is it just me?
19 Mar 2011 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouSo the word is that Gaiman is adapting Journey to the West. Now, I will give the man props for doing a beautiful treatment for the subtitles of Spirited Away that really kept the poetry and meaning of the original, and I'll set aside for now the issue of Cameron's involvement, which I do consider so many kinds of wrong I don't even know where to begin.
It's this bit in the linked article that's got me coming back, and twigging again each time:
First of all, I'm dubious as to what the Chinese government would censor in terms of Monkey. I mean, haven't there already been like sixty-something various treatments of Journey to the West already, just in China -- radio, television, movies, books, comics, and so on? It's not like we're talking about current events here.
Second, if the Chinese government were to insist on changes (because to film, you must submit a script for review), is that automatically censorship?
I've been trying to think of a Western tradition/story that's as well-known and loved as Monkey. Hmm, maybe Robin Hood (because here I'd say the Arthurian Legends are a little too, uhm, formal -- in the sense that Robin Hood's semi-satirical characters, like Friar Tuck, are impertinent in the same way that one might see Sanzo's party as mildly impertinent). What happens if I consider the shoes on the other feet?
Let's say someone in China decides to do a film adaptation of Robin Hood and the British government were to insist on an approval process to, say, film at certain locations. And let's say there's something in the script that contradicts the understanding of the British review board when it comes to their own legends. Like, I don't know, the idea that Robin Hood kept a lot of the loot for himself. Or that he was abusive towards Maid Marian. Or that Friar Tuck was a double agent. I think if I were on that review board, I'd express my dissatisfaction with the script. If I had the power, I might even say, "you're filming something, but it's not the story of Robin Hood. Go ahead and film it, but I'm not putting my stamp of approval -- or permission to use historical locations -- on your not-our-Robin-Hood story."
I don't consider that censorship. I consider that a natural human self-interest when it comes to stories we consider "ours". If Robin Hood is a story I "own" in some sense due to family background and language and other socio-cultural factors, then I'm going to have -- whether or not I realize it, most of the time -- some kind of cultural possessiveness about it. It'd take someone doing Robin Hood really really wrong (and I won't mention the times that's happened), but that's when I'd stop and say, hey, that's not Robin Hood. It could be a good story, but it's not the Robin Hood.
As much as the West sometimes likes to paint China with the broad brush of a totalitarian system, it's still a system comprised of humans... and we're talking about a story that probably every single one of those humans (in any government review board) probably grew up with. I would expect each of them to feel, whether or not they've ever been made consciously aware of it, somewhat protective of Monkey.
I guess that's what's got me twigging -- the sense of entitlement and arrogance in saying that any assertion by a Chinese government board is (implied automatically) censorship. I can't believe someone who didn't grow up hearing stories of Monkey all over the place could possibly ascertain what is, or is not, Monkey... better than those for whom Monkey is a continuing, constantly-entertaining, story-force. Or maybe I should say: I have a bubbling sense of disgust for the implied argument that if someone -- whose culture effectively 'owns' a large chunk of the legend -- corrects for doing it wrong that this is immediately the error of the correcting culture.
Actually, the other analogy that popped into my head when I first read that short article was of drinking alcohol. If in my home country, drinking wine comes with loud cheers and extra rounds and raised voices, let's say then I travel to the country where that wine was originally made. If that country is one where wine is drunk with reverence and only at solemn occasions, but I'm in the back whooping it up -- if I get shunned, or even thrown out, can I really claim that wine-drinking is irrepressible, and that attempts to make me adjust my behavior to what's considered proper were a sign of a totalitarian system that wanted to censor me?
There's a phrase for that -- gaijin smash -- though I guess in this case it'd be weiguoren smash.
ETA: I think maybe what's bugging me is the hidden antagonism in the proclamation. I mean, try inserting some other government/country/culture, and it feels more blatant. Does it seem acceptable to [the speaker] to state such assertions because the government in question is presumed to be hostile?
It's this bit in the linked article that's got me coming back, and twigging again each time:
Additional pressure may come from the Chinese government itself, which has been known to censor creative works. Speaking to that, Gaiman said, “Monkey is irrepressible. The moment that you try to censor Monkey, he’s not Monkey anymore.”
First of all, I'm dubious as to what the Chinese government would censor in terms of Monkey. I mean, haven't there already been like sixty-something various treatments of Journey to the West already, just in China -- radio, television, movies, books, comics, and so on? It's not like we're talking about current events here.
Second, if the Chinese government were to insist on changes (because to film, you must submit a script for review), is that automatically censorship?
I've been trying to think of a Western tradition/story that's as well-known and loved as Monkey. Hmm, maybe Robin Hood (because here I'd say the Arthurian Legends are a little too, uhm, formal -- in the sense that Robin Hood's semi-satirical characters, like Friar Tuck, are impertinent in the same way that one might see Sanzo's party as mildly impertinent). What happens if I consider the shoes on the other feet?
Let's say someone in China decides to do a film adaptation of Robin Hood and the British government were to insist on an approval process to, say, film at certain locations. And let's say there's something in the script that contradicts the understanding of the British review board when it comes to their own legends. Like, I don't know, the idea that Robin Hood kept a lot of the loot for himself. Or that he was abusive towards Maid Marian. Or that Friar Tuck was a double agent. I think if I were on that review board, I'd express my dissatisfaction with the script. If I had the power, I might even say, "you're filming something, but it's not the story of Robin Hood. Go ahead and film it, but I'm not putting my stamp of approval -- or permission to use historical locations -- on your not-our-Robin-Hood story."
