Generation Z Artists

Chapter 268 A New Masterpiece
Fang Ge decided to respond personally, by writing an English essay about life, to directly intercept all the current trends.

We didn't do that before because we didn't see any concrete support from Starry Sky for "Heroes".

This kind of support cannot be just empty slogans; it must come with real commitment.

He may seem arrogant, but he always places great importance on evaluation. When he is not sure, he mainly tests and endures until he is absolutely certain before he strikes hard.

Xiao Fang's wildness and recklessness were always kept within Da Fang's control.

Now, the head of the online trolls has finally seen the signal.

Many people don't understand the significance of "Hero" grossing $4273 million in 9 days. After all, "The Lord of the Rings" broke $100 million in just 5 days. Under the shadow of this monster movie, "Hero's" performance was intentionally ignored by film critics and seriously underestimated by the public.

But Fang Xinghe noticed many unusual things in the details of the data.

The average ticket price for "Hero" in North America is $5.8, which translates to approximately 736 million viewers.

Of these 736 million, only slightly more than half are actually kung fu fans or action movie enthusiasts.

The other half are mostly baby's breath – even if they weren't before, they're very likely to be after watching the movie.

Therefore, to date, 360 million fans across North America have chosen to support Fang Xinghe's first film with real money.

With 1000 screens, an average of 6 screenings per day, and a total of 54000 screenings over 9 days, and an average of 67 female viewers per screening, what does that mean?
As one of the top blockbuster films in film history, The Lord of the Rings currently has an average of fewer than 25 female viewers per screening.

Women are not the primary audience for fantasy films, but they are the main consumers in the film market and powerful influencers within their social circles.

The final box office difference between "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Titanic" lies in the female audience.

In the film and television industry, whoever wins over female viewers wins the world. Twenty years later, weight loss films finally made domestic audiences realize this, but Hollywood has already learned a great deal from the big ship.

Fang Xinghe didn't have the female audience data when "The Big Ship" was released, but anyone could guess that the average number of female viewers per screening must have been an extremely high figure.

No matter what, "Hero" can't compete with the appeal of big ships to women. However, Prince Yu is the benchmark of beauty, strength, and tragedy. The current 360 million is just the beginning, and it may expand to 3600 million or even more in the future.

So, he finally had the confidence to say some outrageous things and write an outrageous article.

In the United States, with 3600 million women backing you up, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do.

They don't directly influence the media of the print era, but they can influence votes through various movements, and thus influence everything related to the country's economy and politics...

So Brother Fang decided to take some drastic measures.

Is there a writing style that can fully captivate female readers and be sufficiently effective?

some.

Artistic, profound, and extreme.

Once Fang Xinghe wrote the first word, the situation was no longer under anyone's control.

The title of this short essay is: "Chinese Consciousness, American Freedom, Fang's Philosophy, and Pigs, Dogs, Cattle, and Sheep in the Art World."

The article, published on the front page of the Washington Post's film section, instantly caused a sensation in the entertainment, literary, and even global art circles.

As a world-class literary rising star, or literary genius, Fang Xinghe's first English work received the extraordinary treatment that all major Western countries "must reprint and take a look, no matter what."

Upon seeing this, my scalp tingled.

……

【I. Chinese Consciousness】

Recently, my first film, "Hero," has sparked widespread and intense controversy in the public sphere.

A group of film critics, directors, stars, and cultural commentators, led by Turan, believe that the ending of "Hero" is ridiculous and full of a sense of superiority that is a clumsy attempt to export ideology.

I don’t know if they know that this version of the ending, from the visuals to the plot, the subtitles, and the Easter eggs, was all directed by Fang Xinghe, the second screenwriter and assistant director.

I don't care whether they know or not, this is just another presumptuous provocation.

(I'm unaware if they know or not...)
(I'm unconcerned if they know or not...)
I'm used to this by now.

Is malice from American counterparts any newer? Not at all.

But that's definitely not the same.

From the very first day I arrived in America, I had a vague realization—I was a husky who had willingly walked into a pack of wolves.

Looking at them, I subjectively assumed they were my kind.

They looked at me, baring their teeth and glaring fiercely, letting out low growls from their throats, clearly recognizing me as an outsider.

At first, I thought the warnings and rejections came from my appearance—my handsomeness was too dazzling—but I later discovered that this was not the case; the hostility stemmed from a deeper realm.

I could never pinpoint the exact source of the hostility until recently, when I saw a highly xenophobic word in film critic Turan's article criticizing "Hero," and it finally dawned on me.

Ideology.

Ah, so that's what it was all about.

We are indeed different, born different.

My consciousness was born in China, a very special country.

Like all other countries in the world, they are responsible entities composed of people, territory, government, and sovereignty. Through the monopoly of violence, they achieve the result of managing social affairs through a legal system and maintaining the safe growth of group interests.

