TO LIVE

[David Nurenberg]

Use this space for discussion of any aspects of TO LIVE that you would
like. Bounce around ideas that might inspire a paper!

- Mr. N.

[Dixie Morrison]

One topic I am considering for my paper: to what extent is extreme
social unity/mobilization (such as in Communist China and Nazi
Germany, although I admit those are both negative examples) a good
thing? Not necessarily for the society in question, since any society
benefits from free thinkers and dissenters to shake things up and move
things along, but for the people themselves? Is the secure sense of
self that derives from being surrounded by similar mindsets worth the
individualist sacrifices that must be made (keep in mind that ALL
societies require some sacrifices for the sake of conformity,
including the "freest")?

[Mark B]

I would agree with you Dixie that the individual would have to
sacrifice in order to have that sense of security in the two examples
that you gave however in massive peace moments and protest one could
argue the same type of group think was occurring and it was liberating
and freeing the individual rather than suppressing them while
providing the same part of the pack sense of security. For example
our own civil rights moment was an "extreme social unity/mobilization"
that rather than suppressing the rights of the individual enabled the
individual.

[Mark B]

I find it interesting that the puppets seemed to be such a focal point
of to live. I also found it interesting that just like the books were
burned by Luo and the Narrator in Balzac the puppets were burned. As
one was the symbol of the west and the other was a symbol of china i
found it intriguing that due to mao both were outlawed and had to be
burned. I was wondering what would be worst in Mao's China symbols of
the old China or symbols of the west. both seems to have been covered
up by the government.

[Sloane.Brazina]

Mark-excellent points in your second post, sounds like you could write
a great paper from what you've started here. I too find it very
interesting that both the books in Balzac and the puppets in To Live
were burned. There are definitely commonalities between the two
items, as both were considered great threats to the Chinese Communist
party and potentially undermining the rule of Chairman Mao. In
Balzac, the books were Western literature and touched on topics of
personal strength/identity and celebrated love/intimacy. They were
banned by the government essentially because they were not pro-
communist propaganda. In contrast, the puppets were a symbol of
China, however, they too represented free thought and expression.
Often, the puppet shows reflected Capitalistic qualities, such as an
upper class/lower class differentiation, and also featured beautiful,
educated individuals. Both the puppets and the books were a great
threat to Mao's Communist China, probably of equal degrees.

[Maya Allen]

Mark, that is a very good question. I'm not sure whether the
Communist government would despise western symbols or the old Chinese
symbols more, but I'm sure neither of them are welcomed, as Sloane
mentioned. Of course, western symbols are exactly what Communism is
rebuking, in that capitalism should be banned and everyone should be
equal under the law. In To Live, they had communal kitchens and the
people in high positions were completely stripped of their status's
and the doctors were even jailed! These actions were to keep the ideas
of the west from entering China. Then again, the old China is being
rejected as well. I find this very confusing for the people of
China. Where do they go if they cannot rely on their old Chinese
traditions or try to move forward to the future of the west and its
advancements in technologies and wealth?

[Sloane.Brazina]

I was particularly interested in comparing the roles of women between
the two texts. Traditionally, women usually play roles of lesser
importance and live in the shadows of male protagonists; however,
analyzing female characters is essential in fully understanding a
culture or story. I am especially interested in how the settings of
the two stories affect the independence and power of The Little
Chinese Seamstress and Jiazhen (wife of Fugui) in To Live. In Balzac,
The Little Chinese Seamstress lives in a more "watered down" communist
China. Because she is in the country and living among poverty, we see
Mao's ideals less strictly enforced. She is exposed to Western
literature, gets pregnant as a result of her romantic affairs with Luo
(illegal to bear children before the age of 25), and she enjoys a
position of considerable status as the daughter of the tailor. In
contrast, Jiazhen lives in the city, suffocated under pro-communism/
Mao propaganda. In the beginning scenes she is clearly ruled by the
will of her husband. Later in the film, however, she makes her own
income delivering water and is able to single-handedly support a
family of four--with no help at all from Fugui. Though she is tied
down at home to her serving her family, she is still able to maintain
her identity of "bread winner" even in a society that suppresses
women's rights.

[Mark Nimar]

I find the role of women particularly interesting as well, Sloane. It
seems the Jiazhen was oppressed under a rigid class regime, and had
few options as to self-empowerment. However, when communism starts,
her job and new relationship self-empowers her . But in Seamstress, it
is unclear whether the western influence liberates or constricts the
Seamstress. Luo preches western texts to her for the benefit of "re-
educating" her into a modern western girl. Dually, these western texts
lure them into sexual activity. We know that Luo wants both of these
things for the Seamstress, but it is unclear whether she is a victim
of re-education or she is choosing these values at her own will. In
seamstress, it is not so much about which set of values are
"liberating," but the choice to seek liberation in whatever form. Luo
and the narrator choose "western liberation", but the seamstress has
it fed to her.