I don't consider that censorship. I consider that a natural human self-interest when it comes to stories we consider "ours". If Robin Hood is a story I "own" in some sense due to family background and language and other socio-cultural factors, then I'm going to have -- whether or not I realize it, most of the time -- some kind of cultural possessiveness about it. It'd take someone doing Robin Hood really really wrong (and I won't mention the times that's happened), but that's when I'd stop and say, hey, that's not Robin Hood. It could be a good story, but it's not the Robin Hood.
As much as the West sometimes likes to paint China with the broad brush of a totalitarian system, it's still a system comprised of humans... and we're talking about a story that probably every single one of those humans (in any government review board) probably grew up with. I would expect each of them to feel, whether or not they've ever been made consciously aware of it, somewhat protective of Monkey.
I guess that's what's got me twigging -- the sense of entitlement and arrogance in saying that any assertion by a Chinese government board is (implied automatically) censorship. I can't believe someone who didn't grow up hearing stories of Monkey all over the place could possibly ascertain what is, or is not, Monkey... better than those for whom Monkey is a continuing, constantly-entertaining, story-force. Or maybe I should say: I have a bubbling sense of disgust for the implied argument that if someone -- whose culture effectively 'owns' a large chunk of the legend -- corrects for doing it wrong that this is immediately the error of the correcting culture.
Actually, the other analogy that popped into my head when I first read that short article was of drinking alcohol. If in my home country, drinking wine comes with loud cheers and extra rounds and raised voices, let's say then I travel to the country where that wine was originally made. If that country is one where wine is drunk with reverence and only at solemn occasions, but I'm in the back whooping it up -- if I get shunned, or even thrown out, can I really claim that wine-drinking is irrepressible, and that attempts to make me adjust my behavior to what's considered proper were a sign of a totalitarian system that wanted to censor me?
There's a phrase for that -- gaijin smash -- though I guess in this case it'd be weiguoren smash.
ETA: I think maybe what's bugging me is the hidden antagonism in the proclamation. I mean, try inserting some other government/country/culture, and it feels more blatant. Does it seem acceptable to [the speaker] to state such assertions because the government in question is presumed to be hostile?
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:01 pm (UTC)The great thing about having an English cemetery is I could go back a very, very, very long way. And in America, you go back 250 years (in a cemetery), and then suddenly you’ve got a few dead Indians, and then you don’t have anybody at all, unless you decide to set it up in Maine or somewhere and sneak in some Vikings.
Really? Dead First Nations people have no history? Thanks.
I'd rather not see another piece of my childhood desecrated on the altar of white, Hollywood entitlement, thanks.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:16 pm (UTC)I didn't see that quote from him as an example of bad appropriation -- it's something else, just can't think of a good phrase. It's... hmm, it's a mangled argument for erasure, justifying a lack of appropriation (in re cemeteries) in the story. It's the same thing that author did who just wiped all Native peoples off the face of North America in her alternate-history fantasy-history book, whatever that disaster was called.
If that were the extent of it, then I'd be more worried that Gaiman would do something like, I don't know, decide that trying to figure out Buddhism is too much trouble or not worth it or whatever, and just avoiding it completely. (Which guts JttW, because if you're not going after the sutras, doesn't that kinda render the journey sort of, uhm, moot?) I guess erasure is the reverse of appropriation?
Anyway, plenty of other people have said all the arguments and critiques far better than I... I've just been twigging on the after-though last bit of his statement, and that I haven't really seen anyone calling out the notion that because the Chinese government must be involved in the script-review that if the Chinese govt is displeased that this must automatically be because they're totalitarian or censorship-happy or just don't, uhm, understand Monkey.
TL;DR -- it's not always censorship; sometimes it's a review board asking you to edit your script so it doesn't suck.
Although, if Gaiman could actually write something (on his own, not just treatments/translations) that didn't put me to sleep inside of a chapter, I might be in a better place to form an opinion on any other critiques of his work. But unfortunately... two or three paragraphs of his original/solo writing and I am BORED. Often, also ASLEEP.
ETA: When someone insists that appropriation is not harmful, or isn't an issue anymore... I always feel somewhat at a loss.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:21 pm (UTC)1. It really shows where Gaiman is going to be coming from when writing his own JttW. If he were remaining true to the legend, he wouldn't worry about Chinese "censorship". Instead, it seems he wants to play madboy and get Monkey to chew up the scenery a little. Bleah.
2. There are remakes I will not see any more:
*Robin Hood (last one I saw, I took a couple of kids to see the Kevin Costner version, and we were treated to a crotch-eye-view of a rape. I swore off RH remakes that very second. :P)
*Dracula/general vamp movies/series (Buffy is the exception here, and maybe -- maybe -- Anne Rice.)
*Frankenstein (the classic and Young Frankenstein are all the genre need, IMO.)
*Tarzan (I have yet to see the Disney version or the version with Brendan Fraser, though they've both been recommended out the wazoo.)
*Hunchback of Notre Dame (haven't seen the Disney version.)
*Most superheroes, incl. Batman and Superman, unless they're new and fresh (like the Ironman series, or Hellboy.)
That's all I can think of for right now. They're just all fucking overdone. If a director tries to squeeze one more original concept out of them, they're no longer the original stories, and some iterations turn out to be pretty horrible.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:25 pm (UTC)Some things just don't bear thinking about.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:47 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think that's part of what's bothering me. I mean, when there's already something like a gajillion adaptations of Monkey already, what could you possibly do to the story that might raise ire enough to censor? That makes me... wonder, shall we say.
Frankly, I can't really think of any US legends with quite the same oomph as Monkey. We probably need another thousand years before we'd have something that deeply entrenched.
