Hero (2002)

[This review was originally published at Christianity Today.]

-

The Grand Canyon. The Northern Lights. Van Gogh's sunflowers. We've all been stricken speechless by vivid displays of color. For me, there's the Georgia O'Keefe museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico; the shimmering metallic blue of Pacific Ocean waves at twilight; the day I discovered first-hand that ladybugs sometimes hibernate on mountaintops, clustered together in masses, blood red against white snow (hard to believe, but true).

To that list of awe-inspiring and vividly colorful experiences, I'd have to add the first time I saw Zhang Yimou's Hero on the big screen.

It's strange to consult a thesaurus for words that mean "beautiful" while I'm writing a review of a martial arts epic. But that's what Hero does to its audience. The gravity-defying duels between swordsmen are some of the most spectacular you'll ever see. An all-star team of China's most talented screen actors delivers performances of astounding physical skill and delicate emotion. Adventures, debates, epic battles, and revenge quests weave together into a complex tapestry. And the soundtrack by Tan Dun (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) is lush and stirring. But those colors …

Sometimes, we miss out on the best films merely because they're "foreign." Hero sat neglected on the shelf at Miramax for two years while gaining popularity in China and with fans of Hong Kong cinema who got hold of import DVDs. Those responsible for stalling it should be rounded up and fired. It won an Oscar nomination in 2003 while still unreleased in the States, but the Academy voters who didn't give it a fair shake should be ashamed of themselves. If you miss seeing Hero on the big screen, you have missed one of the peaks of cinematic spectacle.

Perhaps political bias stifled the film's exhibition. Hero is one of those rare works of art that serves both as an intimate character drama and as a national myth. While Zhang Yimou was not commissioned to make Hero by the Chinese government, the movie would have made such an investment worth every penny. It is surpassingly excellent in every technical category. But there have been murmurs of discontent in China over whether or not the director is paying homage to Chinese Imperialism. And indeed he does portray a tyrannical king as wise and conscientious. But he also offers devastating displays of destruction unleashed by that same conqueror. The conflicts occur between the "warring states" of China, circa 220 B.C. Aiming to become emperor, the King of the country of Qin, Chin Shi Huang Di (played with authority by Chen Dao Ming), crushes the cultures of six opposing regions to gain supremacy.

This portrayal of violence and brutality runs counter to a wholesale endorsement of imperialism. Hero is about the way that the spread of an empire can all too easily devalue and destroy the valuable distinctions defined by the language, personality, and artistry of differing cultures. In direct contrast to the film's colorful characters, the King's armies drain color from the screen. They're like minions of Tolkien's orcs—dark and cold—and the King oversees this like a contemplative spider at the center of a web, where he too is haunted by the cost of his campaign.

As the film opens, the king honors a warrior called Nameless, who has slain three famous assassins that threatened the throne during the conquest. The reward: a private meeting with the king. This hero, played perfectly by international martial arts legend Jet Li, grants the king's wish; he relates the stories of how he outwitted these legendary killers—Broken Sword (Tony Leung), Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung), and Sky (Donnie Yen).

In the style of Rashomon, Nameless's stories are offered to us in multiple, contradictory flashbacks. Each story he relates raises the king's suspicion and requires a revision. Thus, Nameless and his targets are portrayed in a variety of relationships, sometimes meeting different fates. Each enthralling flashback is portrayed in a distinct array of colors.

In one, Nameless and Sky meet in a spectacular duel that's as much a match between their minds as it is between their blades. In another, Nameless helps Broken Sword and Flying Snow defend a calligraphy school from the oncoming forces of the king's warriors. This involves deflecting relentless torrents of arrows that are launched in a siege that resembles the ferocity of The Two Towers' Battle of Helm's Deep. Nameless opposes this siege in order to gain the killers' trust, to learn their weakness, and to defeat them using their own passions for one another. Zhang Ziyi, sporting the same youthful ego and impertinence that she portrayed in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, plays a key role here as Broken Sword's servant, Moon. Two more astonishing clashes—one a breathtaking ballet in a storm of falling yellow leaves, the other a battle on the surface of a magnificent lake—are each worth the price of admission; it's unlikely you'll see anything so memorable all year.

