Angry China

May 1st 2008
From The Economist print edition

The recent glimpses of a snarling China should scare the country's government as much as the world

CHINA is in a frightening mood. The sight of thousands of Chinese people waving xenophobic fists suggests that a country on its way to becoming a superpower may turn out to be a more dangerous force than optimists had hoped. But it isn't just foreigners who should be worried by these scenes: the Chinese government, which has encouraged this outburst of nationalism, should also be afraid.

For three decades, having shed communism in all but the name of its ruling party, China's government has justified its monopolistic hold on power through economic advance. Many Chinese enjoy a prosperity undreamt of by their forefathers. For them, though, it is no longer enough to be reminded of the grim austerity of their parents' childhoods. They need new aspirations.

The government's solution is to promise them that China will be restored to its rightful place at the centre of world affairs. Hence the pride at winning the Olympics, and the fury at the embarrassing protests during the torch relay. But the appeal to nationalism is a double-edged sword: while it provides a useful outlet for domestic discontents (see article), it could easily turn on the government itself.

A million mutinies

The torch relay has galvanised protests about all manner of alleged Chinese crimes: in Tibet, in China's broader human-rights record, in its cosy relations with repellent regimes. And these in turn have drawn counter-protests from thousands of expatriate Chinese, from Chinese within the country and on the internet.

Chinese rage has focused on the alleged “anti-China” bias of the Western press, which is accused of ignoring violence by Tibetans in the unrest in March. From this starting-point China's defenders have gone on to denounce the entire edifice of Western liberal democracy as a sham. Using its tenets to criticise China is, they claim, sheer hypocrisy. They cite further evidence of double standards: having exported its dirtiest industries to China, the West wants the country to curb its carbon emissions, potentially impeding its growth and depriving newly well-off Chinese of their right to a motor car. And as the presidential election campaign in America progresses, more China-bashing can be expected, with protectionism disguised as noble fury at “coddling dictators”.

China's rage is out of all proportion to the alleged offences. It reflects a fear that a resentful, threatened West is determined to thwart China's rise. The Olympics have become a symbol of China's right to the respect it is due. Protests, criticism and boycott threats are seen as part of a broader refusal to accept and accommodate China.

There is no doubt genuine fury in China at these offences; yet the impression the response gives of a people united behind the government is an illusion. China, like India, is a land of a million mutinies now. Legions of farmers are angry that their land has been swallowed up for building by greedy local officials. People everywhere are aghast at the poisoning of China's air, rivers and lakes in the race for growth. Hardworking, honest citizens chafe at corrupt officials who treat them with contempt and get rich quick. And the party still makes an ass of the law and a mockery of justice.

Herein lies the danger for the government. Popular anger, once roused, can easily switch targets. This weekend China will be commemorating an event seen as pivotal in its long revolution—the protests on May 4th 1919 against the humiliation of China by the Versailles treaty (which bequeathed German “concessions” in China to Japan). The Communist Party had roots in that movement. Now, as then, protests at perceived slights against China's dignity could turn against a government accused of not doing enough to safeguard it.

Remember the ides of May

Western businessmen and policymakers are pulled in opposite directions by Chinese anger. As the sponsors of the Olympics have learned to their cost, while consumer- and shareholder-activists in the West demand they take a stand against perceived Chinese abuses, in China itself firms' partners and customers are all too ready to take offence. Western policymakers also face a difficult balancing act. They need to recognise that China has come a long way very quickly, and offers its citizens new opportunities and even new freedoms, though these are still far short of what would constitute democracy. Yet that does not mean they should pander to China's pride. Western leaders have a duty to raise concerns about human rights, Tibet and other “sensitive” subjects. They do not need to resign themselves to ineffectiveness: up to a point, pressure works: China has been modestly helpful over Myanmar, North Korea and Sudan. It has even agreed to reopen talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives. This has happened because of, not despite, criticism from abroad.

Pessimists fear that if China faces too much such pressure, hardliners within the ruling elite will triumph over the “moderates” in charge now. But even if they did, it is hard to see how they could end the 30-year-old process of opening up and turn China in on itself. This unprecedented phenomenon, of the rapid integration into the world of its most populous country, seems irreversible. There are things that could be done to make it easier to manage—including reform of the architecture of the global institutions that reflect a 60-year-old world order. But the world and China have to learn to live with each other.

