions spent on war should also wisely be diverted to developing earth-friendly means of energy.) That should be the lynchpin of his presidential term. Easier said than done, I know. But if he does, he would not only have saved America from impending disgrace, but also dealt a blow to the tags that people put behind colors. Here's looking to Obama.

Best regards,
Robert
Taoyuan City, Taiwan

Roger,

You seem surprised at how much you can learn from blogging. I have spoken with a few people who write professionally and they all seem to know in an abstract way that thousands of people have read their work but it seems very difficult to truly comprehend it.

You have had a one way conversation with many of us for decades and now we have a forum to make it a two conversation.

I hope it in some ways repays what you have given us by sharing your own life.

@ Daniel Quiles, I am not colour-blind. I notice differences but don't draw attention to them unless such differences are raised by the subject. It is a studied manner, deliberate and self-conscious, yet from time to time I am drawn into a blissful unselfconsciousness and only later see that I have departed from a norm. My relation to others moment by moment is different from my mind in a state of rest. Obliviousness is my aspiration, seldom achieved with any ease.

I think I was raised to be conscious of difference and to celebrate it (just as some are raised to be conscious of difference and to hate it), and I think I have departed from this (or long to depart from this), as something imposed upon me, and so to mark it as 'child-like' is perhaps simply to single out the contrived nature of 'celebrating diversity', the heavy axiom on which my education was based. My rebellion probably isn't any more natural. Still I think children notice racial differences but I don't know that it matters to them, unless they are taught that it matters, or unless they are trying to hurt and tease for other motivations.

It doesn't, doesn't matter to me. As a rule I treat everyone as an individual, according to how they present, taking everyone so far as possible at face value. I don't care. I don't want to care. I am bored, mind-numbingly bored, by racism and racial 'hyper-sensitivity' as you put it. I feel I am taught to think this way, to factor it into my calculations, my thoughts, and I don't want to.

I find I cannot force myself to celebrate or condemn China. It is not a good or an evil country, it is just a country. My horizons have darkened a little in recent years and I am conscious that there are elements to it which are unhappy and unfriendly, but it is difficult to detach myself from the basic normalisation of China's place in my world.

I don't want to spend any more time informing other people how normal they are; most people are strangers to me, sometimes exotic, just as I am to them. My sympathy is usually with the non-conformists anyway, and always has been. I enjoy the obscure and esoteric. I don't want others to be hyper-conscious of difference, as if it were a sin, as if there were some normative standard from which they depart. I don't set any standards for anyone else; I expect them to determine their lives and define their relationship to the world for themselves.

At first I was uncdecided about Obama because he had never said anything that I had heard suggesting any depth. In a superficial way I thought him superficial. Now I like him because he is relaxed and has a sense of style, a kind of "I could walk out of here at any moment and it wouldn't phase me" attitude to politics.

I think constantly about the fact that he is black (or bi-racial) only because it is endlessly raised by his supporters and detractors and because I have been taught that America is a racist country, that this is an issue, that he is 'making history'. I don't want to think about these things, or need to, but it is always there. I don't want him to win because it would be an affirmation of racial harmony. I want him to win because he doesn't want to wage war and murder with the carelessness and impunity of the Republican party.

It did occur to me that a dark-skinned male might be useful in combating Anti-Americanism in the wider world, but this is a rather bleak advantage, and certainly has no relevance to me personally, loving and hating America in its composite parts, on merit or whim. Turning my eye to Obama I would want to divide him further into positives and negatives, the usual range of good, bad and transcendent that exists in the life of an individual. Mostly I pay about as much attention to him as Presidential candidate as I do to any other individual, listening to him only if I think what he has to say has any intrinsic worth. I don't feel it any more incumbent upon me to listen to him than to look at the moon (how lovely and exciting that there is a moon, when there might not have been.)

It is standard practice in Australian politics and polemic to take an abnormal interest in minorities and their performance, in order to undermine the studied blindness of affirmative action and to tacitly endorse racial prejudice. It can give a narrow competitive edge. The master of this was former Prime Minister Howard, who took it to the absurd extreme of stating that if he were running Al Qaeda, he would want a Democratic party victory, especially an Obama victory. I knew when he said this how dangerous this man was, and how necessary it was to remove him from office. Obama's response was that Howard's support for the Republican's war is strong on rhetoric but not on practical assistance, which is correct. What America wants most from Australia are human beings which it might allow to be killed in lieu of its own soldiers, to ease the unpopularity of the war on the home front, and so prolong it as long as it is convenient to do so (whether to lengthen or end it, it scarcely matters to the dead soldier). That American lives are worth the same as Australian lives is something I believe and don't question; neither is more dear to me and I feel no paternalism or national preference for one class of soldiers over another. I am pro-American to the extent that America gives me an opportunity to be Pro-American. Yet if I were ever personally called upon to go to war, another country's war, my response would be: over my dead body.