(Btw, the Brendan Fraser version is funny mostly because it's so strongly satirical/genre-savvy. It's like it's fully aware it's ridiculous, and it takes full advantage of that, and of assuming the audience already knows the genre/story.)
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:49 pm (UTC)I'm not sure whether "long enough to have FIVE intermissions" is really something to crow about, unless you're doing a faithful cover of the Peking Opera's latest hit.
Although in that sense, Saiyuki is somewhat faithful! The abridged Monkey that's the best known English translation is only like one-hundredth of the full stories. It goes on, and on, and on...
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 10:08 pm (UTC)Though I am curious as to how the gang in Saiyuki could still be putting around and never made it to their destination. They have a jeep for cripes sake! It must be about the
journeymoney and not the destination.In the end though, I'm sure if this gets made that it'll do well. They'll advertise it as the next Avatar and people will rush to go see it.
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 10:34 pm (UTC)The gang in Saiyuki not making it doesn't surprise me. I mean, the second season they couldn't even find the plot, so how were they going to find India?
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 10:55 pm (UTC)It's things like this that make me want to serenade to you. Write songs in your honor, etc. Just sayin'. ♥
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 02:29 am (UTC)Gundam Unicorn takes place between Char's Counterattack (three years prior) and Gundam F91 (twenty-seven years later). Three years before Unicorn begins is when Char attempted to drop Axis onto Earth, forcing both sides to band together into a really awkward truce to stop him. Not that it really did much good -- there's still splinter groups of both the Federation and Neo Zeon ready to fight at any moment. Sleeves was one of those groups.
Of course, the most confusing part of all of this is the Laplace's Box nonsense. As I haven't watched the third episode yet I'm not sure how far they've delved into exactly what it is -- but each side is hoping that it is going to give them the leading edge and give victory to a 20 year long war (which NEVER ENDS seeing it's still sorta going on in F91. Good job, UC Gundam factions).
Banagher Links is a badass motherfucker for being a teenage protagonist. Because he was born after the One Year War he sorta views war and fighting as something that's only read about in books, giving him really foolish views on life and combat. He's the heir to the Vist foundation, but his mother took him away from his dad when he was just a child (which we see in Episode 1).
Audrey Burne is the alias of the Zabi family's surviving child, Mineva. She was supposed to be the spokesperson of Sleeves to give them Leplace's Box but believes it would be a mistake. She's who Banagher is going to pine over for quite some time.
Haro is a replica Haro and is awesome.
Full Frontal may or may not be a Char. Char's body was never recovered after Char's Counterattack and is considered Missing In Action. Full Frontal leads the Neo Zeon forces with the charisma and authority of Char Aznable, and is constantly being compared with Char. If you read the novel spoilers about him you should keep in mind that they may change his origin story in the OVA.
Marida Cruz is the pilot of Kshatriya and is a member of Neo Zeon. She also has some ties to ZZ Gundam which I can go into a little more in depth if you want, but it is characterization that
I have a feeling may not make it into the OVAsounds like it was hinted at in episode 3 but wasn't detailed. She's a survivor of the Neo Zeon War.no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 06:00 am (UTC)It has the Japanese language track with subs, or the dub track. Pick your poison. :3
no subject
Date: 26 Mar 2011 05:07 am (UTC)But that's okay. I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE.
actually, I do get it, just pulling your leg -- clearly I just need to brush up on the closing parts of Char's Counterattack, which I only vaguely recall now -- but this is for another post. After you recover, that is...
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:50 pm (UTC)whether it's just you or not...
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:22 pm (UTC)Before getting to the issue of a script that contradicts the understanding of the government that happens to have established a military border around locations associated with the cultural heritage of the people who live there, I think there's a major difference between what Gaiman said "The moment that you try to censor Monkey, he’s not Monkey anymore" and what you are imagining: "the idea that Robin Hood kept a lot of the loot for himself."
I think a better analogy would be if this were the 80s at the height of Thatcher's influence, and you were trying to film a faithful version of Robin Hood but the *government* insisted on Robin Hood not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor in your story. Instead the government wanted a version of Robin Hood where he spent his time kicking the squatters off the private property of Sherwood Forest.
Your analogy seems to depend on this statement: "I would expect each of them to feel, whether or not they've ever been made consciously aware of it, somewhat protective of Monkey." The question, however, is whether those changes are the result of feeling protective of Monkey, or protective of the PRC.
Even if we're talking about a story that probably every single one of those humans (in any government review board) probably grew up with, don't assume the *decisions* of those humans on the review board are motivated by a desire to correct Gaiman's idea that Monkey is irrepressible. In fact, Monkey being irrepressible is something they seem to be in total agreement on, and is the root cause of the fear of censorship. Totalitarian regimes, even ones made of people, tend not to be too happy about things that are 'irrepressible' whether they (even more so?) are part of their cultural heritage or not.
Don't assume just because the (small government-employed subset of the) people of a culture object to an outsider's ideas about their cultural heritage, that means they are objecting because the outsider has the wrong idea. Just because someone is part of a culture, that doesn't mean their decision isn't motivated by a desire to protect their government, even at the expense of their culture.
It's one thing to whoop it up in the wine-inventing country if the people of that country have always drank their wine in solemn reverence. It's another thing if the people of that country also whooped it up when drinking wine until the government started putting them in jail for that kind of behavior.
--Random Internet Dude #78
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 10:08 pm (UTC)2. Any acculturated person feels protective of their own country's system. Basis of xenophobia and jingoism, so I never hold it against anyone for feeling that their cultural system is the best. It's theirs. Whether I agree is another matter, but I expect people to act with the mindset that their culture, country, government, etc, deserves their pride.
