Hero

By James C. Hess

My friend, Q, a fellow scribe who also writes film criticism and movie reviews, presented to me an interesting challenge. A wager, a bet, really: He bet me ten dollars (US), that he could accompany me to a given screening and inside of thirty minutes know what my review or criticism of said film or movie would be, simply: I liked it, I didn't like it.

I considered the bet and made conditions regarding it: I would accept the bet but if his theory proved right he would have to provide specifics as to why I made the decision I did. For example, if I liked a given film or movie and he was able to determine my position inside of thirty minutes of the given screening he would then have to provide specifics as to why it was so.

Q considered my conditions with regards to the bet, and accepted the wager, the bet.

So we decided to attend a screening of the film "Hero", upon which said bet would be made.

Thirty minutes into the screening Q turned to me and said, loudly: I know what you think of this film, and here's why.

Apparently another condition of the bet was required: That Q keep his opinions on my opinions to himself until after the film or movie at hand was over, and the lights were once more up. Failure to include this condition in our wager almost resulted in us being physically removed from the theater by theater management (to whom I apologized, repeatedly, for my friend's less-than acceptable verbal behavior, following the screening we had admission to. To whom I again, herein, apologize. Had I known and realized such a condition of our bet was so desperately needed I would have packed a role or two of duct tap for use, thirty minutes in.)

And what was it Q determined, thirty minutes in to this particular screening, when it came to my opinions of same? That I liked this film, hands down.

As to why it was I liked this film, however, cost him the bet, for none of the reasons and specifics he offered were correct, or even close to being correct.

Director Zhang Yimou, who previously created the wonderful and visually poetic "Raise the Red Lantern", returns to create an equally impressive and beautiful work with his latest film, "Hero", a martial arts extravaganza that transcends form and genre, and simultaneously creates a visual poetry of physical violence and savage beauty. But at the same time he takes the very difficult narrative found in such films as "Rashomon" and literary texts such as "The Canterbury Tales" and redefines it to new heights and measure: Yes, there is a mystery at hand, as told from the perspective of many, but each telling only goes to enhance and make the entire story.

The film opens with a storyteller, before the throne of an domineering and demanding, sadistic and cruel ruler, with only his talent at telling tales to save him from certain death.

The storyteller is named Nameless (Jet Li), who comes to the court of the feared and loathed King of Qin (Chen Dao Ming). Qin, despite his less-than appealing characteristics, has a dream: He wants to unite all of the warring kingdoms under his rule; but, of course, as traditional battle demands, peace comes on the river of blood from his enemies. Then there is the matter of those who stop him, who would destroy his dream: So far three assassins have vowed to kill him: Broken Sword (Tony Leung), Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung), and Long Sky (Donnie Yen).

Enter Nameless, who claims to have killed all three, and who desires payment for his work. The price for this impressive deed: He wants to become the king's retainer, which would involving collecting a reward for his efforts.

Such scenes and scenarios often go to lay the groundwork for epic tales of old and days long gone. Director Zhang Yimou does well to attempt the same here: Nameless approaches the royal grounds, past ranks and ranks of countless and seemingly endless soldiers, passes through entrance rooms of such depth and wonder they seem almost impossible, and is finally allowed to kneel within 100 paces of the king--a deed that must noted as important: It is closer than anyone has been allowed in many, many years. One pace closer, one step more and he will meet with his own death.

Of course, given his claims, the king wants to hear his stories. Nameless begins by explaining his martial arts skills in and of themselves were not enough to defeat such enemies. So he had to rely on other talents and skills, which included psychology, to expose their liabilities and soft spots. Broken Sword, for example, demonstrated fine swordplay, but it was his calligraphy that betrayed (Suggesting, then, perhaps, the pen is not mightier than the sword?) Sword and Snow were lovers, so their weak point was jealousy.

As Nameless tells of these things there are flashbacks to the scenes describe. Perfectly. Wonderfully.

The stories told are of great interest and fascination to the king, and after each is done he allows Nameless to approach the throne closer, until finally, only a dozen or so paces separate them. But the king is by no means a fool: After each story is done, he allows Nameless to come closer, but then he provides his interpretation of what had happened. They are interpretations also visualized in flashbacks.

It follows the movie-goer would wonder if the king is correct in his retelling of the tales told, and one can easily wonder if Nameless has merely invented them to get physically closer to the throne, the king. Of course, if we think this it follows the king would think it as well: As he allows Nameless to get closer a likely strategic reasoning is introduced: This is not merely a one-upping between royal and commoner. This is a very elaborate and complex game of truth or consequences, and who will rule, finally.

I admitted previously I liked "Hero". What I have not actually admitted nor revealed is why. My friend Q presumed to know. He was, as noted, incorrect, and wrong. My reasoning for liking this film is as follows: Because it is mudane, because it is predictable, because it was original and unique in that first screening. Contradictory, these reasons? Superifically, yes. But watch the film with them in mind and you will no doubt come to understand why such tales withstand the test of time.

Every film and movie of this nature has its fans, admirers, and supporters. This film, no doubt, will also have its share of such. At the same time I know there will be those who dislike it, and I know why they will. But that is neither here nor there. What matters, what is important is that you keep in mind why films and movies such as this are made, and why we come to remember them most importantly.

Then, and only then, will you be prepared to gamble on Life itself.

About the Author:

James C. Hess graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature, with an emphasis on Editorial Journalism and Film Studies.

Hess currently makes his home along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies.

Article courtesy of http://www.suite101.com.