Howard was eloquent rarely but he had a fine moment after he left office where he said that some in Australia feel that we should be 'equidistant' between China and America, but that our real ties were with America (a democracy which shares our fetishisms, especially for the conservatives). I am happier to be equidistant, to have America whisper in one ear and China in the other. China doesn't want to saddle me with a gun, take my youth and heart away from me, teach me to kill. China would never think to ask that of me. The country most likely to abduct me or endanger my life is the USA.

That a non-white President might mean something more to a non-white person than it does to me seems entirely plausible to me, but it is something on which I am not competent to comment.

In Baldwin's "Another Country" there is a passage where the Italian character pleads with his black lover for them to get over the hyper-sensitivity, to forget it, and this is also what I want. It is something that I accept that I do not understand, and that I don't have the right to make any demands or judgements about it, but I think I am entitled to express my longings. I raise these issues only out of a desire to defeat and banish them - in the search for a diagnosis and finally a cure. Perhaps it is preferable to maintain a stony silence on these points, to, as you say, simply not mention them at all.

Learning recently that Roger Ebert's wife is not only a lawyer but a ~~*BLACK*~~ lawyer, my affirmative action training wanted to praise him, to underline it, to remark how wonderful and normal and unremarkable it is. I disciplined myself and decided not to mention it. A man with Ebert's intelligence marries for love and it is love alone that should be underlined.

From his review of Manhattan:

"Seeing them together on screen, I was struck by how unconcealable she is, how her presence is such an inescapable fact; in social situations, Isaac tends to take cover, to hide behind his wit, to make guerrilla raids on conversations, and this girl at his side makes him so visible."

It's great to see someone such as yourself writing about China with such an open mind. I think what we in the West have seen are one-sided media portayals and old movies from China / 5th Generation movies about poverty and the past, and seem to think that's China today. I wish more audiences (and especially film critics) would pay more attention to other filmmakers who are popular and tell modern tales and shoot films for the Chinese audiences first, festivals second. Before I moved to China, I only knew of Zhang Yimou with his films like "Raise the Red Lantern", now in China, I've seen so many other films by fantastic next generation of filmmakers.
I recently saw a funny and touching romantic comedy called "Waiting Alone" which has the quality of top Hollywood films -- it even had a cameo with Chow Yun-Fat; I saw a fun low-budget action comedy "Crazy Rock", these films (just to name a couple) are very popular with young people in China, yet film critics in the West don't pay much attention to these directors. These films have won awards, yet big festivals only pay attention to the same few names.
I won't deny Zhang Yimou's opening ceremony was spectacular, but Zhang as a film director, I've come to see, isn't as popular in China as his films are in the west. I hope your enthusiasm can translate to reviewing some modern day-themed films from China for your readers, and perhaps in this way contribute more to this cultural exchange!

Luf,

I appreciate your response to my comment but would argue it doesn't have much relation to my points and the context in which they were given (my first being a qualification of some of Mr. Ebert's comments; and my second being in relation to conflicting comments by China Nation Report and Jeff).

Reading my original comment (this will mark my third) you would find that I actually have a deep seated respect for Chinese culture and especially its people. Too often I find Chinese netizens hiding behind a veil of "the West is attacking us" than an actual willingness to be open themselves. I would, however, agree with you that negativity towards China does exist in the Western media (though there are a lot of Western journalists who sincerely practice objectivity and have spent years in China trying to understand the culture). Unfortunately, with the growing interest in China a number of journalists - without intimate knowledge on China, its history, and its people - produce biased, misinformed pieces.

I don't think, however, that China is alone in being exposed to critical pieces of Journalism. The United States, due to its actions in Iraq and elsewhere have come under increasing security in international circles (rightfully so). The main difference here is that American citizens do not spend hours on end accusing journalists of conspiring to attack it in a negative manner. They actual welcome the criticism and behave more openly to it. (Though I will concede that no one likes to have their home country criticized by an outsider).

I do understand some of the history of China and of my own and will wholeheartedly agree with you that Western countries have caused a lot of harm around the world (far, far more than China). It is also to this end that the Chinese feel skeptical of the same people who orchestrated the Opium wars and laid claims to Hong Kong, Shanghai, Macau, and Qingdao.