But the most important clash is the one between the hero's narratives and the king's questioning. Nameless is clearly superior to those whose weapons he has claimed and set down before the king. But what has made him such an unparalleled warrior? And what will he ask of the king now that he has performed this feat as a volunteer?

To say more about the plot would be to spoil the story's most interesting twist. And besides, there is much to say in honor of the cast and crew.

Nameless is a perfect role for Jet Li. The part asks little of his acting talents (fortunately) and much from his athletic abilities. Similarly, Donnie Yen (Blade II, Shanghai Knights) turns Sky into a man who gets right down to business, letting his sword do the talking.

The juiciest roles go to Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung, who earned acclaim for playing as the leads of Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. Here, they embody one of the most tempestuous romances in the annals of film. United with a passion for excellence both in art and in combat, but divided by political ambitions, Broken Sword and Flying Snow swoon, argue, duel, dance, and smash each others' hearts to pieces. Their director intensifies their emotions with colorful backdrops—blood reds, emerald greens, the white of sun-bleached sands. Are there any American actors who are as multi-talented as Leung, Cheung, and Zhang Ziyi, able to move our hearts, tantalize our minds, and then kick our butts with acrobatic fight scenes? They don't just deserve Oscars—give them Olympic medals!

But the true masters of the show are Zhang Yimou and his cinematographer Christopher Doyle (The Quiet American, In the Mood for Love). They find rarely seen backdrops in China that rival the New Zealand landscapes of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.

Zhang gets a lot of support from Oscar-winner Emi Wada's extraordinary costume design. Production designer Tingxiao Huo brings this ancient world to life, so that the armies riding through the gates of the cities seem to be charging right out of the history books. Itzhak Perlman's soulful violin stands out against the stormy backdrop of the Kodo Drummers's drums in Tan Dun's soundtrack. (The themes are too similar to his work for Crouching Tiger, but then again, they're perfectly suited to the material.)

Zhang has a long list of marvelous films, including Ju Dou and Raise the Red Lantern, both of which earned him Oscar nominations, and the recent, romantic short story The Road Home. He calls To Live (1994) his most important movie, and it's true—that epic about family and hardship in Chinese history is his most accomplished work of storytelling. But Hero is his masterpiece of visual imagination.

While it is almost impossible to discuss Hero without comparing it to Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, that's only because American viewers are unfamiliar with a genre called wuxia—a decades-old tradition of Chinese martial arts films. If they must be compared, yes, both feature warriors with the supernatural abilities to run up walls and bound through the treetops; but Crouching Tiger is more melancholy and romantic, whereas the action and spectacle in Hero make Ang Lee's film look like a high school play.

Hero also burns with immediacy and relevance. As China struggles with the division between Beijing and Taiwan, Zhang Yimou poses a heartfelt challenge. He acknowledges the value of unification and peace. He knows that militant resistance of the empire's progress can lead only to more violence and loss. But he reminds the viewer that the peculiarity of unique, diverse cultures produces valuable, irreplaceable rewards … and people. It is as if the storyteller cannot find a satisfactory conclusion to his own epic.

Thus, American viewers may be unsettled by the conclusion, as there seems to be no room for democracy in Hero's paradigm. In a worldview that reveres the will of a conqueror over the will of a benevolent God, "peace" comes at a cost that will give no one true peace. That is why, in the end, Hero remains a conflicted, colorfully turbulent film. By the time the climactic challenge occurs, few will find themselves unmoved by the king's good intentions; but after his bloody campaigns, he is not the man who earns the title "hero."