For China, that means learning to respect foreigners' rights to engage it even on its “internal affairs”. A more measured response to such criticism is necessary not only to China's great-power ambitions, but also to its internal stability; for while the government may distract Chinese people from their domestic discontents by breathing fire at foreigners, such anger, once roused, can run out of control. In the end, China's leaders will have to deal with those frustrations head-on, by tackling the pollution, the corruption and the human-rights abuses that contribute to the country's dangerous mood. The Chinese people will demand it.

上周末还是去影院看了集结号, 结论是优点缺点都很明显的片子. 以冯小刚的能力, 捣鼓到这一步已经很不错了, 但是也足以凸显他离大师之境还有待修炼.

优点主要在于:

1. 场面. 相对于以往的战争片, 战斗场面拍得更加好看,也更好莱坞. 但是让人比较不爽的是让人震撼的战争场面特效是棒子的作品. 冯作为导演对镜头的处理并不算太优秀, 晃镜有点乱, 完全没有<拯救大兵>里面的战地记者视角来得流畅.所以这个优点很大程度上归功于棒子们. 

2. 人物. 我这里都是和以往的中国片比,不是跟大兵瑞恩那种比. 不管怎么讲,这片里的人还都有血有肉, 该怕的时候还是怕的, 该骂的时候还是骂的.

3.演员.张涵予的确是个好演员,无论如何谷子地还算是个成功的角色, 这一点张涵予功不可没. 王宝强等人基本不过不失,但是有时候演员也没办法,剧本的问题.

还是重点说说缺点,因为整个片子还是让我十分不舒服.

1.主题. 片子的基调非常根正苗红,影片回避了战争的性质讨论,回避了人性讨论,归结到了"组织认定".前半的惨烈牺牲,后半的苦苦追寻,最后却发现落脚点承受不住这种力度.那么多条命,谷子地那么多年的寻找,只是要回一个"名分". 这大概不是处于现代的我们可以赞同的. 为了什么? 为了那六百斤大米? 组织不认定的话他们的死就没意义了? 老冯可以说:我就是拍商业片,不去追究意义.这个主题就是能迎合头脑简单的FQ们,就是能过审查. OK,我也没有话讲.

2.剧本. 李安说中国没有好编剧.这话大概不假.而且现在越来越差. 我想老冯要表达的"集结号"的意思并非战争年代的集结号,也包括谷子地背负的没有听到的号声,在他余后的几十年里.但是剧本前后差距太大,让人难有相连接之感. 如果以一个时段为主,然后穿插另一个年代可能会好一些, 或者相应减少后半的时间. 跟紧凑的战斗相比,后半的寻觅太过琐碎而且拖沓,断层剧烈. 尤其朝鲜战争一段,大概是全篇被人记得最多的,因为那个"前轱辘不转后轱辘不转斯密达".从这里我们窥见了原本的冯小刚,会心一笑. 但是正同<天下无贼>里的无厘头抢劫一段, 虽然占尽眼球, 但不得不说是破坏整体协调性的大败笔.而且为了更好地讲故事,这一段其实最好在二斗和谷子地的回忆或者什么事情里抖搂出来, 单独安这么一段太刻意, 感觉编剧小时候写日记是不是只会写流水账那种啊?

3. 人物塑造. 群像描写,但是每个人的印象并不深刻. 谷子地说"爹妈都给他们起了名字的",但是很遗憾,片子看完,除了谷子地,二斗和王金权, 其他的几个我仍然没记得名字. 有很多战争场面,很惨烈,但是有限的篇幅,没能好好地描写每个人.于是我不是太明白感动到哭的人到底感动啥? 感动于谷子地的执着么? 那群大兵里我咋就记得那个啃饼的, 还有狙击的如果不是王宝强来演我肯定啥印象也没有. 群像, 有限的空间, 有限的时间, 每个人的独特个性, 这个是导演的功力. 不是每个人都能坐到杜琪峰那样.

既然是同期作品, 不得不跟投名状做一比较. 我不明白的是为什么会有那么多人觉得集结号比投名状要强. 无论从剧本,导演,演员,主题任何一个方面来看都无疑是投名状占上风.

起码投名状的剧本完整, 故事一气呵成. 只是影院版剪掉了不少东西让人郁闷. 投名状若是减去三人杀人立状的情节, 这个"投名状"所承载的意义就完全体现不出来.

投名状可以理解为匹夫和政治家的歧路, 可以理解为政治权谋下个人情义的渺小与不堪一击, 当然我的理解是"血酬定律"的注脚. 这个完全符合朱大可的"流氓文明"哲学, 中国历史则正是在一次次的官匪转化中形成的. 民,匪,官,兵,人不过是选择更容易吃饱或者获得权势金钱的一条路而已. 其实刘德华和金城武都不是说因为是匪所以入不了行,而是他们不够"流氓".能流氓到朱元璋那样, 才能立足于那些老奸巨猾的干老头子之上.

