About the government/private citizen part: the right to restrict is (should be) different. Governments--at least ones I would call legitimate--owe people more than people owe each other when it comes to how they behave with their property: government only owns property for purposes of benefiting people, while people can own their property for their own benefit alone if they choose. That's why a government excluding someone based on the material they want to film triggers the censorship question and excluding someone based on the danger to the environment does not.
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:
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.
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