|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Seminar #4 Summaries: To
Live with Prof. Patricia O'Neill ~
28 April 2003 |
|
Seminar #4 Summary a by T. C. Seminar led by: Patricia O’Neil Ä The seminar was begun with Patricia asking the class if they thought the title to the movie was appropriate or if we thought it should have been named something else. The only suggestions the class was able to give was perhaps it should be something more along the lines of “To Survive” because that is what the characters seem to do in this movie. They survive one tragedy after another. Ä It was then explained to the class that the title “To Live” is more powerful to the Chinese rather than Americans because of the way they view life. Ä The communist leader in the movie was also discussed in class. Patricia cleared up a few details that were not clear in the movie about why he did what he did. He felt he was losing control and people were blaming him for things going wrong. He knew this was a bad thing so he would ask people for ideas on how to make things better, and then he would imprison them or kill them. He also took the power away from t he educated and the experienced and gave it to the young students. He often closed schools so the students would be able to “take over” the city. Ä This idea explained why the doctors were all locked away in the movie and the students were left to run the hospital. Ä It was also made clear in class that a few clarifications needed to be made on the people in China being pro communism. The movie portrayed it as all people were for communism. However, during that time not all people were for communism. The people that could flee the country did and others who could not afford to flee the country usually ended up in jail. Some people were forced to join an army and then later tortured because of the army they were a part of. Ä Once again the question was brought up “what is historical fiction” and “where would this movie fit into that?” Ä This movie is not like Jewel in the Crown, because it has a narrator telling his own story rather than a narrator telling someone else’s story. This then led us to the question of how long must pass before it would be considered historical fiction of any writing on the Iraqi war. This was answered with the idea that there must be a time of reflection on the war. Articles that are wrote now on the Iraqi war would almost be considered political science rather than historical fiction. Ä For most people by the time the early ‘90’s rolled around, they were afraid to voice they opinion. People had been through so much torture and back and forth attitudes, they were (are) scared all this could happen to them all over again. They are now just trying “to live” and they do not know what is going to happen to them in the future. Ä It was clarified for us that there is no record that the maker of the movie was ever tortured or forced to join any army or leave the country. |
|
Seminar #4 Summary b by J. V.
Seminar # 4 on To Live Dr. Patricia O’Neill (Professor of History) was a seminar leader. She shared her knowledge about history and culture of China. How would the American audience call this movie? Does the title “To Live” represent our perception of this story? Would titles like “To Survive” or “To Persevere” better represent our feelings about this story? Possibly! How much time do the historians need in order to objectively describe and understand certain historical event? Do we need to skip a generation? It seems like it is very hard (if not impossible) for the witnesses of an event to objectively reflect all aspects of the event. How much time do the writers of historical fiction need? Can the writers of historical fiction be less objective than the historians? Maybe!? Majority of the class liked the story and found it balanced and relatively easy to understand. Some American viewers may have hard time realizing and understanding how drastically different everyday life can be in various parts of world (in comparison to USA) Nothing in history is “black or white.” Zhang Yimou avoided “black or white” understanding of modern Chinese history. He offers complex picture of modern history of China (presence of humor, love, real - everyday people, etc.) “To Live” (and historical fiction generally) forces us to think about ourselves. How would we react in various situations in history? Historical fiction gives us a chance to critically look at ourselves. The audience of this movie are the viewers outside of China (this movie would not be “allowed” in today’s China). There are millions or Chinese emigrants around the world (Hong Kong, Taiwan, U.S.A., Europe, South America, etc.) The puppets in the movie are metaphor for an art. In totalitarian societies, the artists and intellectuals are often oppressed first (and most severely). It is because they represent the biggest danger for totalitarian regimes (an example: Holocaust.) Educated and talented people don’t like to stay quiet in times of injustice and terror. It is difficult to manipulate them and censor their work. There are many similarities between life in communist China and communist Eastern Europe (propaganda, emphasize on working class, persecution of intellectuals, etc.) Totalitarian governments want to break family structures and family ties in order to make people less resistant to their policies. Totalitarian leaders like to keep citizens in fear and uncertainty. Citizens never know who watches them and who is listening to their conversations. P. O’Neill gave us an example of Chinese historians (who she met in a conference in China) who were afraid to talk to her openly even in year 1992. |
Seminar #4 Make-Up Contribution by L. L.
