Was Jin Yong being hypocritical in this specific context?

[PJ]

When Zhang Yimou's movie HERO came out in 2002, Jin Yong gave some comments in an interview:

Interviewer: Zhang Yimou's movie HERO has been considered an excellent representation of the essence of wuxia. Have you watched this movie?

Louis Cha: I enjoyed Zhang Yimou's RED SORGHUM, and JU DOU is also good, but I dislike HERO the most. I completely disapprove of HERO. HERO depicted the well-known historical tyrant Qing Shi Huang as otherwise, contrary to his historical image, deceiving the audience. The tyrant emperor did not value individual life. This is a ridiculous movie, that's why I do not like it.

Original text:

南方周末：张艺谋的电影《英雄》制作精良，被认为是武侠片表现形式上的一个分水岭，您看过这部 电影吗？

金庸：张艺谋的《红高粱》我喜欢，后来的《菊豆》也很好，最不喜欢《英雄》，完全否定。《英雄》把历史上有 名的暴君秦始皇拍成了这个样，和历史上的形象截然相反，欺骗观众，而且有为他洗身翻案的意思，把人的价值分 几等，不尊重生命，这是一部拍得很荒唐的电影，所以我不喜欢

Now, did Jin Yong forget, he who speaks against history-fabrication and audience-deception is not innocent of the said accusation? The old fart completely misled readers with fabricated tales about Emperor Qianlong, Emperor Kangxi and others. Did Jin Yong also forget, movies and literature both have room for fiction, and he is no less innocent a history fabricator, audience deceiver than Zhang Yimou and HERO's producer Zhang Weiping!

[IcyFox]

Jinyong was not necessarily being hypocritical. He may have delibrately written Book & Sword, Deer & Cauldron etc. in such a manner. (And he never said he liked those of his works, AFAIK.)

[Ren Wo Xing]

In his stories, there wasn't any major realignment of the 'basic' accepted ideas about those Emperors. For example, Qianlong, in nearly all of the stories, was indeed a bit of a dilettante and a playboy who enjoyed wandering about China, lavish and luxurious enjoyment of self, etc. And Kangxi was indeed, as Jinyong portrayed him, an extremely capable and brilliant Emperor, whom the Chinese look upon fondly.

Jinyong plays with history, but he doesn't change it fundamentally; he makes up stories, but the stories are based upon already set and accepted archetypes. Whereas Qin Shihuang is given a character completely to the opposite of the historically recognized character of Qin Shihuang.

For example, in LOCH, Yue Fei is still a hero, and Qin Hui, still the villain. I suppose the equivalent would be writing a story where Yue Fei is a traitorous novel, and the minister, Qin Hui, be the hero.

If you think about it, although Jinyong makes up stories, he really doesn't change basic characters of famous people too much; in fact, when he received complaints about how the image of the actual, historical Daoist Yin Zhiping was tarnished by him making Yin Zhiping rape Xiao Longnv, he changed it in 3rd edition so that Yin Zhiping no longer does it.

[PJ]

The emperor in HERO can still be considered a tyrant. What the filmmakers set out to do is offer a CHARACTER STUDY of the emperor. Yeah, the character study is lame compared to Chen Kaige's EMPEROR AND THE ASSASSIN. But actually one can argue that Jin Yong fabricated history more. He made up stories about Qianlong's ancestry and family background. That essentially changes history.

Jinyong plays with history, but he doesn't change it fundamentally; he makes up stories, but the stories are based upon already set and accepted archetypes. Whereas Qin Shihuang is given a character completely to the opposite of the historically recognized character of Qin Shihuang.

But in HERO the results of Qin Shiguang's history is not altered. He still united China as history said. The only thing that changed is his image -- and, quite frankly, the image that appeared to only one person. He may have simply disguised his real personality in public. Jin Yong actually fabricated Qianlong's family structure to make him a Han (or half Han, can't remember exactly). What Jin Yong did is definitely cheating history, in my opinion, and I always hated it when wuxia rewrote history.

