1) Some Chinese protested the movie Kung Fu Panda, arguing it exploited Chinese culture and martial arts or had ties to Hollywood figures who criticized China. 2) However, many Chinese argued against boycotting the film, saying the links to controversial figures were too tenuous and that banning all foreign profits from China was unrealistic. 3) While nationalism motivated some protests, most Chinese saw the debate as minor and enjoyed the movie, showing that China can have balanced discussions on such issues.

1. Today • Wednesday • June 25, 2008
...because Rewards Active Readership!
22
world news
Today • Wednesday • June 25, 2008 23
Kung Fu Panda Debate a storm in a teacup
But it shows that the Chinese
can have balanced arguments
Maria Siow
East Asia Bureau Chief
mariasiow@mediacorp.com.sg
FOR some Chinese, Kung Fu Panda is not just
an animated comedy about a bungling panda
who aspires to be a gongfu warrior.
Released internationally this month, Kung
Fu Panda is about Po the Panda, who works as
a waiter in a noodle restaurant.
A gongfu fanatic, Po dreams of
being a great master, but his
weight and clumsiness seem to
make that an impossibility.
Po accidentally enters a
contest and ends up becoming
a gongfu master who has to save the kingdom
from a treacherous snow leopard. Po eventu-
ally turns his weaknesses into strengths, and
good, naturally, triumphs over evil.
Butinsteadofseeingblack-and-white,some
movie-goers in China are seeing red.
Among the first to voice his protest was
artist Zhao Bendi, who argued that supporting
the movie would inadvertently lead to “more
Sharon Stones”. Last month, the Hollywood
actress said that the Sichuan earthquake
may be karma, or payback for China’s policy
towards the Tibetans.
Mr Zhao also suggested that Hollywood
should not be allowed to profit from a nation
that recently suffered from a devastating
earthquake. Neither should Hollywood “ex-
ploit” China’s national treasure — namely the
giant panda — and its martial arts.
Mr Zhao was supported by a handful of
Chinese who added that the movie should be
boycotted, as it was produced by Paramount
PictureswhichhasacquiredDreamWorks.Oneof
thefoundersofDreamWorksisStevenSpielberg,
who pulled out as artistic adviser to the Beijing
Olympics over the Chinese gov-
ernment’s policy towards Sudan
and the conflict in Darfur.
So, even as the movie was
launched throughout China last
week, it was not screened in Si-
chuan province.
The Chinese media reported that the non-
screening was partly to assuage opposition to
the movie, and partly because earthquake-
ravaged Sichuan is also the hometown of the
much-loved giant panda.
Even though this was not the first time
foreign movies have been accused of cultural
invasion, this was probably the first time that
theatres had decided not to screen, or at
least delayed the screening of, a movie due
to public opposition.
Many described as ridiculous the argu-
ment that the movie should be boycotted
Today
in China
Maria Siow
due to what they said was its tenuous link to
Mr Spielberg. If such a circuitous argument
were applied, they added, then perhaps China
should also boycott the American channels
MTV and CNN, which are owned by Viacom,
the parent company of Paramount Pictures.
As one blogger put it, given the inter-linked
natureofmediaownership,“threedaysandthree
nightsmightnotevenbeenoughtodrawupafull
list of who else we should boycott.”
Many Chinese also described as absurd the
notion that the movie should be boycotted be-
cause of Sharon Stone. As one blogger noted,
Stone does not represent Hollywood. Besides,
ChineseHollywoodstarssuchasJackieChanand
Jet Li have also made their name there.
As for the argument that Hollywood
should be prevented from making money from
the Chinese, a typical comment came from
Hangzhou native Liu Yuxiang, who noted that
boycotting the film is pointless as Chinese
people “do not have enough willpower” and by
extending that logic, “it is best to rid China of
all MNCs and joint-ventures so that foreigners
cannot earn a single cent from us. But then
how different would that be from China during
the Qing dynasty?”
While it is easy to assail the partial boycott
as a form of nationalism, blogger Li Jianzhong
disagreed. Citing neighbouring South Korea
as an example, the blogger suggested that the
wave of massive demonstrations over beef im-
ports was more akin to nationalism, as “it repre-
sents the sentiments of the majority and it was
to protect the fundamental
rights of its citizens.
Seen in that light,
this (reaction to Kung
Fu Panda) should not
be perceived as na-
tionalism”.
Ofcourse,inthe
overall scheme
ofthings,the
debate in
Chinaover
Kung Fu
Pandawas
astormina
teacup. Most
Chinese are
avid fans of
Hollywood
productions,
and this is
clearly no excep-
tion.
But, the minor
controversy it has gen-
erated is also a clear
indication that, just as
more Chinese have no com-
punctions about airing their displeasure over
perceived slights targeted at China, there are
just as many cool and level-headed Chinese
who understand that knee-jerk paranoia should
not get in the way of good, clean, wholesome
entertainment.