Whether a country is developed or not only reflects the size of the interests of its groups.

The form of government of a country only represents the composition of the interests of the group.

Ultimately, every nation is a state-to-state relationship of rule, regardless of whether the government is elected, inherited, or seized by military force.

Such a country is actually just a symbol of the ruling class.

China is different. China is more like a civilization disguised as a country. The word "China" itself carries its own connotation.

If you don't understand, I can give you a very simple example—

When I first responded to my teammates' question, "Where are you from?", I proudly told them, "I am Chinese."

I do not mean "citizens of the People's Republic of China", but rather "the descendants of China who have a history of thousands of years since the time of Yao, Shun, and Yu, and who will surely continue for thousands of generations to come".

The difference is so subtle that it's hard to put into words.

China is no longer a geographical concept, nor a political concept, nor a national concept, but a spiritual concept that integrates culture, history, and ethnicity.

In my mind, the People's Republic of China, which practices a socialist system, is just a historical stage of our China. The fundamental logic behind our recognition and deep love for it is that it corrected past mistakes and upheld the orthodoxy of Chinese civilization, not because we firmly believe in the progressiveness of socialism.

No, even now, most Chinese people cannot rely on their own knowledge and understanding to be certain that socialism is indeed better.

We simply believe that a government that upholds the orthodoxy of Chinese civilization is qualified to represent all Chinese people in shouldering that historical responsibility.

Yes, historical responsibility is paramount, and the Chinese government naturally possesses that historical responsibility—not only to safeguard the civilization of the time when the dynasty existed, but also to inherit the legacy of the previous dynasty.

The founding edict of Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty, is a classic that you can hardly imagine.

"I, the ruler of China, since the end of the Song dynasty, saw the arrival of a divinely ordained immortal from the desert who became the ruler of China. This rule lasted for over a hundred years, but now it too has come to an end..."

Although the war with the Yuan Dynasty was bloody, the emperors who changed dynasties still recognized the legitimacy of the previous dynasty's rule.

This natural sense of identity can be traced back to the time of King Wu of Zhou.

The unearthed inscription reads: "After King Wu conquered the great city of Shang, he reported to Heaven, saying: 'I will reside in this central land and govern its people.'"

This means that after King Wu of Zhou conquered the Shang capital, he held a solemn ceremony to report to Heaven: 'I have now conquered China and rule over these people.'

Since then, the orthodox Chinese tradition has been passed down in an orderly and continuous manner.

From the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties to the Ming, Qing, and Republican eras, all governments were regarded by the people as patriarchs and protectors. If a ruler was insufficient to safeguard this great civilization, he would be overthrown and rejected. Therefore, the Qing dynasty's very low status in Chinese history was not fundamentally due to its corruption, backwardness, or failure, but rather to its extremely weak willingness to uphold Chinese civilization—preferring foreign powers to domestic slaves.

This statement is a betrayal of the entire civilization itself, and therefore they naturally suffered historical reckoning.

Modern Chinese history textbooks record the two hundred years of humiliation in great detail. This is not based on any administrative order, but rather stems from a spontaneous and simple view of history.

This simple historical perspective defines what every responsible Chinese person should do and when.

—When we suffer invasion, humiliation, and massacre, we unite to resist those atrocities.

—When we recover from the chaos, remember the blood that was shed and the mistakes that were made.

When the government that represents this civilization stops doing the right thing, overthrow it and rebuild a better one.

All of these are blood oaths.

So, what is the right thing to do?

It's not about exporting an ideology unique to China to the outside world, but about protecting our "Chinese Consciousness" internally.

There are probably still many fools who can't understand why a country can have self-awareness.

The reason is simple: the deep-seated Chinese obsession with national unity.

For 3000 years, no matter what the name of China was changed to—Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, or The People's Republic of China—every Chinese person has identified themselves as a descendant of Yan and Huang.

When the simple consciousness of hundreds of millions of people settles deep within the national consciousness, it does not equate to the natural emergence of a higher subject of "national consciousness." It is inconspicuous, ungrand, and quiet; its sole mission is to protect the healthy and independent continuation of civilization.

You may not feel it normally, but it is the external manifestation of every Korean War veteran's nightmare.

Our slogan is to protect our home and defend our country. Home refers to our small family, and what country is it?

China.

Since the time of Yao and Shun, China must be a unified nation for all eternity.

In the era depicted in the film, when the nameless character lived, China had not yet achieved its first unification.

However, the pursuit of unification was already ingrained in the blood of our ancestors.

As early as the Western Zhou Dynasty, there was a famous saying: "Under the whole heaven, all land belongs to the king; on the shores of the whole land, all people are subjects of the king."

This is a concept of a universal ruler with the Zhou emperor at its core.

Then, in the Spring and Autumn Period, the Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals states: "Why is it said that the first month of the king's reign is the beginning of a unified empire?"

