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: 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.