Our Land

[dukealien]

Our Land


Trust: a nation where
a stranger can buy guns and
liquor on credit.

(Reaction to  to the movie “Hero” with its magic big-character “our land” sword-ideogram)

[billy]

for three lines in certainly makes one think. not seen hero but that aside the piece still has a message. imagine how much debt people and countries wouldn't be in if all we could by on credit were homes and food?

[RiverNotch]

i knew this was related to hero! fun fact: 'our land' is a bad translation of the ideogram. i found it kinda distasteful at first, the movie, until, on reading up, i learned that the original subtitles translated the term differently, to something that sounds a lot less propagandistic: "All under heaven".

[dukealien]

i knew this was related to hero! fun fact: 'our land' is a bad translation of the ideogram. i found it kinda distasteful at first, the movie, until, on reading up, i learned that the original subtitles translated the term differently, to something that sounds a lot less propagandistic: "All under heaven".

The ultimate message I got from the film was, "All must sacrifice themselves to the one central authority, no matter how terrific they are personally (to avoid disorder)."  Tarantino was undoubtedly constrained toward that conclusion.

As to the meaning of the ideogram, unless "All under heaven" implies a reservation that the lands where other peoples live are *not* under heaven, it could be taken as more threatening than "We're a sword of a nation."  Perhaps it's more like what Americans mean when they say, "God's country" - that is, God is over all countries but has a particular fondness for this one.  Which is chauvinistic, but not aggressively so.

@billy - well, debt and credit aren't quite the same thing, though one can degenerate into the other.  And then there's "social credit," another of those phrases where prepending "social" alters the meaning beyond recognition.

[RiverNotch]

i knew this was related to hero! fun fact: 'our land' is a bad translation of the ideogram. i found it kinda distasteful at first, the movie, until, on reading up, i learned that the original subtitles translated the term differently, to something that sounds a lot less propagandistic: "All under heaven".

The ultimate message I got from the film was, "All must sacrifice themselves to the one central authority, no matter how terrific they are personally (to avoid disorder)."  Tarantino was undoubtedly constrained toward that conclusion.

As to the meaning of the ideogram, unless "All under heaven" implies a reservation that the lands where other peoples live are *not* under heaven, it could be taken as more threatening than "We're a sword of a nation."  Perhaps it's more like what Americans mean when they say, "God's country" - that is, God is over all countries but has a particular fondness for this one.  Which is chauvinistic, but not aggressively so.

@billy - well, debt and credit aren't quite the same thing, though one can degenerate into the other.  And then there's "social credit," another of those phrases where prepending "social" alters the meaning beyond recognition.

That made me cringe -- the movie, that is, and the English dub having that translation. but the way 'all under heaven' was a good deal more, how does it go? zen or whatever than what that kinda surface-level reading implies; i think some go even further in saying 'peace under heaven'. the movie definitely talks about surrendering to a central authority, but i have a feeling that the authority it's talking about is not the king per se -- that, by king ruling and the assassins trying to kill him and so on and so forth, they themselves have surrendered to that, er, invisible hand that controls all, which we can only best describe as whatever's beyond heaven. there is definitely a strong element of authoritarian propaganda in the film, but that force really isn't held by the king, especially when one considers that this film is only fiction to a point: that the characters all, in the end, work towards making China 'China', that their lives are constrained by history, etc etc.

that is to say, i don't think the movie really maps to the real political situaion in the way say, triumph of the will did or, say, spielberg's lincoln does now. i think it talks about something much more, especially with much of its story and presentation not really focusing on making the establishment feel grand as it is, instead having much of the film's beauty be rooted in the interplay between the vibrant colors of the humans, the unchanging landscape in which they are placed, and the graceful motions they make when fighting, when makiy history -- its message is ultimately a lot broader, although the way it's shown (and by the people who show it), it comes dangerously close to being something not fun. and i'm not inclined to lean into that 'not fun' reading, especially because, even if China represents a greater threat to our national sovereignty than the west, they're still the newcomers in this cultural game.

[dukealien]

That made me cringe -- the movie, that is, and the English dub having that translation. but the way 'all under heaven' was a good deal more, how does it go? zen or whatever than what that kinda surface-level reading implies; i think some go even further in saying 'peace under heaven'. the movie definitely talks about surrendering to a central authority, but i have a feeling that the authority it's talking about is not the king per se -- that, by king ruling and the assassins trying to kill him and so on and so forth, they themselves have surrendered to that, er, invisible hand that controls all, which we can only best describe as whatever's beyond heaven. there is definitely a strong element of authoritarian propaganda in the film, but that force really isn't held by the king, especially when one considers that this film is only fiction to a point: that the characters all, in the end, work towards making China 'China', that their lives are constrained by history, etc etc.

that is to say, i don't think the movie really maps to the real political situaion in the way say, triumph of the will did or, say, spielberg's lincoln does now. i think it talks about something much more, especially with much of its story and presentation not really focusing on making the establishment feel grand as it is, instead having much of the film's beauty be rooted in the interplay between the vibrant colors of the humans, the unchanging landscape in which they are placed, and the graceful motions they make when fighting, when makiy history -- its message is ultimately a lot broader, although the way it's shown (and by the people who show it), it comes dangerously close to being something not fun. and i'm not inclined to lean into that 'not fun' reading, especially because, even if China represents a greater threat to our national sovereignty than the west, they're still the newcomers in this cultural game.

Thanks for your thoughts!  We saw the same (extraordinary) movie and seem to have appreciated it in similar ways - though we then did different things with our appreciations.

It struck me just now, trying to qualify what's really fundamental to Sinic culture, is that perhaps it's the ideogram.  Not that particular one (which might, however, stand for all), but the hegemony of one ideographic written language which transcends spoken tongues (Mandarin and Cantonese, for example).  The ideogram is the One Ring to rule them all, mixing mythoses:  how can one argue with an ideogram whose correct interpretation demands correct thinking?  By arriving at it, you rectify yourself.

(And here we barbarians are, stuck with a mere alphabet whose symbols represent little more than the animal noises of spoken tongues!)