Seen in this light, Hero's distinct, aerobatic duels come to represent the power of art to communicate ideas across borders and languages, from common people to kings, emperors, and presidents. The story's emphasis on the art of calligraphy is connected to its exhibitions of swordsmanship—in developing an artful style of writing, Broken Sword and Flying Snow prove that the pen can indeed be mightier than the sword. This metaphor, along with the film's explorations of conscience, fidelity, trust, and responsibility, make Hero ultimately an insightful and rewarding achievement.

2004 doesn't have a new Lord of the Rings film to fill the screen with bedazzlement and wonder. But it does have Hero. Do yourself the favor of catching it on the big screen. And leave yourself plenty of time to discuss it with your friends afterward. It may be two years old, but it's still the richest cinematic feast on American movie screens so far this year.

Note: Near the end of the film, a character delivers an important message in two words—"Our land." In the Chinese version, there are actually three words—"All under heaven." Zhang Yimou changed it out of concern that it would not translate properly. Frankly, I prefer "All under heaven."


J. Robert Parks - Live From the Toronto International Film Festival

J. Robert Parks, who provides many reviews for Looking Closer when I'm not able to catch a film and write about it in time, is in Toronto for the film festival, and he has an ambitious screening list.Read more


Why Do Moviegoers Like Garden State So Much?

Spurred on by positive reviews, I spent Sunday afternoon at a matinee of Garden State, and when it was over, I drove home trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. I didn't walk away thinking "Awful." I just kinda went, "Eh. Well. Okay. Saw that movie."Read more


Transcript: Bono talks to Bill O'Reilly

Bono didn't waste words during his talk with Bill O'Reilly, making another impressive appeal for the U.S. to lead the way in addressing Africa's emergency.Read more


Updated again: Superman/Caviezel Madness

LATEST UPDATE: 4:02 p.m.

If you haven't heard about this, see my earlier blog.

Things are getting crazy. Here's my paraphrase of the craziness so far.Read more


Barbie Goes Back to Her Roots. Unfortunately.

In case you haven't ever learned about the origins of Barbie dolls, it's important that you know this:Read more


Greetings from a Looking Closer reader in Georgia. (No, not THAT Georgia.)

I love hearing from readers, especially when they turn out to be old friends... especially when it turns out those old friends have been up to some amazing things!

Greetings from Tbilisi, Georgia!

It's been far too long since I've dropped you a line, but I have continued to be a regular visitor to your Looking Closer website. I love the Blog, too -- what a great idea!

Your review of Zhang Yimou's Hero has me really intrigued. I doubt the film will make it to Georgia any time soon, but I'm going to Scotland next week for a few days of vacation with my family, and maybe I'll try to catch it in Edinburgh this weekend. Sounds like the sort of film that is much better to see on the big screen anyway. Have you seen Chen Kaige's film about Qin Shi Huang, The Emperor and the Assassin? It sounds like it would be interesting to watch the two back to back and discuss their different portrayals of the unifier of China. I recommend that you check it out if you haven't already seen it!

In your review, you write: "Hero also burns with immediacy and relevance. As China struggles with the division between Beijing and Taiwan, Zhang Yimou poses a heartfelt challenge. He acknowledges the value of unification and peace. He knows that militant resistance of the empire's progress can lead only to more violence and loss. But he reminds the viewer that the peculiarity of unique, diverse cultures produces valuable, irreplaceable rewards ... and people."

This feels relevant also to the current political situation in Georgia, which is also a fractured and divided country. There are two regions of the country that broke away and declared independence in the early 1990s -- South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- and the conflicts have been "frozen" for the past 12 years. Now, the new government of Georgia under President Saakashvili has set itself the goal of reunifying the country. Saakashvili himself, who has delusions of grandeur, makes no secret of the fact that his great model is Georgia's most famous medieval king, David the Builder, who unified a divided land, conquered Tbilisi from the Arabs, and made it the country's capital in 1122. But already this summer he has brought Georgia perilously close to war with Russia over South Ossetia, with last week being the most serious crisis so far. Saakashvili talks a lot about the need to respect the unique languages and cultures of the Ossetes and the Abkhaz, but is he prepared to be patient and work peacefully over time for reunification, or is he going to risk disaster and rush in with guns blazing? We shall see.