Finally, Qin Shi Huang achieved this great feat, and all six states perished. In reality, he fulfilled the common ambition of all scholars, military strategists, monarchs, ministers, commoners, and prominent families of the Seven Warring States.

Wuming certainly understood the concept of unification; his only regret was that it wasn't the Zhao state that achieved this great feat.

Therefore, the character's deepest charm lies in his ability to calmly admit defeat after a failed assassination attempt—an assassin is not a killer who wields his sword against the weak for money, but a righteous person.

As a righteous man, Wuming can win or lose. Death is nothing to him; he can just laugh it off and there's no need to lose his composure.

The highly self-serving American cultural elites, led by Turan, fail to grasp this point, mistakenly believing that the end credits of "Hero" are an attempt to forcibly export Chinese ideology, which is utterly ridiculous.

You don't understand the romance of the Warring States period.

The most romantic aspect of the Warring States period was the dazzling brilliance that emerged on the final, desperate path of pursuing unification.

From the Spring and Autumn Period to the Warring States Period, from the Hundred Schools of Thought to the final Seven Warring States, they fought for the final moment for too long and paid too high a price, ultimately leading to a kind of soul-deep fervor for death—victory was certainly gratifying, but defeat was not to be feared; in the end, unification was the goal, and the war was to end.

Qin, by the mandate of heaven, fulfilled this historical mission for all Chinese people in later generations, exhausting all its resources, and perished after only two generations.

The Han dynasty continued its aspirations, ultimately shining brightly like the Milky Way in the sky, completely solidifying the "Han" ethnic identity.

Then, during the prosperous Tang Dynasty, the nation achieved great integration with an open mind and established a cultural core that assimilated foreign regimes time and again.

By this point, China had become a modern China, and Chinese consciousness had fully taken shape.

Since then, numerous internal strife, divisions, and foreign invasions have failed to change the shape of China, the consciousness of China, or the aspirations of the Chinese people.

The end credits of "Hero" are essentially a tracing of historical facts, truthful, objective, and unbiased.

I don't blame you for not understanding because you are not well-educated and have low intelligence.

Since I don't understand why you are so hypocritical, let's consider this a draw.

Please remember the new term I coined: Chinese consciousness. One day, not too far off, you will finally face the reality of this shallowness rooted in ignorance.

II. American Freedom

After traveling abroad several times, I finally understood the power of the statement in my high school political textbook that "China is a smart country".

The United States and other Western countries harbor a deep-seated fear of this, a fear that does not stem from the Soviet Union or China itself, but rather from an imagined understanding of a different regime and an unnatural unease about their own course of action.

Key point: Imaginative understanding, unnatural and guilty.

The root of the former is arrogance. In fact, most of America's cultural elites cannot distinguish between schadenfreude and the core framework that emerges when capitalism is applied to the political system.

By the way, if you're stuck on the long sentence above, please give up reading this article immediately. With your intelligence, you probably won't understand what happens next.

As is well known, socialism and capitalism are economic systems; they are neither forms of state nor political systems.

Surely no one is stupid enough to get this wrong?

Mr. Turan?

Getting back to the main point, the fundamental difference in economic systems lies in who controls the means of production, and it is not strongly related to the political system. That is, a socialist country can also have a multi-party system with democratic voting, while capitalism can also have a one-party system.

Social democratic countries like Sweden and Norway, and authoritarian capitalist countries like Singapore, serve as excellent counterexamples.

Therefore, whether a country is free, democratic, safe, or peaceful does not depend on whether its economic system is capitalist or socialist, but is determined to a greater extent by the government's governance capacity and the aggressiveness of the nation itself.

If you are not afraid of Sweden and Norway, then there is no need to be afraid of China, which is even more peace-loving.

In the world today, no country is completely socialist or purely capitalist. All countries have mixed economic systems. The United States once implemented a planned economy, and China also has an important supplement of private ownership. This is almost the most ideal state of modern society.

However, I was surprised to find that very few American scholars knew about such common sense.

Their usual practice is to draw a line from above, declaring those like them as friends on one side and those who are not like them as enemies on the other.

This is the greatest arrogance.

Your understanding of China, based on your own imagination, has never been correct—past, present, and future.

This misunderstanding caused by arrogance and laziness makes you feel unnaturally guilty when making various decisions, predictions, and expressing related opinions.

If you cannot be certain that something is as it is, then every word you say will become a bullet that will eventually hit you.

I usually try my best to avoid this situation, as it would damage my authority.

But I suddenly realized that you don't care, and you especially love to point fingers at things you don't understand.

This is so American.

This is freedom.

In our country, there is a magazine called "Yilin" that describes the United States as a beacon of freedom and a paradise of democracy.

Today we won't talk about democracy; continuing from the article "Sex," let's discuss American-style freedom.

(To be continued)
****************
lag

(End of this chapter)