What about Zhu Yuanzhang, was he really a Ming Cult member? And Hao Datong, the real life founder of Huashan (?), was he really a Quanzhen Sect member in the Song dynasty?

Thanks.

[IcyFox]

Maybe (though unlikely), Jinyong was trying "to be the devil's advocate" in order to "solicit a well-thought out answer".

[Ren Wo Xing]

Those stories about Qianlong aren't made up by Jinyong though; they are parts of very popular cultural myths and legends about his ancestry that have been around for ages. He didn't pull them out of his ***, so to speak; they've always been there.

Don't know much about Hao Datong or Zhu Yuanzhang in terms of stories/myths about them, so sorry

[Guo Xiang]

I don't see Jinyong's point at all. I thought the emperor in 'Hero' was well done. Besides, historical images might not always be accurate.

[IcyFox]

What I heard about Zhu Yuan Zhang was that he was a bandit leader who led his outlaws to seize the throne. The name "Ming" in the Ming Dynasty supposedly doesn't have anything to do with any cult or sect or organization whatsoever.

[JigSta]

Yes, Jin Yong is being hypocritical. He also neatly overlooks the fact that HERO never bills itself as an historical film. It's a study on the nature of a hero and a showcase of the magnificent cinematography.

[dgfds01]

Yes, the historical Hao Datong was also from Quanzhen. See http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/general...4-28-6.asp#txt

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

come on it's just his own opinion

and yes i agree with him, The ending= "After Shi Huandi ruled China, he stopped all war-fares and began to focus on the construction of the Great Wall". Which from most people's views thinks that Shi Huandi promised what Nameless asked him to do, which makes him a good / promising emperor

but do you know, Shi Huan Di killed more people in Great Wall construction / burying scholars than his wars??

that movie is bullsh**

[PJ]

I don't care what Jin Yong or anyone thinks about the MOVIE. What we're getting at is whether or not Jin Yong is being a hypocritical moron by criticizing something that he is guilty of. That is the only issue at hand in this topic.

[K2Grey]

From what I can tell from reading this thread, Jin Yong did not change the character of any person, whereas the character of Qin Shi Huang was changed. So JY is not hypocritical.

[PJ]

From what I can tell from reading this thread, Jin Yong did not change the character of any person, whereas the character of Qin Shi Huang was changed. So JY is not hypocritical.

Jin Yong nevertheless changed the ESSENCE of the character by falsifying his family structure. As a result, people may view Emperor Qianlong differently from the historical person.

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

this is jin yong's "individual thinking" you can't expect normal answers from him

that's why we need people like him to write books

[Dennis Chen]

I'm pretty sure Jin Yong's depiction of Genghis Khan wasn't too accurate either.

[K2Grey]

I don't see how the essence of a character is dependent on their family structure.

[PJ]

I don't see how the essence of a character is dependent on their family structure.

In Reality: Qianlong is not a Han Chinese (to the best of my knowledge)

In Jin Yong wuxia: Qianlong is a Han (of half Han, or something associated with Han)

Summary: Qianlong is a traitor of his race (I assume this is untrue in real history)

Changes the character quite a bit.

[kidd]

From what I can tell from reading this thread, Jin Yong did not change the character of any person, whereas the character of Qin Shi Huang was changed. So JY is not hypocritical.

I've read many complain about JY potraying Yau Chu Gei in a bad light.

Yes, Jin Yong is hypocritical. Both he and the scriptwriter of Hero are just giving their own interpretation of the historical figures. So, to critisize the scriptwriter of Hero for doing what he has been doing all along is hypocritical.

[Ren Wo Xing]

Again, I repeat, Jinyong creates and modifies very, very little. He didn't create the "Qianlong is a Han" story; that's a story/legend about Qianlong that's been around from even the Qing dynasty, when Qianlong himself was actually reigning. This is not Jinyong Wuxia; this is as common/popular a story/legend about Qianlong as anything else that exists.