Film review of "Beautiful China"

Many people say it is good and recommend it. After seeing it, it is very good, but only technically good. China is so beautiful in the lens, so beautiful that it makes people very regretful - why didn't we shoot such a film ourselves? Why should the department that decides where the funds go spend money on those boring themes and similar garbage on CCTV, and use a very SB way to instill that people in this land should be patriotic and make more of these movies? , isn’t it more effective than any other slogan? ! Nowadays, I can only appreciate the beauty of China in BBC films.

This feeling was very strong as early as when I read Japan's "Wild Bird Chronicles". The birds and scenery in Japan's four seasons are very similar to those in my hometown in the north, and they look so friendly. Perhaps films like this, films that simply appreciate and praise the beauty of the land, will still be discouraged because it is depoliticized and has nothing to do with the people on the land who run the country.

Going back to the BBC film, the main problem lies in the insight behind the camera. To put it simply, the explanation is very problematic, which fully exposes the difference in perspective: that is, this is not the scenery of hometown in the eyes of our culture. It is the eye of the beholder who sees beauty but lacks understanding. It is said to be a series. I have only watched the Yangshuo episode and the Great Wall episode. The problem is mainly manifested in the content that uses the Great Wall as a clue. Because the Great Wall exists as culture, the unfamiliarity and lack of respect for culture will be particularly clear. Exposure, unlike when it is easy to maintain a value-neutral stance when facing wildlife and natural scenery.

In the Yangshuo episode, the most eye-catching thing is the quote of a common saying: "Those with four legs will not be eaten except on the table; those with wings will not be eaten except on airplanes." The animals were all eaten. This position is fine as a casual conversation, but if we regard the BBC film as a serious work, it is not appropriate. After all, isn’t what we eat a culture? Why do Europeans say that Koreans are cruel and inhumane for eating dog meat, while their bullfighting is very civilized? Being quick to judge people is sometimes just a sign of short-sightedness. This makes the film seem less serious. For wildlife protection, the biggest enemy is industrialized production methods, etc. Foreigners cannot be exempted easily. Of course, this is boring. It is better to quote a few strange words for fun. After all, the film is just Funny.

The problems with the Great Wall are roughly as follows - 1. After recording the tender life of the Ewenki people, the commentator said: It is difficult to imagine that the Great Wall is here to defend these people. First of all, the Great Wall was historically chosen by the farming civilization in the East to deal with the nomadic civilization. Using today’s warm pictures of northern life to question the intentions of the rulers behind the Great Wall, the subjective and critical intention behind the camera is too obvious. I can only say , is as retarded as similar domestic works. 2. Then the life of the Mongolian people was introduced. The explanation mentioned that the Great Wall was used to defend against cavalry, etc., which seemed to indicate that the photographer knew the function of the Great Wall. However, when introducing the Great Wall in the west, he also expressed why the Great Wall was built in such a desolate place. Doubtful, this reflects shortcomings in two aspects. One is ignorance of the evolution of the ecological environment. Today's desolate land may have been a lush grassland in the past. The area where nomadic and agricultural civilizations compete for each other is itself ecologically fragile and prone to desertification; the other is the lack of understanding of the evolution of the ecological environment. The nomadic cavalry have no understanding of their mobility and no military common sense. The above shows that the camera is obviously not willing to understand the civilization represented by the Great Wall, but it is very willing to evaluate it. 3. The explanation of silkworms and silk seems too joking, which once again reveals that the film is actually just for foreigners to relieve their boredom, not a serious work. And it obviously deliberately downplays the fact that silk is a contribution to Han culture. The historical contributions of other ethnic groups on the Silk Road were mainly in the circulation link. This is not demanding. If the BBC avoids the role of the Han people too much when dealing with the culture of this land, it is obviously not an attitude of respecting culture and history. It is just a feeble-minded act to comply with today's Western political correctness and protect its cultural superiority. I originally thought that for a film like this, the BBC would equip an advisory group of Chinese and British scholars who are familiar with Chinese culture, but judging from the film, the cultural vision and underlying analytical framework behind the camera are completely at the level of foreign journalists stationed in China, that is, Basically, adopting a simple binary oppositional stance is the most uncultured expression when facing and dealing with issues in the cultural field.

So, this is just a good tourism promotional film to promote China as a tourist destination to Western tourists. And this film is actually a Sino-British collaboration. Obviously, from the above, it can be seen that the Chinese side has no ability to influence the position of the camera. At least, they are not participating as a Chinese in the cultural sense. At most, they are commercial collaborators. , it just provides shooting convenience, because it is impossible to shoot such a film in China without the cooperation of the government. The Chinese audience's praise of it is too rash, at least it lowers the professional requirements of the BBC, haha. Of course, it can be extended this way. After all, the BBC does not often have the opportunity to face another civilization that is still alive and does not belong to the West. This is the difference between making this film and similar films in other regions, so it is a test for the BBC.

Facts have proved that the cultural attitude of the BBC film crew towards China has not fundamentally changed compared to that of their ancestors a hundred years ago: China is still a country that eats a lot of weird food and was created because of an incredible dream. The four great invention countries created so-called ancient intellectual property rights, haha, they left it to CCTV to film. Of course, they still adopt the position of weakening the Han people and promoting ethnic minorities. This is certainly related to the inappropriateness of today's domestic ethnic policies, but it must be noted that this is also the consistent strategy of the established colonists towards the colonies.

However, the sadness of the Chinese audience is that we have no choice but to be amazed in front of the magnificent mountains and rivers through the eyes of the BBC, and think of one word - love. For this reason, I will also collect this set of discs. The BBC left it to CCTV. CCTV did not show any urge to film, but was overjoyed to have the opportunity to cooperate with the BBC. From this point of view, maybe the BBC did not want to colonize. It was just starting from its own perspective. Doesn’t everyone see the world from their own perspective? However, CCTV was waiting to be colonized. They did not Start from your own perspective.

In fact, in essence, the current world is a real world. Generally speaking, our world can be broken down into material and spiritual history. Slowly in the 21st century, our world has completely become a material composed of currency, equivalent exchange, free trade, etc. The world and the spiritual part composed of equality, fraternity, free self, etc. dominate the long river of human history. Like the tide, various civilizations rush to the forefront one after another and are recycled into the ocean of chaos again and again. The present world All the foundations seem to come from Western culture, and this is just like the industrial enterprises that represent modernization. The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. In this round of peaceful war, human beings gradually accepted the concept from loose individuals and tribes. The same way of life, but the sad thing about this way of life is that its end point will be the only one. We cannot say that the Western system is not good. On the contrary, it does have a very good structure. But when the standards for judging whether things are correct or not are standardized. When we have the same orientation, one day we will be surprised to find that in human beings' efforts to pursue freedom, we are once again dominated, and it is a complete denial of the original self. The cultural output is a kind of value. The value of the world is now represented by a material Evaluate with your eyes