3. Your reverse-analogy of the Robin Hood equivalent... might work, except that to the best of my knowledge, Monkey's been represented in a variety of ways in plenty of stories. Let's see. 12 film adaptations, of which 4 were produced in Hong Kong during the Cultural Revolution, at that. 11 live-action series: 7 in China (PRC & HK), 3 in Japan, and one by the SciFi channel. The first Monkey adaptation in China was animation, but I think the rest I'm counting are all live-action, because there have been multiple animated adaptations (most of which are coming out of Japan), and I don't want to be here all day counting. It's just not a story where -- at least, as far as I've been told by PRC-raised friends -- anyone's going to be fooled if the government suddenly said the story should be different.
4. It's entirely possible that a government would act for, or against, its citizens. My point is not to imply that any film-review board in the PRC is utterly innocent of malice. My point is that regardless of whether or not they have government bias, one cannot simply assume that any corrections or displeasure is automatically because of their style of governing.
I edited the original post to add the quick thoughts since posting, but I think it boils down to the antagonism in the comments. If you change the country name, it makes the embedded hostility more blatant. That just strikes me. How, I can't quite put a finger on, but it does.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 03:26 am (UTC)There's a relationship there between totalitarianism/irrepressibility that doesn't exist between--looking at the rest of the discussion and the parts about Queen Elizabeth I and George Washington--constitutional monarchy/murder or federal republicanism/philandering and drug abuse. Just changing the country isn't enough--there also has to be that connection between the style of government and the type of change being requested. It's more like a theocracy requiring that a blasphemous character be written out of a story.
Also, looking through the rest of the discussion, there's a key difference to keep in mind that might be getting lost: it's one thing when the government restricts your access, and another when a private party does so. If a private citizen owns the location, there are issues involved there regarding private property rights that are not involved when it's the government demanding changes.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:12 am (UTC)The cynical side of me says: in this day and age of greenscreen and CGI, is location always mandatory? If we can recreate the entire Forbidden Palace and a bazillion chrysanthemums, or an entire space station, is location-shooting anything but there for the prestige?
I think part of the reason I'm also dubious about just assuming that PRC will censor as a matter of course is because it's not like Monkey is some incredible revolutionary force that's been censored for all these years, or even a character with a history of bad run-ins with the government. There were two Monkey-based television series in the PRC in 2010, another one being broadcast this year, and an HK film on Monkey supposed to come out around midsummer. This isn't Still Life or even The Blue Kite or even a hundredth as touchy as City of Life and Death.
I guess what I'm wondering is this: given how many flipping adaptations of Monkey there have been just in China alone, why would anyone assume off the bat that there will automatically be censorship? It just seems to assume a level of antagonism.
Unless, of course, Gaiman plans on writing a Monkey who lectures at the drop of a hat about a Free Tibet or who ultimately argues that the Jade Emperor is the Bestest Political System Evah. I could see that kind of alteration pissing off the PRC. Of course, it'd also piss me off, too, because that wouldn't be a Monkey I'd recognize, either.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 06:24 am (UTC)Maybe you feel that the government should be able to behave like any private citizen in regards to its property, but then I think it's an issue of you having a different concept of government and civil rights than the people you're in disagreement with. Or maybe you consider 'artistic' pollution the same as environmental pollution, but that puts you in a much different boat than people who see a difference between speech and actions when it comes to government regulation.
As for the main issue, I guess I have to wonder what the big deal is with someone being antagonistic towards a totalitarian government. That puts the discussion in a far different place than where it started, which I gathered was whether an outsider can tell people of a culture they have to indulge his mucking about with their heritage. There's a big difference between "I know Monkey better than the people who grew up on this tale, for whom it is a fundamental part of their cultural heritage" and "I refuse to let the group who is currently in power over the region where this tale comes from mangle their own cultural heritage because it's politically inconvenient for their continued rule."
As for why the PRC would all of a sudden have a problem with Monkey? These issues with the PRC seem to be heating up as of late. The PRC has been becoming much more aggressive in responding to criticisms of its practices.
Also, to the extent that this is about Neil Gaiman specifically, if you follow the links from your linked article, you'll eventually get to this piece:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/neil-gaiman-journeys-east-pen-166497
where it seems the person who did the 'assuming' is the interviewer:
With every upside to filmmaking in China, there’s a downside, often in the form of restrictions on creative control. At a press conference called to announce the film last May, Film Bureau director Tong Gang sat next to Zhang, a strong sign that the state would be watching how he handled the cultural treasure.
Asked if he felt that China’s censors might try to tell him how to interpret the classic, Gaiman said simply: “Monkey is irrepressible. The moment that you try to censor Monkey, he’s not Monkey anymore.”
It seems your problem isn't with Neil Gaiman, it's with Jonathan Landreth: from that article, it reads to me like Gaiman was just responding to a reporter's question, not assuming anything off the bat.
--Random Internet Dude #78
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 09:37 pm (UTC)A quick Wikipedia check tells me a little about Journey to the West - that it is itself, at least in part, a sort of appropriation/retelling of a collection of older Chinese folktales. As far as I can come up with, there's only one close comparison in the West, Le Morte D'Arthur, and the Robin Hood story fails to match up because it drifts in and out of publication without any telling ever becoming really authoritative.
A major film was just published, called Robin Hood, in which Robin is a commoner who takes on the identity of Robert Loxley, who is active not during King Richard's reign but during King John's subsequent one, in which the Merry Men meet while fighting in the Crusades... et cetera, et cetera. It filmed in Wales, around London, and in Sherwood.
