Have Your Own Say

Although lauded by British film critics and winning Golden Globes for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Director, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was so much a "crashing bore" to the Guardian columnist, Charlotte Raven that she even walked out early. Her emotive review has drawn controversy, criticism and for many Chinese readers, caused offence. Read readers comments.

25 January 2001

Readers Comments

Bigotry and Cultural Insensitivity
I agree with your criticism of the review. I would like to register my vote in support of your view (in the poll).

I also agree with Amanda Lawrence's assessment of its political content, in terms of feminist issues. However, the two debates are essentially separate, since Raven doesn't touch upon the political issues at all. I've enclosed below a copy of my email to the G2 editor, with slightly longer analysis below.

Letter to G2 editor:

While Charlotte Raven is obviously not being consciously racist, the article does remain offensive. Below the veneer of a critique of the audiences, she demonstrates a lack of appreciation for cultural difference.

The film, as I understand it, is based upon a traditional Chinese myth. If you were to produce a similar film which closely followed a European fairy tale, would a Chinese person necessarily understand the use of giants, dragons, bears and trolls? The symbolism which adds depth to a tale may be lost in the viewing in the situ of a different culture. Raven reduces the whole complexity of the film to "In both cases, the morality is that it's better to be good than bad. A great lesson for a 10-year-old, but hardly for a grown-up audience." But without understanding all the various cultural references, how can we judge it so simply. Further more, the 'top' minds of political philosophy currently make a living by asserting exactly the same thing. Are grown-ups not to learn anything from them either?

As I watched the film, I was irritated by those to the side of me who laughed and joked about the infeasible flying sequences all the way through the film. I assume that they considered that the stunts were simply supposed to portray feats of physical strength. Do you hear the same laughter with the use of flying and object manipulation when watching Star Wars? Not in the same way. There the use of the 'force' is made overt for western cinemas. Because of my acquaintance with the stories of 'super-human' feats that surround the study of certain martial arts, the use of the hidden wires was perfectly intelligible, and appropriate.

Raven's review is not so crude as to take the piss out of the use of wires, but she is operating in the same area. Because she does not understand the references and imagery, then the film is meaningless and trivial. Woodnesses of acting is sometimes the best way to bring out the meaning of a film. As to whether or not the acting was wooden, well, I didn't notice it as such, but then I'm not highly trained in spotting such things. However, to go from criticizing woodeness, to saying that the film is meaningless and trivial is a very large step.
She should just admit that the film was not her 'cup of tea', and not try to say that since she didn't like it then it must be pointless. To not be able to understand the meaning of a film is acceptable, but to say it is meaningless because you didn't isn't acceptable. It also smacks of bigotry and cultural insensitivity, which is very close to racism. Being honest and humble may not sell papers, but if that is what you are concerned with, then don't pretend to also have principles.

Cheers
Chris Lowe

Charlotte Raven: making waves
As a Guardian reader my attention was drawn to the Charlotte Raven
controversy by Guardian Reader's Editor Ian Mayes Saturday column today,
which helpfully sign-posted me to your site and the comments from other
readers and yourself.

It's to the Guardian's credit that Ian Mayes involved himself in this
affair at the first opportunity and allowed those of us who did not look
too closely at the original Raven article, to participate.

I do support of course the perspective voiced by yourself; for the record I
have thought of Charlotte Raven as being currently more concerned about
making waves on her own behalf, rather than making any serious journalistic
contribution. Such is youthful ambition. That's why I did not read her
article too closely.

It was time for her to be taken down a peg or two.

Having said that, it is never going to be easy to avoid charges either of
being politically correct and/or of paternalism or worse when discussing
inter-cultural or racial issues.

I thought your response was nicely balanced, given the circumstances. And I
have furthered my own education.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Thomson
Brussels.