Human rights are not a top priority at present, but they are still important - particularly to the 700 million rural residents who are increasingly being left behind. In a one-party system where people who are harmed by government have little legal recourse, it is important for someone to stand up and assist. It is also important that China honor its promise of upholding human rights as stated in UN Declaration on Human Rights to which China is a signatory. I would also be very open to hearing more about the Western human rights abuses (some of which I'm already privy to) that make the West, as you call it, "the worst human rights abusers in the current world". A few facts or citations would be handy here...

China is such a major force today and its actions affect the rest of the world; it is for this reason that the western media places such attention on China.

Again, I love China (and I do not use the word love lightly here). I fear, however, your comments towards me were generic and not very helpful. I would be very willing to hear some more, however, if you would like to continue to dialogue. My email is above.

Adam Bleser,

Thanks for the response. That is part of the reason I like Roger’s blog – at least people can talk, not calling each other names. I mean, if you go to most of the public forums in the US and point out the US’s wrong doing, you will attract the rains of name callings from Americans.

Adam, I don’t know how you draw a conclusion that “The main difference here is that American citizens do not spend hours on end accusing journalists of conspiring to attack it in a negative manner.” As far as I read in internet, American netizens behave exactly the same as any other nations. There were “wars” in internet that Americans fought with “foreigner” who accused America on that war to Iraq. I live in Canada; I myself watched the attacks, even threatening, from Americans to Canadians when Canadian government refused to participate the war to Iraq.

Now you tell me Americans do not … Or, you just selectively forget something?

It is also interesting you told me that you “actual welcome the criticism and behave more openly to it.”, in the end of your this post, you tell me “your comments towards me were generic and not very helpful”.

How an open minded Adam accuses a discussion post “generic and not very helpful”?

It seems to me this is typical of hypercritical that you describe yourself as open minded but actual refuse any critics and refuse to learn anything different from your fixed mind.

You don’t need lecture anyone in this world that freedom is important. Everyone knows that. But the issue is, when you point fingers to someone else, the first thing you need to do is, make sure your finger is not too dirty.

As I pointed to you that your comment sounds exact the same in American main stream media, nothing new. It seems to me that all of your comments here are nothing but from watching your TVs. I could be wrong but you may need to understand that my comments are from a Chinese who lived in America and living in Canada. You may not keep a defensive attitude towards a friendly reminder, and you may not need to emphasis I am a “Chinese”. Normally, Chinese are not too stupid to understand what you want to say, and normally Chinese know this world better than you because Chinese media do not brain wash as much as American’s – I know you are not going to believe it, but I still have to tell you the truth.

You have to be very careful when you talk about “human right”, because America is the worst and still one of the worst human right abusers in the world.

Don’t believe it? Well, check human history, see which country, nation has ever wipe out entire nation and setup a country on top of these died bodies – America, Canada, Australia. Who else? I can only name these 3.

Which nation keeps slavery regime in recent few hundred human history? America. I can only name one.

Which country has their citizens in many different classes and the low classes have no right to have properties, no right to vote, no right to go to normal schools …? America. I can only name one.

Which country still treats their former slaves, the blacks, and former nations, the native as second class citizens? America.

Which country still invades other countries without a legal reason but just want to grab their oil resources? America in Iraq.

Who sponsors and trains the terriosts such as Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein? America.

Whose army kills millions of Afghanis including many children? America.

Adam, I am glade you love human right so much, I hope you could become a human right fighter, a real one, not a one who only points fingers to other countries. Go ahead, Adam, go fix your country’s wrong doing, stop your country from human right abuses. you have very heavy work to do.

I just wanted to point out to the people saying how much of China's population is still in poverty that yes, the majority of China's population is still in poverty. If however the standard of living and income of the average Chinese was equal to the US or Europe, the GDP of China would roughly be equivalent to (North American + Europe) X 2. You probably never thought about that, but if China were to reach that point, they would be the sole superpower on this planet, with the ENTIRE EU a distant distant distant second. Thats the kind of economic power it will require to put 1/5th of this planets population to where the West is. It just tells me that a majority of Westerners has absolutely no idea how vast the population of China really is.