Another major film was put out in 2004, called King Arthur, in which Arthur is a Roman officer trying to preserve Hadrian's Wall against the Picts. It bore little resemblance to the Arthur myth, and yet claimed to be the most accurate telling yet. It was shot in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
If you assert that the British government would have had the right to create review boards that would prevent filming in the United Kingdom for stories which do not get script approval, you then have to demonstrate two things: first, that the British people have a right to dictate who and how people get to tell 'their' story, and second that a small review board is qualified to and capable of deciding on their behalf. I'm skeptical on both counts.
Ultimately, I'm very skeptical of what you apparently take for granted - that Chinese "culture effectively 'owns' a large chunk of the legend". I don't know what 'effectively' nor 'owns' means here, nor, in fact, 'a large chunk'. Demonstrating that some subgroup any smaller than the human race 'owns' a story will prove to be as difficult, I think, as demonstrating that an individual owns a story.
The only way a person can keep his grip on a story is not to tell it to anyone, ever. Is the only way a culture can keep its grip on a story to never tell it to anyone outside the group? Well, it's a bit late for that. The story's out, and now it's going to get told and told again. Whether or not it qualifies in the strictest sense as 'censorship', attempting to exert creative influence over someone else's telling of that story isn't just pointless - it's likely to do a lot more harm than good.
It annoys me that people routinely expect the things Gaiman says in casual conversation to meet the standards of minutia-nitpick that the online fan community loves to bring to the table with respect to pretty much everything. The bottom line is that if I trust anyone to bring me a version of this story which I am capable of accessing, it's Gaiman a lot more than either any film review board I could think of or any group of people who grew up with this story indigenously. (Maybe not James Cameron, though.)
Woah, screed. If I spent half so many words on my actual writing...
no subject
Date: 19 Mar 2011 10:31 pm (UTC)Try this one instead: Thailand wants to do a film about Queen Elizabeth I and film it on-location. Except that in their film, she murders five people. Or someone from Japan wants to do a film about the first American president, and film it on location, but in their version, George Washington is a philanderer who did drugs in his off-time. I would fully expect the reviewing groups (that is, who manage or oversee the location in question) to refuse permission. I do recall hearing of films that were refused permission to film, when the location-owners/managers had script review rights and wouldn't give an implied approval to something they considered that wrong.
Yes, I am aware that there have been multiple adaptations of the Robin Hood legends, and the King Arthur legends. There have also been multiple adaptations of JttW, too. At least 20 of JttW in film & television, not counting anime, books, radio, and comics. The thing with retelling our own legends is that a lot of them require that you already know the legend, to understand where it's being changed. Parodies and satires and inversions and flips work best when the audience can see where and what. If the audience is utterly ignorant of the original, then significant changes mean nothing to them, because they don't know the original to compare.
That's the real danger: not in retelling a well-known story to a knowing audience, but in mangling an unknown story such that the unfamiliar audience thinks they're being handed the real thing.
When I say 'own', I mean not as tangible good but as something in which the person has invested cultural interest. I would say that I definitely have a vested cultural interest in how people represent my country's historical figures, or our loosely-based legends (like Johnny Appleseed, or Davy Crockett, or similar). Not that I'm going to go on a rampage about it, but I would get irritated when someone from outside my culture purposefully mangles them. Perhaps it's just that I extend the same benefit of the doubt to other people -- that they might have a similar reaction if I did the same to their childhood stories -- no matter who/where they are.
But setting aside any nitpicking on the analogy, I guess I don't really know where you're coming from. In your perspective, is appropriation is not an issue for stories/legends? Or that the only way to achieve an accessible version is if it's retold by someone who shares non-culture status alongside the audience? Not to be combative, just to clarify, because I'm not sure I'm reading your meaning properly.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:02 am (UTC)I'm not particularly concerned by appropriation. Is it possible that much of a viewing audience will look at this movie, no matter what it ends up looking like, and think it is essentially identical to the original? Yes, absolutely. But so what?
(And also, how many people think the same thing about Journey to the West itself?)
The only people who will be fooled into thinking that are people who are unfamiliar with the actual original. Anyone who is actually interested in the story will, by hook or crook, come across information that will set them straight. Anyone who isn't actually interested won't much affect anything.
Those people will have a picture of the story that isn't directly based on the original. Lots of people do, about the works in the literary canon. It essentially impossible that a viewer of this film would be able to claim to speak with authority about the original material without being set straight first, unless they were solely in a community of people who didn't know about the material. The story never corrupts the original, and anytime the two come in contact the first one has the weight of verifiable fact.
There was a historical time when this was not so, but this is no longer the case.
The real danger that you describe is not frightening to me, because it boils down to some people being wrong about something they don't think about or discuss.
When you talk about culture, I start to feel like you're speaking a different language. I don't know what "invested cultural interest" means. I'm automatically skeptical whenever someone says that belonging to a culture confers some kind of ownership. (Though, for an interesting treatment of, among other things, that concept, I'm reminded of Roger Zelazny's masterful ...And Call Me Conrad.) Culture is a canon of experiences and references and common context that influences the way you approach something, but there's no reason a part of one canon can't be taken and mutilated into a new part of another. Just ask Shakespeare.
Irritation is natural, because we have a vision of a story and it annoys us when it turns out someone else views it differently. But that experience is hardly unique to intercultural transmission; in fact, I think it's a transposition of the same reaction we so often ridicule from authors.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:30 am (UTC)The story never corrupts the original, and anytime the two come in contact the first one has the weight of verifiable fact. There was a historical time when this was not so, but this is no longer the case.