Get Off Your High Horse and Explain Things
Come off it. Raven (a columnist with strong opinions, not a film reviewer as such) didn't like Crouching Tiger. (She also didn't like several other movies, from non-British cultures, that lots of people thought were great.) She thought it pretentious and the acting wooden. Her use of inscrutably in this particular context was funny: it turned the cliché around, suggesting that in this case the stereotypic inscrutability is simply wooden acting. That's a perfectly tenable position. The context makes it obvious that she is familiar with and does NOT accept the cliché.
I grew up in the United States, and I know first-hand how irksome certain words and attitudes towards ones different background can become (touchy-feely, litigious, fat, imperialist, PC, greedy, self-righteous, bigoted). But really, if one can't just ignore it (if the situation doesn't permit, or the person seems ineducable) the sensible response is to address the issue: the meaning of this particular kind of behaviour is not the same inside the culture as it is seen from outside; each of us is an individual person, not a culture; national history bears on individual history  or whatever.

If you want to argue against Ravens position  say, that actors faces, or perhaps Chinese faces in general, are inscrutable only to those who don't know what clues to look for then you are free to point out the clues that an uninitiated Westerner might miss (one of your commentators made a start, with "its in the eyes"). Movies, like other arts, offer insights into the experience of others, but we all need help interpreting them: hence movie reviewers. So why not ask Jack Tan to educate his non-Chinese readers by offering a review to the Guardian? I'd love to see it. When I finally get to see the movie, I don't expect that its meanings and implications and techniques will be crystal clear to me, both because I'm not a film buff and because I don't know Chinese culture. There are probably many others who would also benefit from some explanation.

If, instead of explaining, you just get on your high horse and gripe about racism and feeling offended, one is tempted to conclude that you don't want non-Chinese people to understand these things. But that would be racist.

Best wishes. I hope to see a more educational review in the Guardian.

Suzanne Miller

I did not realise that 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' had been categorised as an 'artsy' movie. Clearly, Charlotte had gone to see the movie with great expectations, highly prejudiced by what she heard or read in other reviews of 'Crouching Tiger'. This indicates a lack of objectiveness and open-mindedness on her part. I would like to know how many Chinese movies (not to mention martial-arts films) she has seen and enjoyed.

Charlotte is entitled to her opinion, however had she seen the movie from start to finish, perhaps her review would have had more credibility. As things stand, her criticism is consequently a little mindless. Having seen 'Crouching Tiger' in its entirety, 'wooden drama' does not even come into the picture (particularly in the latter half of the movie). I am only sorry that Charlotte was not professional enough as a film critic to wait at least until the movie's end before speaking.

Lac-Hong Phi

Smiley Faces Poisoned Hearts
Charlotte needs to get her reviews printed and Ian need to sell newspapers! Note the tabloid style of review (and the admission that it was after a session in the pub).

Racists come in all guises. Some are upfront and in your face. Others come with a smile and carry on smiling when they stab you in the back. When you protest, they say they do not mean any harm and therefore they are not causing any harm. Anyone who feels hurt must have an oversensitive skin. How about - why is there such a reaction?

RLMC

Crouching Tiger
If Charlotte Raven is too cinematically illiterate to appreciate a masterpiece like Crouching Toger, then it's her loss.

Using the film to belittle Chinese culture is, at best, insensitive. Referring to 'inscrutable' orientals is cliched racism, straight from the nineteenth century. That she thinks no-one is going to be offended by her remarks is astonishing.

best wishes
ns

Boring tigers, Hidden talent
Dear Editor

While the terms used in Charlotte Raven's review of Ang Lee's film involve the use of stereotypes and cliches which any writer of quality should avoid, her basic point is I think correct. Despite all the hype, Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a disappointing film - the storyline is meandering at best, the characters are one dimensional and one of the most interesting elements, the feminist politics, are touched upon and then forgotten. It is basically a special effects film that has cashed in on the arthouse credentials of its director rather than actually being in anyway experimental or new.

Jackie Chan has been a far greater radicaliser of Chinese fight films and challenged far more stereotypes of masculinity and racial stereotypes than this overated fight fest will ever do. It is a shame that the one voice proclaiming this view has destroyed her own argument by using such tired descriptions of Chinese people rather than making intelligent critique about the actual film and its (lack of) characterisation, storyline and direction.

Amanda Lawrence
Literature Project Manager
Asialink