On Dec 20, 11:59 am, "Sloane.Brazina" <sloane.braz...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Mark Nimar]

That point is very interesting, Mark. I think both the puppets and
books are burned, because both burners want control over self-
expression in the society; Luo and the narrator are angry with the
story fate has written them, so they want control of writings and
things that influence their lives; the communist government wanted
control over people expressed themselves, and having a rival puppeteer
in the form of Fugui caused a rift between Fugui's vision of life and
the government's vision of human portrayal. I think both the movie and
the book explore issues of control, whether it be sexual, financial or
emotional, and how once this control leaves the hands of individuals,
they fight back with oppression to preserve the western or Communistic
ideology.

[Jon Mayer]

I think the detrimental effects of the Communist government on
civilians as portrayed in both To Live and Balzac must be touched
upon. Particularly, I was interested in the recurring motif of the
color red. Red is a color tied in to communism and communist China,
and so it was very striking how in both pieces the director/author
used vivid images of blood to depict the color red. We see this in the
scene where Fugui's daughter dies, for example in the shot where blood-
soaked rags are dropping into a basket/hamper, and in the buffalo
blood that Four-Eye's drinks, imbibing the communist ideals but also
harming him in causing his later bowel troubles. Undoubtedly these
works are both trying to send some message about how communist ideals
and values ended up hurting the people they were trying to help, and
had many downsides.

That said, there is certainly validity to Sloane's point about how the
progression of Jiazhen's social status and control over her family
serves to show a more beneficial side of communism. The director was
definitely making a statement about the way communism aided the
oppressed. These stories are very complex, and I honestly think any
one of us could write a paper arguing both sides of one of these
points, fully supported with examples from the text.

[Alex Steinroeder]

I was also interested in the recurring motif of red, in particular
blood. In the beginning of To Live, you could argue that when Fugui
has to make a fingerprint using red ink this leads to him losing all
that he has. Without this "signature" he would not have had to given
up his house to Long'er. You could also that this was a good thing
because if he hadn't lost his house then he would have had the same
fate as Long'er at the hands of the communists.

[Alex Steinroeder]

Both the movie and the book are trying to weigh the pros and cons of
Communism in China. In To Live, Communism brings together Fugui's
family after they had been torn apart. The reason that they were torn
apart was because Fugui was always wanting more and wanting to be a
higher class citizen. Communism has everyone on an even playing field
that takes away the desire to be wealthier or more important. The
problem with it is that it puts the citizens in jeopardy by taking
away the more educated citizens who can help people with their
problems. Such as doctors, lawyers, and priests. As a result of
Communism, both of Fugui's children are killed. I think the director
Zhang Yimou is leaving it up to the viewer to interpret whether
Communism helps or hurts people.

> > points, fully supported with examples from the text.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Kyle Calabria]

Perfect governments really only exist in principle. All government
styles seem to have their flaws in reality. In the Movie To Live, the
director portrays the pros and cons of both Communism and Capitalism
side by side through showing the effect the switch the Chinese
government has on Fugui and his family. First the director portrays
the riches a wealthy person in a capitalist society can obtain, as
well as how a person can lose everything as Fugui does. Also while
Fugie is wealthy he shows how unhappy can be with so much mone. Next
when the government switches to Communism the director portrays the
family like atmosphere of the community and how the community picks up
Fugui and his family when they had nothing. On the down side it shows
communism's lack of experienced workers or a professional class, of
doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. This ends up costing Fugui's
family the ultimate price.

[Kyle Calabria]

I thought a topic, that we didn't discuss much, but that occurred a
lot though out the movie was fate. First Fugui loses his mansion, but
this then saves him from getting executed for being anti-
revolutionary. Next, by chance his son falls asleep behind the exact
wall that gets backed over by a truck and collapses on him. Finally,
by chance the only doctor who can save Fugui's daughter has a freak
medical accident of eating to much bread with water and cannot save
her. All of these incidents could be indirectly related to communism,
but at the same time the series of the events seem rather unlucky.

[Peter Cohen]

Alex made a really interesting point about Fugui's fingerprint. It was
his red fingerprint in the beginning of the movie that both doomed and
saved him. He lost his house and family, but in the end it saved him
from Long'ers fate.

You could also look at these politically. I thought it was interesting
how in the movie and the book it seemed like Chairman Mao and his
communist government were more afraid of China's past than of
capitalism and the West. He seemed intent on wiping away the past at
all costs. This was evident in the movie with the removal of the
competent doctors even if they were of no opposition to the communism
movement. They were replaced with the inexperienced nurses to signal a
new era in China. We read about the fates suffered by the dentist and
writer in The Little Seamstress and it seems senseless from Mao's
perspective. People with talents crucial to society were banished even
if they weren't capitalists or opposition leaders. Even in a communist
society you need dentists, doctors and teachers. Could this campaign
against skilled labor have been a personal vendetta from Mao? Why?
How? In the end it hurt communism. People will think less favorably of
communism when people like Fenxia die because the competent doctors
were jailed for no reason.