I would argue, sadly, that this is still not yet so. There are still too many people who believe what they see on the big screen (or the little one), no matter how maladapted, and whose privilege gives them the blinders to decide that this mainstream-inflected, distorted version is therefore the right one. And with privilege comes a really big bullhorn -- or at least the unquestioned assumption that one deserves a really big bullhorn.
That's how you get the average non-native USian quite convinced that "being Indian" means you live in a teepee and wear eagle feathers. Oh, sure, the original story -- of being Cherokee, or Navajo, or some other non-teepee-living type, like the Indians I know who live in condos -- isn't technically corrupted. It's just erased. Or simply drowned out by the new version.
I don't have a problem with someone adapting my cultural stories. I rather like it when people tell me they've begun reading things like the Brer Rabbit stories, because they're showing an openness to something that matters a lot to me. What I have a problem with is when someone with significantly more privilege adapts -- or to use your term, which I find very telling, 'mutilates' -- a different culture's stories. Lesser privilege means never getting a big enough bullhorn to right such wrongs or even to present an alternate version, and no, most people won't go look it up, or learn more.
But they will correct me, down the road, and speak to me as though their distorted version is the 'right' one, and all others -- including the original cultural version -- are aberrations. But when the original story is one that has significant cultural import to a people, then... it's most definitely not an issue of "so what".
And lastly, if one does not consider oneself invested, in any level, in a story -- if one is most likely to shrug and say, 'so what' -- then I personally think it's best one step back from the fray, having no irons in there. Let those to whom it is a significant emotional matter be the ones whose voices carry.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 01:04 am (UTC)By the way, speaking of recs, I loved Where the Girls Are. By which I mean that I fought with it a lot, too; but it's helped me think, and thank you for reccing it, because I'm glad now that I read it.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:35 am (UTC)I kept reccing WtGa to CP, and he finally tracked down a copy to keep, and looks like he read it in the course of two days. Same for him, as for you -- some parts he has arguments with, some parts he agrees with, but overall, the nuanced approach (and the informal-styled wit!) really make it a fast, but provocative read.
Thank you for the rec!
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 04:57 pm (UTC)It did bug me a lot that that group was mostly white/middle-class/cis/hetero, of course; though I suppose that that demographic was the target audience of much of the media she was discussing, so in a way it does make sense to be curious about and want to investigate that group's reaction. I just wish she'd made that distinction explicitly instead of letting the implication stand that her book was written for everyone, you know? :/
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 05:24 am (UTC)I grew up with Journey to the West so it's a story that's very dear to my heart. Honestly, I am wary of this adaptation and I share your sentiments about the offhand comment about China's hypothetical censorship. There are so many things, so many elements that can go wrong. There's a wealth of cultural background/nuances in Journey to the West which I'm not sure would be present in the adaptation. ._.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 05:37 am (UTC)Your mention of background and nuances reminds me of something I was fussing about, the other day, while watching a few minutes from the 'official' version of a Taiwanese drama I'd originally watched with fansubs. There had been points where despite the Chinese subtitles, there was no English (either it didn't make sense, or was too hard to translate easily into English, or maybe they just missed it, or figured it was obvious, I don't know). But the group made up for this by putting notes at the top of the screen for so many things: food, idioms, locations, references, literal translation vs. English equivalent. Lotsa things I never would've known otherwise!
It got me thinking that this is something fansubbers do, that official subs never do. (For that matter, I can't even name the last time I watched a Japanese series that came with any kind of cultural notes, and the anime I watch tends to be heavy on the Japanese folklore, where cultural notes are desperately needed for the non-initiate.) What I wouldn't love is to be able to turn on subtitles, and then turn on/off cultural notes.
Okay, so I might have to pause to catch the notes at the top (which I do already with good fansub groups), but at least then I'd understand better -- at least, better than not at all -- when there's cultural context I can't just pick up from the visuals or the dialogue. Maybe most people would watch a movie/show and be happy to be ignorant (and probably watch the dub, at that), but I'd love to have the option of annotated versions.
At least then I might have better hope of watching culturally-nuanced movies and not feel like I completely missed the joke or the point or just the implication. Failing that, at least I'd be reminded that there's a great deal more than meets the eye, culturally -- and that kind of reminder is something it seems an awful lot of people need, when it comes to cultures not their own. That much information is like a crash course in educating the viewer: "there is a lot here that you're only getting the edges of, so don't go thinking you know it all just because you've seen one episode of Dragonball Z."
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 06:02 am (UTC)Agreed on the subtitles part. Official subtitles leave a lot of background information missing, while fansubbers seem to work a lot harder in making everything accessible/understandable to the viewers. Best example of this is probably Gintama, which is probably hell to translate as it references everything under the sun, from Japanese history all the way to obscure pop-culture stuff. I can't imagine watching it without all the notes.
Heh, by knowing how much we don't know do we really start to fill in the blanks for ourselves...
Have you watched many Journey to the West adaptations?
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 07:23 am (UTC)I caught a little bit of the SciFi channel version, which was right around the time that I first moved in with CP (who was raised in East Asia and grew up with Monkey). I think I sort of adopted CP's irritation with having a white/american guy be the lead role (taking over Tripitaka's part, basically). Actually, one of the main reasons the two of us ever started watching anime -- other than the highly recommended Spirited Away, up to that point -- was because I was at Tower Records and browsing the DVD section and ended up in the anime section. Idly I picked up a random DVD, flipped it over, and inside of two sentences was thinking, "this sounds an awful lot like that story CP loves so much..."
Ayup, Saiyuki started it all, and all because I had learned the basics of Monkey, so recognized it. (Didn't have a clue whether it was a faithful or even decent adaptation, and it did take awhile to adjust to the mangaka's animation style, but at least I had CP to point out same/difference, and the first company to have the Saiyuki distribution contract did have extensive cultural notes -- which sadly disappeared when Saiyuki's distribution contract changed to whomever.)