Life working in a U.S. embassy continues to be nothing if not interesting. I've found that it's exhausting working in a job like this in a country that is undergoing a self-proclaimed "revolution" (the "Rose Revolution," which you have probably heard about this past year in the news at some point or another). While this has been a fascinating experience, I also have really found myself missing the rythms and more relaxed pace of academic life. This summer has felt out of joint, as it's the first time in my life that I haven't just automatically had the summer free. I find I really dislike having to count vacation days!

I've gotten to do quite a bit of travel all over the beautiful country of Georgia this past year, as well as take some fun side trips to countries in the neighborhood. Over New Year's I flew up to Prague and met up with my parents there, and then we took the train up to Berlin for New Year's Eve, which was wonderful. I really love both cities, although they are extremely different from one another -- Prague is quaint, elegant, and extremely beautiful, while Berlin is a real modern metropolis. One of the many highlights for me in Berlin was getting to see Return of the King in English on the big screen, something which I would not have been able to do in Tbilisi. I spent Memorial Day weekend in Kiev with a couple friends from work, including Trinity Sunday at the gorgeous Monastery of the Caves. In July I drove down to Armenia with a couple friends (I have purchased a used Ford to drive around the Caucasus in), and we spent a weekend in Yerevan. It's not a particularly beautiful city, but it has spectacular views of Mount Ararat, which rises up out of the Turkish plain across the border like Kilimanjaro towering over the Serengeti. Earlier this month I drove down to Turkey for several days with an old friend from SPU days who was visiting me. It was my first time in Turkey, too. Wow, what a fascinating place! So many different civilizations piled layer upon layer on top of one another. We only just scratched the surface on this quick trip, but it has left me hungering for more.

Please say hello to Anne for me. Drop me a line when you have a moment. It'd be great to hear from you!

David

-

David,

I can't thank you enough for your letter, which is more interesting than most of the films I've seen this year, to say the least. What I wouldn't give to see some of the things you've seen. Glad I've been able to contribute in some small way to your experience. You definitely contribute to mine!

Jeffrey


Collateral (2004)

[This review was originally published at Christianity Today.]


Why do big screen killers seem so glamorous? It's not the filmmaker's fault, necessarily. We're flawed and foolish people, drawn to power, to independence, to the illusion that we can be gods unto ourselves and keep our hands, hair, suits, and consciences clean.

The villain in Collateral is as devilish a man as we've seen onscreen in a while. He's almost irresistible, always ready with a rationalization, and quick to turn against you in those moments when you try to break free of his influence. It's interesting how much he compliments the cleanliness of the taxicab that he hijacks at the beginning of the film. The devil's not ugly—he likes things clean, shiny, and efficient. That way, nobody tries to look at what's going on underneath.

About halfway through Collateral, the poor, persecuted cab driver turns and delivers an ultimatum to this gun-wielding hit man who has commandeered his car and his services for the night. He describes his hijacker as a man "missing some parts" that are "supposed to be there." In that moment, Max (Jamie Foxx), a mild-mannered driver with big dreams, sums up his cold-hearted passenger.

But the words resonate on another level, because they perfectly describe the distinct acting quality of the man playing the killer: Tom Cruise.

Cruise has always looked like a movie star. But most of his roles—from Top Gun to Days of Thunder to A Few Good Men and The Last Samurai—have been similar: driven champions-to-be, momentarily prevented from triumph, bound to overcome some personal obstacle or loss, and then grinning and glorious in the winner's circle. Cruise's performances always evidence drive and discipline, but little else. They lack complexity or heart. They've got rock-and-roll, but they've got no soul. Cruise is a salesman, relentlessly working everything in his power—especially his smile—in order to please you. The façade never comes down to reveal what's behind it.

Thus, in the superstar's most interesting roles, that opacity and superficiality has been exploited by the director so the audience recognizes how creepy it is. When he played the heartless, arrogant punk in Rain Man who needed a moral mentor, the shiny shoes fit just right. As a spiritually bankrupt bloodsucker in Interview with the Vampire, he oozed vanity and thirst. In Magnolia, he strutted and preened for the cameras, a boasting paragon of chauvinism, a prodigal son too proud to go home.

Now, in Collateral, Cruise has his best role yet. He's wearing a designer suit that deserves its own Oscar. It's cut to a perfect fit, just like his shockingly silver hair. Except for the wolf-grey beard, he looks like he's made out of stainless steel, and when he runs, you half-expect him to morph into Terminator 2's T-1000. His grin gleams with menace. He's as quick and sharp as a dagger in the back, and yet he seems likely to dissipate into the air at any moment, like a nightmare or a chill. Even the character's name—Vincent—carries an air of artistry.

Vincent's in L.A. for one night to kill off five people. To him, they're nobody special, but to the offshore drug-trafficking cartel that hired him, they're key witnesses in a case that could bring down their dirty dealings. All Vincent needs is a cooperative driver who will follow orders, either by bribery or by persuasion with a pistol. Max is the unlucky winner. As they hit the streets, the signage printed inside the cab takes on added significance: "Buckle your seat belt." "Two passengers ride for the price of one."

Max, it turns out, is more interesting than Vincent. He's a hard-working driver who knows the ins and outs of L.A. freeways at night, just as his moral compass knows its way around right and wrong. Despite his twelve-year expertise, he insists the job is only temporary. Someday, he promises, he's going to run a Grade-A limousine service. To keep his dreams alive, he keeps a postcard-photo of a tropical island clipped to his visor. Yet, somehow, those dreams are never tangible enough to get him out of the taxi and into the world of risk and possibility.

Foxx's performance is a revelation: he is completely convincing, understated, and moves effortlessly through a wide range of emotions and conflicts both comical and severe. If his starring role in the upcoming Ray Charles biopic, Ray, delivers on the promise he shows here, he may earn himself an Academy Award. As he watches Vincent's acrobatic immorality, Max's face shifts between wide-eyed awe, horror, angst, and disgust. He feels trapped, and yet each new challenge influences him, altering his character with such subtlety that we hardly notice. He gets frustrated, flabbergasted, humiliated, indignant, and eventually bold, courageous, and cocky; he's even pushed to the point of taking on a cop with a gun in his hand. By the end of the film, he's a new man.

But what kind of man has he become? Has Vincent brought out the best in him, or the worst?

The tense interplay between Foxx and Cruise is perfectly pitched and sometimes quite funny. When cops pull over the killer's cab, Vincent warns Max, "Don't let me get cornered. You don't have the trunk space." When Vincent learns that the hijacking has prevented Max from visiting his mother in the hospital, the film swerves into an inspired tangent of tense comedy that features the formidable Irma P. Hall, who out-performs Cruise just the way she outperformed other Ladykillers earlier this year.

Even when he's pushing his way through L.A.'s crowded nightlife, Vincent is all business. Other people are just objects to shove out of the way. Still, the story draws a few of these nocturnal phantoms into the killer's wake.

Mark Ruffalo delivers a stunning turn as an LAPD narcotics cop who picks up the scent—it took me a couple of minutes to recognize him. He takes a poorly scripted, cookie-cutter character and makes him one of the most interesting things in the film. Bruce McGill, who nearly stole the show in The Insider with his explosive courtroom technique, is great here too as an FBI agent laying a net for drug dealers, looking like a compact-model of Donald Sutherland and snarling like a pit bull. Jada Pinkett Smith plays United States Attorney Annie Farrell, Max's first fare of the night. Smith's warmth and subtlety reveals her true charms as an actress, talents that went unemployed in her Matrix-sequels roles.