[Jon Mayer]

In response to Peter, the inherent idea about communism is that
everyone is of equal social status. To my understanding Mao, among
others, believed that those who had been in skilled professions that
demanded a high level of education and garnered much respect and
esteem over those they served were inherently dangerous to the
communist ideal as they represented capitalistic self-accomplishment.
Therefore, his witch hunt-like deposition and reeducation of these
people was to preserve the communist state from Western influence, and
it was not as focused on preventing the Chinese from being aware of
their past.

The movie seemed to further a view of communism where it obviously
helped the people in the short term, such as providing food, jobs, and
equality, but in the long run it left them desperate and hurt. I think
by showing the benefits of communism, Yimou was simply setting up an
even more shocking and bleak look into the true societal effects of
the Cultural Revolution. The social mobilization that got the
communist movement started and helped it flourish eventually caved in
on itself and became a tool for malignant souls to achieve their own
personal agenda, which lashed out and created horrible divisions and
consequences in China. This can be seen in the town Leader, who was a
proponent and spokesman of communism from the beginning, but in the
end was personally harmed by the communist movement.

[jmcke...@colonial.net]

On Jon's comment: I don't think communism under Mao was inherently
anti-intellectual, and in many cases the governemnt tried to embrace
the educated (most priminantly in the Thousand Flowers Campaign). So
while the result was indeed a persecuted intellectual class, I don't
think it was certain to end in that way considering communism and Mao
specifically (who was an intellectual himself).

Overall I think To Live portrayed Communism in a negative light
overall. The tragedies in Fugui's life can all be tied back to
Communism, most notably his son and daughter's death. This combined
with the unjust attack on the village headman makes it clear the
writer's vision of Communism. That does not mean it is very clear cut
however, as Capitalism is equally smeared, as Fugui lost everything,
including his father because of it, and could only gain back his
family by giving up his old Capitalist life.

[Dixie Morrison]

While Fugui lost everything in the Capitalist system, I think that is
more a condemnation of gambling and poor life choices rather than
Capitalism. Look at Long'er! This may be the conservative side of me
coming out, but if a Communist society is one where the government is
a "safety net" for absolutely everyone (regardless of how they came to
need a safety net in the first place), then that is not healthy at
all--it keeps the population in a kind of perpetual childhood, never
letting them grow up as Fugui abruptly does after he loses his home
and family. While Capitalism is flawed, Communism is even more so, and
I think Zhang makes his loyalties clear.

About Mao's "anti-intellectualism"...I think it was not so much trying
to get rid of class differences as trying to get rid of Western
influences. Since at that time Europe and America were the most
advanced parts of the world, modern professions such as doctors
naturally took their cues from the West. So Mao was trying to purge
China of all Western influence, even if that meant taking a few (or
many) steps backward.

On Dec 20, 10:54 pm, "jmckenn...@colonial.net"

[oschultz]

To start off, I would like to say that each of you have made some very
good points of discussion on the potential topics for this unit. To
bring yet another vantage point of discussion for this paper, I wanted
to compare the roles of the individual and the group when it comes to
the creation of any society. To Live gave us the view of how a family
in the communist revolution strived for survival and success in the
community as live moves on. While Balzac and the little seamstress
seem to bring out the vantage point of being a diverse individual in a
society of constant work and conflict within a political realm. My
thesis on this matter is that a society must be able to allow people
to be themselves and live their own lives while at the same time, they
must also be able to be compassionate and helpful towards people in
need. I think that while this may be a long thesis, it has a lot of
potential. Though, what I was really wondering, is if any of you guys
would know how to narrow that thesis down a little bit and make it a
little bit more specific. If I could get anybody's help, that would
great.

[Lucas Morrill]

I'd like to respond to Mark N's point about women's rights. I did not
notice much difference between Jiazhen under the different
governments. After Fugui loses everything, Jiazhen does leave him. She
has the power to leave her husband and show him that she strongly
disapproves of his way of life. Later, she does gain a different role,
as a distributor of water, but I'm unsure as to whether that different
role gives her more power. In my opinion, it only gives her something
more to do in her free time. She is not necessarily a stronger woman
because of it.

[Lucas Morrill]

I agree with Dixie. It was more important to Mao to establish
communism than to have a smart society. Although you do get situations
like at the end of To Live where an intellectual is needed but not
available, having intellectuals as part of the society is a threat to
the stability of Mao's new government. Being smart, they would see the
flaws in his communist system. They could convince the common people
that, despite appearing to work for them and give them power, Mao has
actually created a system that gives them almost no power. They have
little chance of increasing their power and they are relegated to the
same position for their entire lives. There is no motivation for their
lives, no reason to strive for greatness.

