Monday, April 8, 2013

Entry 026: "The Founding of a Republic" (2009)




Dear Internet,

                Today's movie was "The Founding of a Republic," a 2009 Chinese film about the country's founding back in 1949.  It was made to commemorate the 60th anniversary, was commissioned by a state owned studio, and backed by the Communist Party.  If none of that screams propaganda film, then you might want to make a full stop here.  Propaganda films and other media are a tricky kind of think to examine.  For one thing, they may just be total crock and lying to the audience.  This is the kind that North Korea has become infamous for, telling the people that Kim Jong Il's birth was herald in by a new star shining in the sky while a double rainbow also appearing.  There is propaganda that is so filled with ham acting that one wonders if anyone ever thought it would be effective, like the training tapes big box companies make their new workers watch where everyone is mysteriously smiling all the time as if someone spiked the break room with who knows what.  Propaganda material is supposed to do one thing.  It is supposed to illicit an emotional response in favor to the issue that it is advocating.

                The central historical plot "Founding" is something that I am not familiar with at all.  I know very little of China's history, so I will not pretend I do.  Nor will I go and spend five hours on Wikipedia article jumping so that I can follow the movie.  As both a film and as a piece of propaganda, "Founding" should have this at its core.  It should be able to take a viewer through everything that they should know.  From the characters, to the setting, to the background of the plot, and to the various other aspects that flesh out the narrative.  "Founding" does not do this much at all.  It gives little to no premise structuring and instead jumps headlong into the story without establishing characters and setting.  Are we supposed to be following Chairman Mao?  Or the guy leading the KMT?  Wait, what exactly is the KMT?  The film speeds through the beginning so quickly that exposition seems like an afterthought.  This might be because the film starts in media res, but that does not excuse itself from assuming the audience knows everything that the film covers.  If someone knew enough about the time and individuals, then there is no point in them watching the film to learn what they already know.

                The story goes so fast that there is next to no rest to digest the information that is thrown at the viewer.  The plot goes from about 1945 to 1949.  Those four or so years are so jam packed with events that the film cannot juggle all of it.  There were so many cease fires, peace treaties, foreign dignitaries, scene jumps across the country, names being dropped with little to no context, and one scene cameos that it all became too big to handle.  When a character is introduced, it is difficult to determine their importance in the film because there are so many of them.  Some go long periods until they show up again unexpectedly, and the film all the while hopes you remember all of the characters.  There are so many political groups active in the film or are referenced to that by the end of it, I still do not know who was with which group.  The film fails to make itself coherent throughout the majority of the film.

                For the majority of "Founding," the plot revolves around the political dealings of the various individuals that are plenty forgettable.  Every now and again, it tries to remind the audience that a civil war is occurring.  It does this by spicing in large scale battles with a cast of hundreds running, marching , and dying on fields with cannons spitting the earth beneath them.  Each of these spiced scenes are shot in sepia which only highlight the fact that they are not part of the regular story.  These shots feel as if they were stock footage or were taken from another movie.  It is almost as if there had been a war movie that fell through for one reason and another, and the studio felt that they needed to use the film that they had shot to at least make up for the money they had poured into the failed movie.  There is no point in even having these shots in the film.  They do not add anything to the narrative since it is so obvious that they have nothing personally to do with the characters presented.  None of the characters are shown fighting in the trenches or even near any of the battle scenes.  The film tries numerous times to show that Mao was leading a fighting force, but the closest scene we get in the film to him being anywhere near the fighting is when the village he is staying in gets bombed.  Some cook dies, I think.  I cannot even remember.  It might have made more of an impression on me if they did not introduce the cook ten minutes prior just to kill him off.

                The biggest problem for "Founding" is just how boring it is.  It attempts to disguise itself behind its historical setting, but fails to do anything about the overabundance of rhetoric.  Too many people talk throughout this film.  Not enough physical action occurs as the film progresses.  Even when some people die, it is talked about instead of shown.  When action occurs in this film (protestors get shot or beat up for instance), it never feels like it has much bearing on the plot.  Throughout the length of the film, I had great difficulties detraining what exactly was going on because it never felt like anything WAS going on.  There were things here and there that I thought the movie was going to make a big deal about, but it constantly felt like they were getting swept under the rug because the film realized it had to keep moving along  if it wanted to cover everything within the four years of the plot.

                I would call "Founding" is a bottom line average film.  It fails to create any emotional response or even an entertaining story.  Perhaps if I knew more about the history of China, it might make more of an impact on me, but as a film this was part of its duty.  A film, book, play, or whatever is supposed to introduce its audience to the world it tries to depict, especially if it is a historical piece.  If it makes the assumption that the viewer already knows the intricate history behind the story, then it gets rid of the reason to tell the story in the first place.  You would not tell a professor who specializes in the history of India about the nuances of the social impact of the East India Company on the 18th century individual.  The professor would already know about such things and give you a glazed over stare.  The only reason that I do not rate this film lower is because it could not make me hate it.  Again, it is just boring.  It is boring to the point where I am unable to hate or dislike it.  "Founding" was unable to make me care one way or another.  If I want to watch a good propaganda film that has a sweeping narrative that actually is able to move me despite its obvious nationalistic theme, I would watch "From 5AM to 5PM" of North Korea origin, double rainbows and all.

Yours in digital,
BeepBoop

P.S.  Tomorrow's review is "The Ramen Girl."

No comments:

Post a Comment