I did see promos & trailers for The Forbidden Kingdom (another USian adaptation) but even with Jet Li and Jackie Chan, I was less-than-enthused about it being yet another "white guy comes in to save the day" with everyone else being supporting characters. I mean, I get the tie-in to make USian audiences pay attention -- and Hollywood does tend to assume USian audiences only pay attention if it's a young, semi-handsome, white guy at the helm -- but still. If I want Tripitaka, then I bloody well want Tripitaka, and not some white kid from the Bronx, y'know?
Every now and then, I come across Japanese manga that adapt (faithfully or just as starting point) some aspect of JttW, but most of them just haven't caught for me. I think maybe because too many of them emphasize the shonen/fighting aspect over the satirical humor I find in the written stories. (We have the abridged/first English translation, and a longer translation; I've read most of the first, but was scattershot with the second, which seems to be sort of okay, since the stories do get kind of cyclical.)
But I do hear they're reshooting the 86-87 two-season series of JttW, with the original cast, but this time in HD (and probably with much better sfx, no doubt). That, I can't wait to see, after being told about it by friends who watched it in high school and remember it fondly.
And if you don't know how much I think Gintama should come with it own entire Dune-sized handbook, just listen to the next installment...
heh, sorry, couldn't resist. sometimes I want to end posts that way, and wonder if anyone would actually get it.
no subject
Date: 20 Mar 2011 09:26 am (UTC)Heh, I'm more fluent in Cantonese than I am in Mandarin so I've only watched adaptations in Cantonese. Mandarin hurts my brain because I would need to mentally translate it to Cantonese to understand. I love HK's wirework, but then again, it might be because I grew up watching HK wuxia series which are very heavy on wirework.
... I didn't know that there's already an english adaptation of JttW. Hearing what you said about it, I'm just going to give this a miss. ._. I have issues with the whole white guy saves the day/takes the lead in another culture's story.
I liked Saiyuki's first season. Then it starts going in circles/losing the plot. -_-; One daaaay, I will get the manga just to see if it's any better. It's very superficially related to JttW though. I can't think of any anime/manga that's faithful to JttW though. Toss me a few titles to check out?
Haven't watched much USian adaptations due to bias against them. The trailers never look/feel right. Wonder when will Hollywood realize that it's more important to get the story right and cast right for the roles than to try to please the audience based on assumptions like that. =/
The 86-87 two season series was before my time so that's definitely good news. All this talk of JttW makes me want to rewatch the series. XD
orz sorry. I don't get it. Is it a Dune reference?
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 05:10 am (UTC)In re Saiyuki, see my comments with Starscream (one of the threads above).
I actually like wirework, when it's done well, and done subtly. I think it's mostly the flying-through-the-air. Not that such massive leaps bother me -- only the way most actors pedal their legs like crazy, instead of treating it as a leap. (The leg peddling is instinctive, I'm told, if you feel like you don't have enough momentum.) But once you see people doing parkour, suddenly you realize... a lot of the stuff that requires/uses wirework is... stuff that some folks are doing freeform! I'd really like to see a wuxia that incorporates parkour, maybe mixes it up with a bit of wirework. Or maybe that comes from being an athlete, so being more impressed with actual athletic prowess (like Jackie Chan's jumps) that doesn't come with a booster.
That said, I adore wuxia's -- pomp isn't the right word, nor flamboyance. Grandiosity? Ugh. Long day. But I'm sure you know what I mean -- everything is eye-popping eye-candy in every direction.
Adaptations... y'know, there are only two I've heard of that have any kind of faith to the original. One was a series back in Heavy Metal (yes, US magazine, and the artist-team were both USians, IIRC), and another is a series by a Japanese mangaka, released in the US by Dark Horse. The latter is... hm. The guy's style looks heavily influenced by USian superhero comics, actually. It's a full-color, considerably more ornate and intricate style than usual in Japanese manga. I don't know how faithful it is, though, because it's not a style that usually appeals to me. I prefer sketch-like styles more, like what you get in Blade of the Immortal.
But film adaptations, I think the Japanese live-action Saiyuki tried to be faithful. The only one I've ever heard that was really truly faithful, though, was that CCTV version. Then again, I get the impression that JttW has a ubiquity not unlike Romeo & Juliet does, for the West -- who doesn't know the story? ...such that if you want to do a version of it, you have to find a new angle. Doesn't make for a faithful adaptation, but it can make for a good story nonetheless, assuming your audience already knows the first. That, I think, was the problem with the USian versions -- they were trying to put a spin on an old story, but the majority of their audience didn't even know that old story, so didn't understand how changes/reinterpretations reflected back onto the original.
Cultural adaption
Date: 20 Mar 2011 07:47 pm (UTC)I agree that there is a problem when, to use an example my husband gave, dreamcatcher are used as pretty decorations in cars completely ignoring their original use. On the other hand quite enjoyed "Throne of Blood" a Japanese adaptation of Macbeth.
I think that a good part of my differing feelings has to do with the health and prevalence of the original culture, as well as the amount of modification and variation on the story or custom prevalent in the originating culture. The original Macbeth is in no danger of being lost and there have been many retellings in English culture, why not a new retelling from a different viewpoint?
Kat
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 05:23 am (UTC)And right there I think might be the problem. (See also my last reply, above your comment.) Macbeth, like Romeo & Juliet (and even like Robin Hood and King Arthur) is pretty freaking ubiquitous. It's nearly impossible to reach high-school graduation in nearly any country in the US, Canada, or the EU (not sure about South America, but I'd be willing to bet it's the same) without running into some instance of Shakespeare. Or at least knowing the basics, seeing how some of the general outlines are part of our Western cultural groundings.