Dear Mr Ebert,
I think USA is a very BAD LOSER at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
It refused to acknowledge that China is No.1 beating the USA to second place in the Olympics.
China won 51 GOLD medals vs USA with only 36 gold medals.
Biased USA media put it as top in ranking, by putting a dishonest spin counting total medals instead of ranking by Gold medals. This is a stupid way of ranking. Do you think a Silver medal or a Bronze medal is equal to a Gold medal? If Phelps had won 8 Bronze medals, does it make him the best swimmer in the world? I guess only the biased and racially prejudiced people of the USA can say this kind of lies and untruth to the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world put USA as No.1, WE all say China is the TRUE No.1 at the Beijing Olympics, and USA is a VERY BAD LOSER at No.2.
If you USA people really want to count total medals as the yardstick, fine. Medals have different values and weightage as we all know, except USAers who are so poor in mathematics.
You are the laughing stock of the world and the International Community.
Let's make it simple for you USAers:
1 Gold medal = 2 Silver medals = 4 Bronze medals.
Even a elementary school pupil can tell you that China is the No.1 Champion of the 2008 Olympic Games beating the USA to distant second place ranking.
Come on USA, be more sporting. You must earn the respect of the rest of the world.

to Tony Zhou

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your coments. Thanks

I wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" to Roger for his post and to all those posting comments, particularly Tony Zhou. I was moved while reading all the posts, from beginning to end.

As an American living in Asia for 15 years, I've come to see the world, it's peoples and cultures as an opportunity to understand what I don't know rather than what I do know. My experiences here in Asia have helped loosen the shackles of nationality, religion, gender, orientation, class, education and all those myriad of ways we define ourselves and others to either embrace or distance ourselves. Like a thought-provoking movie, Tony Zhou's comments made me think anew about something I could have just as easily dismissed as another Olympic spectacle. His insights helped loosen those shackles a bit more, all without condemnation of anyone.

From Roger's post and the ensuing discussions, I am encouraged that we can each learn to release the absolute, two-dimensional, static images we have of the world around us and learn to see people, countries and issues as an outgrowth of the universal desire to escape the undesirable for something better. I've read Roger's reviews for years, mostly because his human and thoughtful perspective on movies give me something to consider before, during and after the experience of seeing the movie. Now, Tony's comments make me see I can be more open to any performance or form of expression, even war.

If readers take anything from these discussions, I hope it's that our perceptions of others says more about us, than it does about those we are judging and that our perceptions are always ripe for review and change.

To Tony Zhou,
You are a star here:) which uni are you teaching? or which city?

What a stark contrast from just this single blog post (along with some of the well written comments) to the numerous bad press China has received up to and the end of the Olympics. Roger (Ebert), it's not because that you're smarter than most people that you finally have a new understanding about China. It's because you took the time to allow yourself to be open to understanding. Yet this is cliche to compliment the results of having an open mind, but it is definitely refreshing to see that such a thing can exist in all the east and west political fodder (amongst all the other foreign policy BS) that dominates our airwaves these days.

I was born in Taiwan, but I always say I'm Chinese. After all, the two generations before people like me are all most likely from the mainland and not to mention we're culturally the same. So naturally there is a sense of nationalism, pride, joy, and tears when I watched the Olympics last month. However, the previously said bad press China received has further fueled my disdain for this country's ideological beliefs. But your post has inspired me to take another minute to allow myself to be open to further understanding; from both sides of the "narrative" (thank you, Tony Zhou).

Regardless of anything though, the purpose of the Olympics is to bring people from all over the world together so we can better understand each other. This blog post and the conversations in these comments are the results of that.

I had been away on holiday (round the Greek Islands, in one of which, namely Leros, I left my heart), and had sporadic access to the internet so I am catching up on all the posts here and at Scanners, but I must say that this here was one remarkable post, complemented by some incredibly insightful, passionate, and inspirational comments. I tip my hat at the truly international and intelligent forum that Mr Ebert's journal has become.

(I just wanted to say that before the CERN experiment went awry, and the whole world just collapsed in on itself.)

Half a year later, we've found out the following about those who applications for protest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003725.html?hpid=topnews

"In the end, official reports show, China never approved a single protest application"

"Some would-be applicants were taken away by force by security officials and held in hotels to prevent them from filing the paperwork. Others were scared away by warnings that they could face "difficulties" if they went through with their applications."

"Only 77 applications were officially filed. Even so, all but three were subsequently withdrawn, the state-run New China News Agency said, after authorities "satisfactorily addressed" petitioners' concerns. Of the rest, two were rejected because the applicants did not provide adequate information, and the last because it violated China's laws on demonstrations. "

"Since the Games in August, the situation for the Chinese citizens who had tried to apply for the Olympics permits has worsened, and some of the more outspoken applicants, such as Ji, have been harassed or detained. "