[sophia]

Mark i agree with you. The books and puppets are definitely showing
some sort of symbolism in both the book and the movie. There both ways
of escaping and entertaining the characters even though they are
banned by mao. Its interesting that there both burned, like communism
and mao are getting rid of the joys in life.

[Alex Steinroeder]

Oliver-
You might condense it by using something such as...A society has to

allow people to be themselves and live their own lives while at the

same time, be compassionate and helpful towards those in need.

> > > family by giving up his old Capitalist life.- Hide quoted text -

[sophia]

I thought it was interesting how in both the movie and the book
buddhism played a role. The characters suffered because of their
attachments and desires. Such as when Fugui lost everything because of
his desire to achieve higher status and wealth or when Luo and the
narrator were depressed about the seamstress leaving because of their
desire to find love.

[Phil Lavely]

I think it is interesting how the idea of simplicity may bring the
most happiness. No material possessions and nothing that can define
you. In Balzac the books are burned (by choice). This is everything
they seemed to love, but it is also what brought them issue and
stress. Stress about getting found out and the possibility of never
going back to their old life. It also brought them the seamstress
which wreaked havoc for them. Although Luo was able to get a fair
amount of enjoyment from her, both were hurt in the end by her running
away because of what she learned from them. In To Live, all of the
dancing characters had to burned. This is what had been such a central
part of his life, much like the books were to the boys. In both cases
they were burned, one by choice and one by demand. Both seemed to have
the same purpose.

[jmcke...@colonial.net]

I didn't think of this until Sophia brought it up, but maybe the
puppets do have a greater meaning to the plot than just as Fugui's
profession. This may be stretching it a bit, but puppets could
symbolize state control over the individual. A puppeteer is one who
has complete control over the actions of the puppets, so while Fugui
may have control over his puppets, who controls him? In this case it
would be the state. So my final question, I guess, is does Fugui have
any control over his life, or is he at the mercy of his puppeteer?

[Phil Lavely]

I also want to look at how the more educated are shunned in the new
Communist society, both in both Balzac and To Live, they are called
upon when needed most. In Balzac, the two boys who were educated were
used as entertainment in plays. They were able to tell such good
stories because of their education and their knowledge from books.
Dentists and doctors were also needed. When the seamstress needed her
abortion, a doctor was there for her. In order to capture the folk
songs, the boys were needed to write down the miller's words. In To
Live, a real doctor was needed during the pregnancy. Because she
didn't have a real doctor and had overly confident, young communist
"doctors," she died. There are many examples in each context and I
think it might be good to look at.

[Maya Allen]

I think that Sophia has a very good point and it could make an
excellent paper. Buddhism is present in both of these books
indirectly. Both Fugui in To Live and Luo and the narrator in Balzac
surrender to their desires, which brings them to their falls. To go
off of what Sophia was saying, you could argue that in Balzac, neither
the narrator nor Luo are able to reach 'enlightenment' because they
are too attached to the Little Seamstress, but you could say that
Fugui eventually does become somewhat more enlightened. In the
beginning, he gambles and has desires and attachments to material
things like his house, and is very arrogant. After tragedy strikes
and he is homeless and eventually drafted into the war, he becomes
more aware. It's always said that enlightenment happens when you
least expect it and don't think about it. He reaches this awareness
and uses it to turn his life back around by valuing family, unlike he
did before, and his friends and bonds with others. The ending is sad
but he finally sees true reality of the world and goes outside his
little bubble.

On Dec 21, 9:14 pm, Phil Lavely <flavaflav...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Peter Cohen]

Phil you made some really interesting points. The more we discuss this
topic the worse communism looks. People need culture in their lives.
Reading, writing, plays, entertainment... These are some of the things
that make life worthwhile. We saw in both the film and the movie how
people flocked to the slightest scrap of culture. The headman sending
the boys to watch the movie, the communist troops eating up every
minute of Fugui's puppet show. What Mao's communist revolution tried
to do was destroy the culture and replace it with communist
manifestos. But without culture all thats left in life is work and
family, a punishment seemingly as bad as death, at least for the
friends in Balzac. Even those who were an important part of communism
enjoyed the things they knew probably should be banned. The village
headman stood there for a long time listening to luo recount the story
to the tailor, i don't think he needed to stand there the whole time
to have enough dirt on them. I think he stood there because he
secretly enjoyed it.

[Jake White]

I thought that this film reminded me a lot of the book 1984 by George
Orwell. It seemed like most everyone in communist china were just
doing what they were told without questioning what was going on, like
the society that was created in the book 1984. I found that Mao was
very similar to "Big Brother", both are leaders who impose propaganda
onto their citizens. Like in 1984, people who question what is going
on are put on trial and punished or exiled.