The movie “To live,” was a very emotional movie to me. I felt so shallow, because I take for granted the freedom that we have here in America. As I read the responses against the different interpretations of the title, I felt agitated. I didn’t think that the movie should have been called “Too Survive,” but as you pointed out in class today, the translation between the two languages takes away from the meaning of the title.
I am disappointed that I missed Patricia O’Neill discussing events in the movie that were a little bit unclear, but after reading the summary and discussing the movie further in class, I understand better. It was at first confusing to me because I have no knowledge of the history of China. I thought at first that the people were against Communism, especially when they were in the rebel army fearing the Reds. Later as they were having meals together in the city I realized that they were pro-communism.
I don’t think that it is necessary to skip a generation in order to write historical fiction. I think that the most important element in writing Historical fiction is objectivity. I the author has the ability to be objective two years after the incident then they should be able to write about it, if it takes them two generations to become objective, then they should wait. Everything depends on the circumstance of the situation, the theme of the book, and the person writing it. This class is definitely revealing that Historical Fiction has very large perimeters.
Additional Contribution - Ch.D.
Seminar #4—To Live Discussion with Dr. Patricia O’Neill:
Dr. Patricia O’Neill led a very interesting discussion on China and the film To Live. She brought up the question: Is To Live an appropriate title for the film? The class discussed this with her and came to the conclusion that the title was appropriate, especially since the film focused so heavily on survival and perseverance. Survival was the dominant feeling to the movie.
Dr. O’Neill also discussed the Chinese cinema genre with the class. She noted that during the communist uprising in China, the film school had been shut down in Beijing. This had long term effects on Chinese filmmakers.
In addition, she discussed the persecution of intellectuals as a whole. Mao Zedong focused on young people, especially young, educated people. He was afraid of their power and if it was let loose what it could do. So, he sent Chinese youth out to the country to be “re-educated.”
Furthermore, Dr. O’Neil also brought up the question—At what point is an incident far enough in the past to become “history?” She acknowledged that there is probably no concrete answer to this question, but that if it is within one’s own generation, it is more likely to be political science rather than history.
Additional Contribution - Ca.D.
SEMINAR #4I think the movie's title was appropriate because through everything; the gambling, the war, the deaths of the children, etc., the family continues living and merely adapts to the times, always getting through. I am not surprised by the actions of the communist leader in the movie. He could not concoct ideas of his own, so he took ideas from others and then locked them up so that they could not share their knowledge. After all, I do not think that the people would appreciate a leader if they knew that he could not think for himself to solve his own problems. I think the leader saw the scholars as threats because they were more capable of finding solutions. Back during slavery, the white folks did not not educate the slaves for fear that if they learned enough that they would have ideas and rise up to break free from slavery. I was very confused by the portrayal of communist supporters because I was never taught that communism had been welcomed so enthusiastically in China. I do however understand why the boy was made to go to school despite being tired. If the family did not do their share, then they would be targeted for not supporting their country. Overall I enjoyed this movie. This film was my favorite from the term. I felt sympathy for the family and the hardships they faced, but felt admiration for them since they triumphed over everything. They seemed to learn something from each of the experiences.
See also: Cora's Online Reserve (password protected) for articles on Historical Fiction (& To Live film notes, etc. - online handout)
URL: http://www.cocc.edu/cagatucci_articles/
|
ENGL 339 Spring 2003 Seminar Summaries
completed thus far:
Seminar #1
~ What Is Historical Fiction? |
ENGL 339-E Course Home Page | Syllabus | Course Plan | Introduction | Course Pack Index |
Cora's Online Reserves (password protected)
Spring 2003 Seminar Summaries: Seminar #1 | Seminar #2 | Seminar #3 | Seminar #4 | Seminar #5 | Seminar #6
You are Here: Seminar #4 Summaries - ENGL 339, Spring 2003
URL of this webpage: http://www.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/eng339/seminar4.htm
Last updated: 02 March 2004
Copyright © 1997-2003, Cora Agatucci, Professor of English
Humanities Department, Central Oregon Community College
Please address comments on web contents & links to: cagatucci@cocc.eduFor technical problems with this web, contact webmaster@cocc.edu
