Submitted by Alwz, Jul 20, 2007 16:23

I did not watch the opera, but I do know the plot and the history. I do not want to accuse the author of the review of functional lying, but the review seems to be written without watching an opera as an opera, but with unjust preoccupation if he was honest. I had been live in China for 20 years. Chinese administration, either Beijing based or Taipei based, never compared the Qin, the First Emperor, with its own founder. In fact, Emperor Qin's dynasty was one of the shortest in Chinese history, and himself has been remembered as infamous tyrant for more than 2000 years. However, he was not nothing at all. Nobody can deny it was him that build the foundation of China geographically for the very first time. And the so-called unification of China from geographical segregation has been regarded as the first work and duty of the founder of every dynasty in China. Before the Republic, they were all emperors, however, Mr. Chiang Kai-Sheik was the first non-emperor claimed that he unified China by defeating the warlords after overthrow of the Manchurian Chinese based Qing, the last empire of China. Mr. Mao was the next. Both systems they applied in the modern China defied the imperialism in verbalization. How can they impersonalize themselves as the first emperor?

The reviewer mentioned "The Emperor's Shadow". Why didn't he say in the end of the film, Qin lost his only beloved family member, his only hearty friendship, and the loyality he expected from his people to achieve the throne. He was a crying loner in the inaugural ritual as a result of the tyranny he had committed. Although the plot is finctional, it is anything but communist hint or under the rule of Mao Zedong's "Talks at the Yan'an Forum" (1942) mentioned by reviewer, which is totally cliche now to a certain extent. Mr. Tan's experimental works are not as popular as his movie scores in mainland China, but I do not think there is any connection to the political issue. Basically, traditional chinese music system is far different from western, it is fair to staple the identity in the works of Chinese theme, which is also applied by western composers, but with their own imagination, much less original than some chinese native composers did.

During the turmoil of 1960-1970s, lot of people have been murderred, but not only in China. During the time, even the Constitution can not maintan its authority, legal leader of the nation as well as most of the administrators nationwide could not escape from being inhuman tortured and murdered by their former comrades and the beguiled people. It is much alike the aftermath of the French Revolution rather than the great purge excuted in the former soviet union. Mao's responisibility to the disaster has been never glorified since late 1970s. His responisibility (to the crime) was written almost as law in China, and is taught in public schools. But he was not nothing as all, he also did something much more great and devoted to his people. That's why Chinese people can not accept him simply as a tyrant like the reviewer did.

Most imortant of all, the Mao issue is nothing related to any works involving Qin including this opera. Recently, court theme is popular in China, most emperors are glorified, however, Qin is out of the category due to his savage tyranny. Mr. Zhang's "Hero" tried to change this fact by defending the military globalization as reasonable solution to modern terrorism as the movie depicts, however, the senario was criticized for the reasoning as well as glorification of Qin himself in China. It is nothing about so called tyranny in post-manchurian administrated China although in the presence of yet totally elilminated injustice.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.