Part 2. Heroes and villains.
Concerning the movie itself. Looks awkward in places. Among the scenes I remember there are the Chinese police having gestures of clown, bewildered and scared when the main character goes to a restaurant and a crowd of fans gathers around him to greet. Poor cops, I understand. They had absolutely no instructions as to how to behave in such a situation - so they decided to fearfully ask Weiwei about how long he would prefer to stay there and proposed to not to procrastinate. And began video recording. And also, just curious, why do they wear non-uniform pants and shoes? Any troubles with the police uniform in a country famous for its wide range of clothing, no? Other police officer look much more aggressive in the movie, so that I was asolutely content with watching such a familiar behavior, I felt kind of a kinship of d*cks all over the world. But those near the restaurant were so silly that I believe the scene was no more than an amateur performance. It was from what I saw - they still may be the police, who knows.
To say briefly, Mr.Weiwei looks too much a hero sometimes. And his enemies look too much like bad comedians. Not very documentary to me, but tastes may differ, of course. It could be just because the enemy wasn't chosen correctly enough. Mr.Weiwei is right ti understand that bringing a suit against the person who hit him will not bring the result everyone is aiming at. A police officer hits civilians before they are declared outlaws in a particular situation, pf, it's typical for some countries, nothing to build a tragedy around. Mr.Weiwei goes further to claim not the officer, not the police department the latter works at, not the ministry - but the general law climate. The climate feels bad, and Weiwei shudders in a common Chinese manner of representation where even the fightings are full of jokes: "what a bad weather".
Here we stop for some reason. But why here? Who's the enemy, finally? He shows a finger to the symbol of the government and sings something, to my pre-basic Chinese, rather obscene at the camera (oh, what a brave man) - but that's all. Is the enemy there? Behind those walls and windows of the governmental district? Who exactly, their bio's, how they got there to rule and why - viewers must find the answers independently. That's not the artist's task to give all the answers. He'd better make some installations for what is called the "contemporary art", over-artistic and poorly understood by his simple countrymen.
That's not the right way to do things, I suppose. That doesn't make the heroes stand out as heroes - neither it makes villains fall down as villains. The movie is oriented to the foreign audience - so, I think, it's necessary to chew the idea over. Otherwise, see: I'm watching the film and the idea hasn't been chewn for me - ok, I develop my own concept, and it may not coincide with the author's one. People from the civilised democracies are watching - and they even have no clue what to think not because they are stupid but because they are not accustomed to correctly analyse all those barbarian politics. Pick an enemy, point at him, hang a relevant badge on him, be simple when telling us about the vices of dictatorship. I cannot see this in the movie. What I can see is "the government does bad things". Why have such circumstances become possible? Who's guilty? No, really, I need to know this at least to be able to find, based on this case, who is guilty in my country.
In addition, I cannot be sure who's the hero. The artist? His confrontation with the government doesn't grow from his creative activity but from the methods he criticises the national politics regarding the freedom of information with. So why should we dedicate so many minutes to his creative work, to the interviews with his colleagues speaking of the contemporary art suppresed with censorship? That's another role. "Weird" art can express a pure challenge to the state - or it can, much more often, just be "weird". "I created it so weird just because I'm indignant at the consumeristic slough around me". "Or just because I'm unable to work in a more academic style". "Or something else". At the same time, an art challenge can be different. Unambiguous and severe like it was a century ago: "My art is weird because your hands and feet are tied by merchants and you're sold into slavery to politicians. Now open your eyes and listen".
Ai Weiwei does not offer this. He prefers to show the System, the Big Brother, the Matrix, an AI that captured his country. But we've gathered not to watch a sci-fi. It's documentary, do you still remember? Even if it was so designed my the film director an artist should be able to feel the incoherence. This way the plot turns into a tale - obviously not the desired result.
Some words should be said concerning the abroad part of the movie. Ai Weiwei lived in the USA in 1980-s. Well, that's not a crime. But that's... I even don't know how to say... See, the theme of emigration for my country is historically painful. No one was able to emigrate form the USSR before 1960-s. Rare people were able in 1970-s (to Israel mostly, and only after the proper invitation was received and the special services gave their OK). And still only power, money, or escape could lead out of the country in 1980-s. But that dissident guy from China was able to emigrate. Wait, I don't mean he was not dissidentic enough. I just stress something important to me about our two states. And also, at the present time Weiwei's exhibitions have held abroad. In famous places. Which cost much. Some financial help form abroad, I suppose. Wait, I don't mean he's paid form abroad! I just stress. The President of Belarus would say he's paid by foreign intelligence to undermine his country's image. He likes to be rude in statements, that guy from Belarus. But it does not necessarily mean he's lying to twist the truth and to justify all kinds of dictatorship. He's simply rude in statements.
Financial help always requires something in return. If this is the case then I'm afraid it can lead us away from the real problem of China (barbarian state of civil rights resulting from the fact that Mr.X thinks extremely few of Mr.Y's life and opinion) to the official problem of China as considered by the global community (censorship, that, off the record, doesn't allow to influence China effectively using political and financial means). The latter is just another Cold War my people, for example, have been really pissed off with during all those years. The latter is just a reason for cookie-pushers in all national and international political institutions to have meetings and conference, and to knit their brows anxiously, and to prove their salary is not in vain. That's not the problem of China. That's the problem of the whole world. The barbarism born from the lower level of individual culture of every commoner growing into the barbarism of the police growing further into the barbarism of the national government - that's the problem. I don't think Mr.Weiwei and that film maker girl have communicated it clearly enough. Unfortunately.