表演方面李连杰的文戏已是出人意表, 刘德华不过不失, 金城武良好发挥, 冷兵器的战争场面也是相当残酷. 不要说苏州不下雪, 看看现在的南方?

最后回到集结号, 说两句.

1. 问个技术问题. 被炸药包炸的粉碎的烈士尸体, 挖出来后能数出76个么?

2. 前天晚上老刘跟我说起打仗的时候, 有一路红军到了他爷爷奶奶的村子决定驻扎吃饭. 煮汤吃到一半突然有敌袭, 一个十多岁的小战士来敲他奶奶家门:"大娘大娘,我们要打仗啦,我拿汤跟您换点干粮."  家里只有3两饼, 差着2两. 小战士拿着饼一路跑:"我们还会回来的, 我回来再拿."   第二天, 部队回来了. 小战士却没有回来拿那二两饼.

我很冷血地看完了集结号, 这个时候却觉得眼眶有点湿.  

（其实，我很想知道研究结果，比如为什么手指划过黑板的声音会让人厌恶 ^^b)

　颁奖者是真正的诺贝尔获得者

　　1991年,科学幽默杂志《不可思议研究年刊》(Annals of Improbable Research,AIR)模仿诺贝尔奖,创立了一个名为搞笑诺贝尔奖的奖项。此后,它一直受到哈佛大学的力捧。今年，哈佛拉德克利夫科幻协会、哈佛拉德克利夫学生物理学会就与《不可思议研究年刊》共同赞助该奖项。

　　《不可思议研究年刊》杂志的主编马克·亚伯拉罕斯说：“搞笑诺贝尔奖的目的是赞扬那些不同寻常的富有创造力的发明，并且这个奖项还可以刺激人们对科学、医学和科技的兴趣。”

　　虽然所有获奖的研究都是真实存在的，并且都在享有威望的科学及医疗杂志中发表过，但与诺贝尔奖不同的是，搞笑诺贝尔奖的获得者不仅不会因获奖而得到奖金和受到公认，并且也不太有可能因该发明研究而使科学和医学出现巨大的变革或突破。但是，令人瞩目的是，为这些搞笑诺贝尔奖的获奖者颁奖的却是真正的诺贝尔获奖者。

　　06年度搞笑诺贝尔奖的获奖者

　　生物学奖：荷兰瓦赫宁恩农业大学的巴尔特－克诺尔斯（Bart Knols）与坦桑尼亚的国家医学研究所、奥地利维也纳的国际原子能机构的同事共同证明出，带有疟疾的雌性按蚊对比利时的林堡干酪和人脚的气味有着同等的兴趣。

　　此外，他们曾在1996年刊登于世界著名的医学杂志《柳叶刀》的报告中提到：“我们已经证明出了，3种不同种类的按蚊都喜欢根据不同的气味而叮咬志愿者裸露的不同部位。”

　　鸟类学奖: 加州大学戴维斯分校的伊凡－施瓦布(Ivan Schwab)和已故的加州大学洛杉矶分校的菲利普－R－A－梅(Philip R.A. May)共同阐释了为什么啄木鸟不会头痛的原因。

　　营养学奖：科威特大学的韦斯米埃－艾-胡提(Wasmia Al-Houty)与科威特环境政府当局证实蜣螂其实是一类过分讲究吃的“食客”。

　　和平奖：身为威尔士梅蒂－蒂德菲尔人的霍华德－斯德普莱顿，发明了一个可以发出一种高频噪音的装置。因为这种噪音只有青少年才可以听见，因此这种技术随后应用于手机铃声之中，这样，青少年就可以轻松听见铃声而不被老师发现了。

　　声学奖：芝加哥西北大学的D－林恩－哈尔彭(D. Lynn Halpern)、伦道夫－布莱克( Randolph Blake)以及詹姆士－希伦布兰德 ( James Hillenbrand)在1986年进行了一个旨在发现为什么手指划过黑板的声音会让人厌恶的原因的实验。

　　医学奖：田纳西大学医学院的弗朗西斯－费斯米尔(Francis Fesmire)与以色列团队共同发表了一篇名为“通过用手指按摩直肠来解决难以处理的打嗝”的论文。

　　数学奖：澳洲科学及工业研究机构的尼克－斯文森(Nic Svenson )和皮尔斯－巴恩斯( Piers Barnes)计算出了为保证一群人中没有一人在拍照时闭眼，必须要拍多少张照片。