Why Hero shouldn't be interpreted in a "might makes right" perspective...
Warning - Contains spoilers!!!
So - just saw Hero with Jet Lee. Beautiful photography, cinematics, wonderful use of colors etc., but the flying is getting a bit tedious...
Anyways,...
I had a short discussion about what the moral of the film was with a friend i saw the movie with. He understood the moral in a "might makes right" perspective, that might is needed to rule and that this might is what brings about balance, harmony and the rule of law.
The words the protagonist use to explain why he gives up on his plan to murder the emperor: "Everything under heaven" must be understood in its Chinese context. The Chinese emperor ruled his nation under a "mandate from heaven", and with a responsibility as mediator between heaven and earth.
Confusianism - the set of ethics set forth by Confucius - has had a profound effect on Chinese culture, and lays great emphasis on conformity, hierarchy and the rule of law. This should also play a part in understanding the setting of the film. Confucius set out his tenants at the end of the "spring and autumn" period before the "warring states" period that is the frame of this movie.
The "warring states" period was a time of great conflict until the emperor (the one in the movie) Qin Shi Huangdi, counted as the first emperor of China, uniting the warring states. The achievements of the Qin are numerous. They standardized the language and writing of China, which had varied greatly from area to area during the Warring States Period, a point that was mentioned in the film. When Qin came to power he also ordered the burning of all older books mentioning other rulers preceding him and thereby securing his place as "first emperor".
For the alchymists out there Qin is also interesting. He's the one buried with the great terra cotta army near Xi'an, and his grave is said to be surrounded by a map of china with waterways in Mercury.
Anyways, to get of my tangent and back to the point...
My point then is that it would be wrong to see the protagonist acceptance of the emperors right to rule as accepting might is right. As the first article I linked to explains, the concept of "mandate from heaven" is closely linked with confucian thought. A more correct interpretation would therefore be that the protagonist accepts the tenent of "Everything under heaven" and the emperors quest to rule the world as way to harmony.
The emperors decision to execute the protagonis should therefore be understood also as following his mandate and upholding the confucian rule of law. If the moral of the movie was "might makes right" - I would think this would be better shown with the protagonist murdering the emperor as this was fully in his might and capability.
Anyways - I recomend the links I've used in this post - fascinating stuff!
So - just saw Hero with Jet Lee. Beautiful photography, cinematics, wonderful use of colors etc., but the flying is getting a bit tedious...
Anyways,...
I had a short discussion about what the moral of the film was with a friend i saw the movie with. He understood the moral in a "might makes right" perspective, that might is needed to rule and that this might is what brings about balance, harmony and the rule of law.
The words the protagonist use to explain why he gives up on his plan to murder the emperor: "Everything under heaven" must be understood in its Chinese context. The Chinese emperor ruled his nation under a "mandate from heaven", and with a responsibility as mediator between heaven and earth.
Confusianism - the set of ethics set forth by Confucius - has had a profound effect on Chinese culture, and lays great emphasis on conformity, hierarchy and the rule of law. This should also play a part in understanding the setting of the film. Confucius set out his tenants at the end of the "spring and autumn" period before the "warring states" period that is the frame of this movie.
The "warring states" period was a time of great conflict until the emperor (the one in the movie) Qin Shi Huangdi, counted as the first emperor of China, uniting the warring states. The achievements of the Qin are numerous. They standardized the language and writing of China, which had varied greatly from area to area during the Warring States Period, a point that was mentioned in the film. When Qin came to power he also ordered the burning of all older books mentioning other rulers preceding him and thereby securing his place as "first emperor".
For the alchymists out there Qin is also interesting. He's the one buried with the great terra cotta army near Xi'an, and his grave is said to be surrounded by a map of china with waterways in Mercury.
Anyways, to get of my tangent and back to the point...
My point then is that it would be wrong to see the protagonist acceptance of the emperors right to rule as accepting might is right. As the first article I linked to explains, the concept of "mandate from heaven" is closely linked with confucian thought. A more correct interpretation would therefore be that the protagonist accepts the tenent of "Everything under heaven" and the emperors quest to rule the world as way to harmony.
The emperors decision to execute the protagonis should therefore be understood also as following his mandate and upholding the confucian rule of law. If the moral of the movie was "might makes right" - I would think this would be better shown with the protagonist murdering the emperor as this was fully in his might and capability.
Anyways - I recomend the links I've used in this post - fascinating stuff!