The other great performance in this film is delivered by director Michael Mann. Collateral allows Mann to indulge all of his signature flourishes: slow cruises through the city by night, with the lights gliding across the shiny surfaces of cars, subways, and helicopters; a gun for every well-dressed tough guy; a couple of chaotic shootouts. Viewers will be frequently reminded of his previous films from Ali to The Insider, from Heat to Manhunter. He loves a screen divided by horizontals—freeways, rooftops, horizons, and a windshield that's cracked in just the right place so Vincent's visage is fragmented. When Max leaves the cab station, he drives into a panoramic mural of the wild, wild west. Like Heat, Collateral is a tone-poem tribute to the City of Angels—the back alleys, off-ramps, and warehouses we rarely see in films.

Still, Collateral is also Mann's most formulaic work since he turned in weekly episodes of Miami Vice. Granted, that's not his fault. Taking a note from Midnight Run, screenwriter Stuart Beattie pairs a wise bad guy and a simple good guy, binds them together, and has the bad guy teaching the good guy to get his life together. In the last act, you can feel the tires suddenly sinking into the ruts of a routine action flick, spoiling the fluidity, spontaneity, and grace of all that has come before. Finally, the film swerves into a tailspin of clichés culminating in a confrontation that plays like a feeble echo of Heat's last-act pathos. Coincidences pile up on all sides. People we thought we were meeting by chance early in the film suddenly show up in Vincent's plans. You have to wonder if Mann will play a slow-jazz version of "It's a Small World" over the end credits.

These unlikely connections are ironic, considering the film's faux-philosophical subtext about an overpopulated world that makes each life seem insignificant by comparison. You can feel Beattie's script straining for importance as Vincent shoots first and then asks questions like "Does anyone notice?" We're left without any inklings of God or any higher influence. We're left to assume that it's a Darwin world out there, and if there's going to be any love or any care or any meaning, we have to make it for ourselves. The law cannot be trusted. The good man is the one who learns to carry a gun and mete out justice to whatever theme music he chooses.

And yet, the film may strike a chord with American audiences, many of whom feel as if the nation's been hijacked, and that they've been persuaded to carry out the violent agendas of others. If Cruise's Vincent is good at anything (besides shooting and dressing), it's rationalizing. He tries to "sell" Max on his job, his mission, minimizing ethical concerns. When one rationalization falls apart ("I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him"), he tries relativism, comparing the five people he's killed to mass murders in Rwanda.

The problem is that Mann and Beattie are content to let the Devil win. Whatever Vincent's fate, it's hard not to walk away impressed with his slickness and skill. And it's hard to ignore that, while Max may have learned that life is unpredictable and he needs to "seize the day," he's also learned that it's a whole lot more efficient to carry a gun and work justice as a vigilante than to consider any other source of help.

Collateral reaches for profundity by exploring some existential questions, looking with clinical fascination at the remnants of conscience in its "hero" and "villain." But it ultimately draws few conclusions about right and wrong, and leaves us with the impression that there is no way out of the devil's business. As the music swells during the film's operatic conclusion, there's still a bad smell coming from the trunk of this taxi.


Is Jim Ca-Jesus... Superman?

UPDATE 8/31 : Ain't It Cool now says Mark Millar's story is 100% FALSE.

UPDATE 8/30: Warner Brothers is not yet confirming that Millar's report. But Barbara Nicolosi, prophetess, talked about this a while ago in her blog. To read some crazy responses to the idea, click here...

Original story:

Mea culpa. Nicolosi's rumor looks like it was probably correct after all. I'm in a state of shock.

Can't you see the slogan?

"This time... Caviezel gets to FIGHT BACK."

Mark Millar confirms the rumor.

 


Patty Griffin, Rachel Yamagata... Music page updates!

I've added a review of Patty Griffin's new album Impossible Dream to the Looking Closer music page, along with a few comments on new albums by Rachel Yamagata and Snow Patrol.

And no, I haven't forgotten that I promised an in-depth review of Wilco's A Ghost is Born. That review's taking longer than most; it's a complicated album. But it will be there. Soon, I hope.