That means that it's not just possible to do wacky adaptations, it's almost required. How many times can we watch Juliet at her balcony before we start rolling our eyes? So someone updates it, where the guns have names and the families are gangsters. Or transposes Macbeth to WWI, or sets Taming of the Shrew in high school. Or does a complete turn-around a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Those, though, require that we know the original, so we can see how the remake is messing with things, where stuff's been changed/altered, or where a different POV (like RaGaD) renders a scene completely different.
But if you don't know the original story at all, then something like RaGaD would probably leave you utterly baffled. You'd certainly miss a lot of the jokes and in-story references, at least. Or the different take someone mentioned in another comment, of the Robin Hood remake that was supposed to (well, until the director & lead actor totally screwed it all up) present Prince John as a good guy, tracking a wily criminal named Hood. That kind of thing only works if we know the original really, really well, to get the reverse version.
That kind of example doesn't work in this instance, and it's why I dismiss such suggestions as being analogous to what Gaiman's suggesting (or as a refutation of my original analogy about Robin Hood) -- because the majority of Westerners do not know Monkey. Hell, the majority of them barely register what Buddhism is about, and they'd probably stare blankly if you said "sutra" to them. (If they didn't immediately think of hospitals.) Doing a non-faithful remake would be a complete waste, IMO, because the audience has no grounding to understand why or how things were changed -- so we end up with monkey-sized dreamcatchers and no comprehension of the original meaning/intent.
For a really awesome and bizarre and totally off-the-wall adaptation, try "Sukiyaki Western Django" which retells "Fistful of Dollars" which in itself was a retelling of "Yojimbo" which was in turn an adaptation of some noir pulp fiction. It's like a freaking ping-pong ball of influences, and SWD totally mixes up the Japanese samurai (a la Yojimbo) elements with the Wild West and/or spaghetti Western elements. And when I say "mixes up," I mean "throws in a blender along side crazy visual jokes and some wacky Shakespearean references". A total hoot. Also, entirely in English... with a cast that's nearly entirely NOT fluent in English. Good times, good times!
...but maybe not if you haven't seen The Man With No Name series or never watched Kurosawa's Yojimbo. Hunh. Okay. So like I was saying...
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 10:21 pm (UTC)From what I understand the basics _Journey to the West_ and it's adaptions *are* as ubiquitous in China as Macbeth is here which is one reason why I used it as an example (the other is that "Throne of Blood" or Kumonosu-jō is a truly great and memorable film which comes easily to mind).
I agree that it would be a severe loss if the first wide-spread media adaptation was badly done but my feelings would be close to how I feel about an bad adaptation of Beowulf (to pick a western tale more know about then known), it's more of a loss for the audience rather then a cultural loss unless the adaptation was particularly offensively wrong.
Although now that I'm thinking about that adaptation of Beowulf Gaiman was involved with....um... , disregard all my theories about what should or shouldn't be free game for adaption. I'm in complete agreement that someone who loves and understands Monkey have final approval of the script, not Gaiman! [Changing Grendel's mother to an demonic seductress, who seduces rather then trying to kill her son's killer aaarrrrggghhhh.]
Kat
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 11:14 pm (UTC)...although to be honest, I'd completely forgotten that he did the adaptation of that. Though if someone from PRC had not forgotten it, no wonder they have a Cultural Treasures Officer doing the eagle-eye thing over Gaiman's shoulder. Maybe my analogy of "Buddhism is too hard, let's ditch the sutras and make Tripitaka journey for personal revenge!" isn't that much of a stretch after all, come to think of it.
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 03:51 pm (UTC)Also, re: "Random Internet Dude #78": Gaiman's gotta stop googling his own name, it's a bad habit. Heh.
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 08:33 pm (UTC)Also, re: ehehehehe. Really, though, I think the article specifying "national treasure" says it all about how PRC feels.
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 11:13 pm (UTC)I just realized I have (at least portions of) three versions of Journey to the West: a few volumes of Saiyuki, a tape or two of Dragonball Z, and a moldy-oldy but very charming old vid which was re-cut and re-voiced in the '60s for the Western kid audience, "Alakazam the Great!" It's apparently a faithful cartoon version from China.
I remember seeing "Alakazam" when I was, oh, about three years old, on TV, early-early in the morning, all by myself. I was enraptured. I think this is where I got turned on to Eastern mysticism, seriously.
Western voices included Frankie Avalon as Monkey and Dodie Stevens as his girl. Also included Jonathan Winters and Sterling Holloway.
I just looked up the wiki, it's interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alakazam_the_Great .
My question is, how the hell did I end up with 3 versions of JttW? Oy!
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 11:16 pm (UTC)I've heard of Alakazam, but I had no idea if it's available any more, or if it's ever been cleaned up and released on DVD. Because the idea of Frankie Avalon as Monkey just... wow. That's... just... wow. Serious culture shock-clash going on there.
no subject
Date: 21 Mar 2011 11:34 pm (UTC)Turns out Frankie just sang the songs. Some other guy did Monkey's (Son Goku's) spoken voice. Still, I was utterly charmed.
I have a DVD player and a VCR. I wonder if there's a way I can hook them up? I'd love to save a bunch of tapes on DVD. Hm. There's gotta be a DIY or a Lifehack or something somewhere, right?
If I figure out how to do it, I'll give you a copy. It's best watched in two pieces, because it's about 30 minutes too long. You might hate it. I have very low standards, comparatively.