is it just me?

[kaigou]

So 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:

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?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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:

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

[kaigou]

I think the one thing that's consistent with Gaiman is that, given the opportunity in re any cultural sensitivity towards cultures not his own, he displays a marvelous case of foot-in-mouth disease.