Supernatural Done Wrong

    Although supernatural elements are certainly not uncommon in Chinese folktales, those present in the Mulan retellings have stirred up some controversy. The issues most Chinese viewers have with the supernatural aspects of Mulan (2020) and Mulan (1998) are that they are not culturally accurate. The fantasy parts included in each movie were very different from the fantasy that is present in Chinese folklore and much more akin to American storytelling (Langfitt, 1999).

    Arguably the biggest faux pas committed during any American renditions of the legend of Mulan comes through the newest 2020 Disney film. Throughout the movie, qi is constantly referred to. Specifically, it is asserted that Mulan has “strong qi,” which gives her essentially super-human abilities, and that women who have “strong qi,” are often thought of as “witches,” and rejected from society. This presents numerous issues of misrepresentation to Chinese viewers. Firstly, qi is something that everyone has (Acupuncture & Massage College, 2017). It is similar to one’s life force (Acupuncture & Massage College, 2017). Despite this, the film regularly implies that qi is something that only male warriors should have, and that by Mulan “having [strong] qi,” she is already an outlying female since birth. This does not represent the actual Chinese concept of qi, but it also diminishes the part of Mulan’s character that was normally developed through hard work and perseverance, common values for Chinese heroes (Zhao, EVERYTHING CULTURALLY WRONG WITH MULAN 2020 (And How They Could've Been Fixed) [Video], 2020). 



    Animal guides are noticeably different in each of Disney’s retellings of this story. In Mulan (1998), Mulan’s animal companions play a key role in the plot, serving to develop Mulan’s character, move the story along, and add emotional elements. Most notably is the character Mushu, Mulan’s dragon companion who descends from his place among ancestors to watch over her and guide her on her path towards heroism. The introduction of Mushu’s character was problematic to Chinese viewers for one huge reason: the nature of his character was largely for comedic relief. In Chinese mythology, dragons are noble, respected, important creatures who are certainly not comedic. Not only that, but the style of humor present in Mushu’s character is very distinctly American, and likely would have been lost on most of its Chinese audience (Haynes, 2020). Mushu’s style of humor is loud, brash, over-the-top, and goofy. Even if Mushu would have remained a comedic character, his humor style would have likely been much wittier and more reserved had he been constructed by a Chinese creator. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conclusion

Image
     Receiving the most backlash of all the American versions of Mulan is Mulan (2020), which in part marketed itself on the premise of being a more authentically Chinese production than its earlier counterpart in 1998. For a movie which marketed itself on its cultural accuracy, Mulan (2020) fell woefully short of its goal. Rather than creating a piece which had the potential to bridge the gap between Chinese and American people through their mutual love for this story, the film created a work which gave Americans the mere illusion of Chinese representation while giving Chinese viewers something that may feel more foreign than familiar. It is understandable, then, that many Chinese people may feel that the movie is disrespectful in the way that it markets itself as being Chinese without actually being Chinese, similar to American “Chinese take-out.” Just like a fortune cookie, this movie was a nearly entirely American creation with some inspiration from China which attempts to pass its
Read more

Mulan In America

Image
     Since the time of the original ballad, Mulan’s story has been retold countless times, with three notable renditions being produced in the United States. Maxine Hong Kingston’s 1975 novel The Woman Warrior is widely credited as being the first adaptation of Mulan for an American audience. Possibly spurred by the popularity of Kingston’s book, Disney picked up the story of Mulan for the first time with its 1998 animated film, Mulan (1998). In the 21st century, Disney released another version of the tale of Mulan, following their own trend of re-producing their animated classics as live-action films to create Mulan (2020). Despite receiving varying degrees of praise from American audiences, however, each American version of Mulan has faced criticism from Chinese audiences. Here, we will analyze which parts of the American Mulan stories were most unsatisfactory to Chinese audiences. 
Read more

Racial/Ethnic Stereotyping

Image
     The villains in Mulan (1998) are the Huns, who were a group of nomadic people who existed around the time period of the original story of Mulan, but would likely not have been attacking the Northern Wei Dynasty during the time of The Ballad of Mulan or Tang Dynasty during the setting of Mulan (1998), making them highly improbable if not impossible villains for the time period we are most led towards believing Mulan (1998) took place.      In addition to the confusion surrounding the identity of both Mulan and the villains, the 1998 film’s animation style actually crosses the line from misinformation to rather blatant stereotyping. The appearance of the Huns, with their darker skin, small yellow eyes, and resemblance to the typical Western depictions of Asian barbarians could reasonably offend those sharing ethnic backgrounds to any of the ethnic groups these villains could be representative of. Mulan herself is noticeably lighter in skin tone, with smaller stature, and a more roun
Read more