Two Thumbs Up!

by Don Boudreaux on January 13, 2010

in Movies, Property Rights, Trade

The news du jour from China is that Google might pull out of that country.

But here’s another, much-less-trumpeted piece of news that is cause for optimism about the future of freedom in China: In a report on how the movie ‘Avatar’ is perceived by the Chinese people, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports that “China’s moviegoers see a story about private property, not race.”

Hollywood blockbusters aren’t usually notable for their artistic or political subtlety. And James Cameron’s latest sci-fi hit, “Avatar,” would seem to be no exception, going by the lament of some critics that the film’s impressive special effects are undercut by a skimpy story line and flat dialogue.

That, however, is not how many Chinese see the film, which tells the story of rapacious humans trying to evict the blue-skinned natives of the planet Pandora in order to extract some exceedingly valuable mineral. This is standard politically correct fare for a Western audience, conveying a message of racial sensitivity and environmental awareness. In China, however, it has more rebellious undertones.

That’s because Chinese local governments in cahoots with developers have become infamous for forcibly seeking to evict residents from their homes with little compensation and often without their consent. The holdouts are known as “nail households,” since their homes are sometimes left stranded in the middle of busy construction sites. More often, however, they are driven away by paid thugs. Private property is one of the most sensitive issues in the country today, and “Avatar” has given the resisters a shot in the arm.

Even in Hong Kong, the “Avatar” banner has been taken up by antigovernment activists trying to defeat a plan to demolish a village to make way for a new high-speed railway line. One mysterious benefactor reportedly donated movie tickets to the villagers to stoke their enthusiasm for protests.

We suspect that neither Mr. Cameron nor 20th Century Fox (a sister company to this newspaper) had any idea of the effect their movie would have on the other side of the world. But then such flukes are one of the wonderful things about globalization, confounding those who lament its supposedly homogenizing effects on culture.

(HT Karol Boudreaux)

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • sethstorm
    I hope they leave in order to show that simple appeasement (which is what they will try to do) will not work. The constant with that country is that they'll give some sort of non-concession "concession" to deal with these kind of issues.

    They'll allow them some sort of "uncensored" feed, but then monitor who goes to it and repeat 1989 all over again; the openness will be used to conduct another massacre of those devoted to non-PRC friendly human rights.

    Hopefully Google does not give in, and just pulls out of the country.
  • Seekingexports
    For more comments by Chinese bloggers the NYTimes has an interesting article that expands the WSJ article: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/ch...

    It should be noted that this is one of only twenty foreign films that will be officially be allowed into China in 2010 unless policy changes ensue.

    The box office take for the studio company and James Cameron will be 15% in China as compared with up to 50% in North America.
  • vidyohs
    Okay Mesa, you made me go back and actually read the article pertaining to Google, which is the only source of my knowledge on the issue.

    I did find the last paragraph very interesting in and of itself, as well as how that revealed philosophy can be used as a lens to view so much of what has happened in our own financial system and the markets it supports.

    "Many people in Silicon Valley were surprised by Google’s stance. “I don’t think anybody is going to run away from China,” said Joe Schoendorf, a partner at Accel Partners, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm with a major presence in China. “Google has Microsoft on the ropes, and China is arguably the world’s most important market outside of the U.S. You don’t walk away from that on principle.”

    Ouch ouch ouch, "you don't walk away from that on principle."

    Look at the world through that lens, eh? Quite a sight.
  • Yep, Google will never abandon a cash cow, just like everyone else, just like they shouldn’t. Is that proper English?

    Anyway, well perceived, since I only gleaned that from the headline! (I read the whole thing later)

    The point is, yada yada yada ya…You get it.

    That is the entire point of this blog.
  • vidyohs
    Sincerely, this bothers me at a deeper level than yada yada yada.

    "you don't walk away from that on principle."

    Considering the issues discussed, being that of allowing the chinese government (or at least not preventing) access to all data pertaining to users of Google so that they can track and squash dissent, as well as censor content accessed, when Google users have been assured of privacy is violation of a principle that I think deserves more than sacrifice on the cross of profit.

    I believe profit is the root motivation for all human activity, I believe financial profit is the root motivation for any business venture. Anything less is really just plain stupid. However I believe in honest and open dealings that adhere to the agreements made or offered.

    So, when one promises one thing and doesn't deliver on it, or reneges without allowing the customer to know that they are now dealing with an entity that has changed the parameters of the deal; or even conceals the fact that the deal has changed......that is an immoral act, it is fraud, and to brush it aside in the name of profit as the prime principle is wrong.

    So to me that phrase scored deeply.
  • Gil
    What? "Avatar" is taken up by Luddites opposing progress?
  • vidyohs
    God bless random chance and the unintended consequence! Ha Ha Ha!

    Is this going to be a testament to the possibility that there are Chinese living in dirt and poverty, with no federal foolsystem education, who are smarter than college grads in the USA?

    Maybe??? :-D
  • They are US college grads. <rimshot>

    Seriously, please, do you think Google will do anything of the sort?

    Please.
  • vidyohs
    Are you asking me? I have no clue.

    I was just addressing the issue of the perception of the Chinese villagers cited in the Wall Street Journal in contrast with the perceptions of the world I see reflected in so many of USA College kids.

    I am innocent until proven guilty, and that's my story.
  • And a likely story it is....

    ;)
  • RC
    I really suspect google will do it (leaving China). If it were serious, it would have done it. Threat means nothing, especially to the Chinese government, and google is not unaware of it. In this case, google's threat means, "I want to stay. please don't push me too hard".

    "Don't be evil" - well said. But then who isn't an evil? If no one were evil, we wouldn't get into mess we are in now. Only money speaks. When google entered China and collaborated with the Chinese government, it is only for the money and not for ‘don’t be evil’, google knows, and knows very well.
  • CRC
    What's interesting is the different lenses people can view the same thing. When I watched Avatar, the blatant environmentalist, racism message was not lost on me but, as you point out, Mr. Cameron may have inadvertently shown us the thuggery and thievery that comes not from the evil corporations (though that is the intended "black hatted villain" in the film) but rather from government. It seems glossed over that the instruments of destruction and plunder were really governmental. The people were all ex-military (trained by their governments in the arts of destruction and violence, especially against "different" peoples). But it doesn't end there. The tools of destruction were massive and expensive military tools (created and coaxed into existence through government-funding (i.e., theft)).

    While an argument can be made that nothing would stop major corporations from creating their own armies and military equipment, this argument is unconvincing given the massive level of investment required to do so (so massive that it is only accomplished through government funding). An investment in destruction and violence rather than production and innovation seems a considerably less likely avenue for most companies to go given the risks.
  • Yes, many argue that corporations could not pull of the funding to reach the moon or explore space, yet turn around and suggest that corporations would be willing, without taxpayer subsidy, to engage in military conquest.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: