Bus 44: Based Upon A True Story

59 Comments

1. Zhangsan

   Friday, May 29, 2009 at 6:29 pm

   Definitely an interesting film…thanks for the heads up.

   Oh, and sofa!

   Reply
2. Rob

   Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 7:23 am

   First! ^^
   Wow, what a crazy story!

   Reply
3. abc

   Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm

   Looks like an interesting film.

   Reply
4. Jimmy

   Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 1:45 am

   Fantastic film. Saw it before online. This film was not banned in China, go do research before some of you get “patriotic”. Also, I don’t think the director was
   intended to make this story a “China issue”, you can find interviews about it in the Chinese press. As for the smile, I think that is what makes the film brilliant and stand out from the other Chinese films. Don’t be so quick to dismiss, one festival win might be a fluke, but all the top festivals? Obviously they must know more about films than you or me.

   Reply
5. Yes Boleh

   Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 10:34 pm

   Very Exciting Film
   Thank You very much

   Reply
6. Vinowank

   Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 11:48 pm

   Chinese people have no balls, all weaklings. That guy only had a small knife. They would have been easily overpowered by all the passengers on the bus no problem when the other guy was doing his business on the bus driver.

   For all the Jackie Chan movies they should stop living in a dream world that they are heroes. This film just shows them as the weaklings they really are. Deserve to die including the guy who got let off.

   Reply
7. mechanized

   Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 12:09 am

   Pretty damn good! I was wondering why the bus driver was that attractive.

   Reply
8. malagebi

   Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 12:14 am

   For a country with too many man, China sure lacks balls.

   Reply
9. SpareWheel

   Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 12:44 am

   Great film. Thanks for bringing it up.

   Reply
10. Zhangsan

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Good to see you are back up!

    Reply
11. janz

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 2:44 am

    This is NOT based on a true story, the story this film based on was a work of FICTION published on a magazine.

    Reply
12. Bokamba

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 9:19 am

    This film was chilling and excellent to watch.

    Reply
13. ...

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Welcome back good ol’ China Smack!

    Reply
14. Kai

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    Awesome short film and heh, definitely agree that the smirk at the end seemed a bit out of place. This film is interesting in SO MANY ways, including the reception it gets by Chinese viewers. It speaks to and will invariably validate many conceptions of mainland Chinese society, even those that seem in opposition to each other. The easy one is the ever-pervasive issue of “empathy” in China and many are going to see this as proof of it being lacking, what with the majority of the people on the bus failing to act. The flip side is the very obvious internal conflict of those who failed to act (and the one who did), and the moral of the story that Chinese audiences are drawing from this: Why is our society so afraid to do what we know to be right? Why do we fail to help when we see others in distress? Why is this so prevalent, enough that a poignant film can be made about it, win awards, and be easily identified with? One commenter summed it up well:

    Sigh, people these days do not have a sense of justice, though there are also a lot of good intentions repaid with bad consequences, such a conflict.

    Big questions. No easy answers.

    Reply
15. longyan

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Great short film, this was actually made in 2001? Wow! I know the director and the star Gong Beibi made another movie together a few years ago called “Duzi Dengdai” which is a popular romantic-comedy movie in China~Many other stars cameo also, like Chow Yunfat and Ying Da. Also the young man on the bus is in that movie too. Very different style, but also very good.

    Reply
16. fearus

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    I don’t really think the universal theme of this story reflects particularly on China.

    A very similar story could have been made with one of the 911 planes.

    Reply
    • little Alex

      Friday, June 12, 2009 at 6:54 pm

      Well, on a plane there’s the issue that if you break a window or accidentally open a door in a struggle, everyone would die from the loss of air pressure or something. And the passengers presumably didn’t know what the hijackers were planning to do.

      And on the plane that was targetting Washington, the passengers voted to crash the plane so that it wouldn’t hit Washington. I’d say that’s pretty brave.

      Reply
      • D

        Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm

        WTF are you talking about, if the plane has crashed, how did the story surfaced? Idiot.

        Reply
17. Jordan

    Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Come on Chinese people, this is a movie, not a documentary!

    Reply
18. blue water

    Friday, June 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    I can understand why some Chinese will get upset with this little film.

    It shows in a very graphic way the insidious weaknesses and flaws in the Chinese character – cowardice, hypocrisy, and lack of altruism.

    According to the movie, the symbolic solution is to kill them all.

    This movie would make a good discussion point for students in all Chinese middle schools and universities.

    Reply
    • Kai

      Friday, June 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm

      Interesting comment. May I ask which national character you consider to represent bravery, righteousness, and altruism?

      Reply
19. VeerLeft

    Friday, June 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    WHy not BUS45??? The story of the Chinese nutbar who cut off a mans head in Canada???

    Reply
20. NANA

    Friday, June 5, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Very well-made film. As the director said, this is universal subject that can happen anywhere, see news about man who beheads passenger in Canada while no one helps:

    http://www.topnews.in/man-who-beheaded-canadian-bus-passenger-pleads-not-guilty-2134568

    Reply
21. Belle

    Friday, June 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    I don’t think that the man was laughing at all. There is a huge difference between smiling and laughing. I think that the man is smiling at the fact that he had thought that the driver was being cruel and was confused by her treatment of him when all he had tried to do was save her. In the end, the bus driver saved him though she could not save herself.

    Too many people on here have commented that this is trying to show “the dark side of china.” I do not believe that was the intent. Rather…it is showing the dark side of the human condition that is universal.

    Blue Water said: “It shows in a very graphic way the insidious weaknesses and flaws in the Chinese character – cowardice, hypocrisy, and lack of altruism.”

    I don’t think that this was aimed at any one ethnic/country group at all. It shows the weakness and flaws in HUMAN character. I wish more people would realize that humans are essentially the same in every country in the world. Get beyond your focus on the differences and you will see that all human are much more alike than different. Hell…it’s science!

    As for the person that went on and on about “if the man had had a western physique…”, that is just ridiculous. Unless you have ever been in that sort of situation, you really don’t have any room to talk. Besides…there are plenty of Asian people that are as physically strong and stronger that the average westerner.

    Reply
22. Holland Marshall

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Excellent short video. It is a story for all societies so it is not limited to China. It is hard to think of a better movie using so little time, money and special effects.

    It is a story of ordinary people in an ordinary situation. The woman’s revenge is surprising. It shows just how strong she was.

    Reply
23. Belle

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 11:16 am

    I agree with your first comment, Holland…

    Sorry, though. I just do not see what is so strong about committing suicide and taking more than a dozen other people with you. Not in any context. And saying that is kind of a serious insult to anyone that has ever survived rape.

    Reply
24. blue water

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    @Belle

    There are numerous examples of beatings, rapes, robberies, injuries, etc. reported in China where onlookers make no attempt to interfere or help.

    Not long ago, a policemen on a bus was fatally wounded while trying to prevent a pickpocket from robbing a passenger. The passenger nor the bus riders offered any help to the policeman who struggled with the pickpocket.

    This movie, “Buss – 44″ shows the social cancer that exists in contemporary China. A society that has no social value to help those in distress is doomed.

    It is no accident, after its experience with Nazi power, that modern Germany has a law that the public MUST make an effort to help those in distress.

    “Buss – 44″ is a “wake up call” for Chinese to think about what kind of society they have.

    Reply
25. Belle

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Blue Water: Try reading what the movie is asctually about–meaning the DIRECTOR’S INTENT

    “Based on a true story, Bus 44 takes place on the outskirts of a small town, a bus driver (Gong) and her passengers encounter highway robbers. “Bus 44″ carries a UNIVERSAL THEME that travels across all boundaries and societies, trespassing the dark side and bright side of human behavior.”

    I live in contemporary China, and I lived for many years in contemporary America. People are the SAME everywhere. There are many people who would do something to help in this type of situation as well as many people who would not.

    This “social cancer” you speak of, unfortunately, exists EVERYWHERE.

    Try becoming a bit more global. It would do you some good.

    Reply
26. blue water

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    @Belle

    I live in China.

    Reply
    • Belle

      Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 10:09 pm

      I never said that you didn’t. Try widening your view and mindset.

      And don’t put word’s into a director’s mouth. Maybe to YOU this movie is about what you believe it is…but what YOU believe it to be is NOT what the director intended it to be. There is a huge difference.

      There are reports of the masses turning away from crime happening in their face from ALL OVER THE WORLD. There are also stories of strangers helping one another. I have witnessed strangers helping each other even in the face of violence right here in Hangzhou.

      GET OUT AND AROUND MORE!

      Reply
27. blue water

    Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    @Belle

    I’m sure if the director really wanted to show the humanity of Chinese helping each other, he could find many examples in China. That I don’t doubt.

    However, he didn’t.

    The director described a particular “dark side” of Chinese character that does exist. Everyday you can see examples of Chinese being indifferent, inconsiderate, uncaring, and selfish towards one another.

    Chinese know this.

    By trying to make it “universal” does not make this cancer go away.

    On one of the planes that were hijacked during 9/11, the passengers organized themselves to attack the terrorists although the passengers knew they would die. Why did they fight back?

    This is the social quality the Chinese people must have.

    In the book, “Wolf Totem,” is mentions how the Chinese people have become a nation of sheep.

    I’ve been around the world, I know that Chinese are not worse than others. What I do know is that Chinese have some serious social flaws that need to be addressed. Trying to hide them behind the label of “universalism” is not a solution. Matter of fact, it’s another Chinese flaw called “saving face.”

    Reply
    • Asis

      Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 5:48 pm

      Hope readers find time to read this article which I feel relates directly to a lot of comments on this website.

      lattenomics.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/no-past-to-speak-of-a-story-of-infant-rape-in-south-africa/

      Put simply, some people are so eager to be politically correct, they forgo being honest about negative aspects of a culture.

      You can argue that all humans are basically the same, but you CAN’T argue that culture isn’t.

      Also, for those arguing that the director wasn’t intending to target Chinese apathy… fair enough. But art is about the REACTION. You can’t tell someone what they are ‘supposed’ to think when they see it. The fact so many people have come to this point is significant enough.

      Reply
      • Asis

        Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 5:56 pm

        A few notes:

        It was an accident that this comment should be under blue water’s

        I meant ‘culture IS’, not ISN’T.

        I don’t know how to show the link… sorry.

        Reply
      • Kai

        Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm

        For links, use HTML. Here’s a sample, just replace the [ with <:

        [a href="URL"]link text[/a]

        Put simply, some people are so eager to be politically correct, they forgo being honest about negative aspects of a culture.

        This is not about being politically correct, this is about being rational. You have to first make a really good and persuasive argument that a negative aspect is largely unique to that specific culture you’re trying to criticize. Bystander effect is not unique to Chinese culture, and is, in fact, prevalent in all cultures. Many of the best sociological and psychological experiments on this aspect of human behavior were done in the West.

        You can argue that all humans are basically the same, but you CAN’T argue that culture is.

        Not a single person is arguing this. Don’t create straw men.

        But art is about the REACTION. You can’t tell someone what they are ’supposed’ to think when they see it. The fact so many people have come to this point is significant enough.

        Asis, the person here telling others what they are “supposed” to think is blue water. Please review the discussion. The people rejecting his prescription were Belle and others, including myself. I even explicitly said blue water is free to have his own subjective interpretation but our objection to him was specifically because he was denigrating other people (including the official synopsis, critics, and the director himself) for having a different reaction than him. The fact that so many people come to the point that this film transcends race and culture is as at least as significant as your desired point in agreement with blue water. I understand what you’re driving at, but you’re again fighting the wrong battle.

        Reply
28. nausicasia

    Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 1:03 am

    This is an interesting short-story that could have happened in any country, not only China. This could also happen in Europe for exemple.

    Critics should be adressed to any passenger or witness of a crime who do not have the courage to react. This movie is not about “bad sides of China” as China is not the main topic here.

    Few years ago there was a dispute in Paris subway. Nobody reacted except a Japanese tourist, who afterwards was stabbed to death by the robbers. Except him, nobody reacted. And he was the only one who eventually died. He was a foreigner, tourist, in Paris, and only wanted to help.

    Few years ago I was in a bus between Shaolin and Luoyang, Henan Province. I saw a robber trying to take money out of the pocket of my sleeping neighbor. I wanted to react, but my girlfriend took my hand and asked me not to say anything, so I did not say anything. After all, the neighbor woke-up on time, and his money was not stolen.

    So, the movie is just about the fear of having problems, beeing stabbed to death for someone you don’t know. Helping others for free.

    It seems that somehow, people think about themselves first and don’t want to react if others are in trouble, or in other words, finally, accept criminality as long as they are not directly concerned.

    There is somtething to change here.

    I am happy to see this movie getting a reward.

    Nausicasia

    Reply
29. nausicasia

    Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 1:41 am

    I fully agree with “Belle”‘s inputs. Social Cancer is everywhere.

    Reply
30. NANA

    Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 3:45 am

    I agree with Belle, Nausicasia and others said above, the film obviously wasn’t only about China, when I watch it I can tell it was about HUMAN nature, not just in China. For any doubt even the director clearly stated his intent on the film website.

    Also, the young man did try to help, so I don’t know why some people saying everyone was bad, it just mean not enough people help each other everyday.

    Director Dayyan Eng Comments (http://www.colordance.com/bus.html): “I have always been interested in social psychology and wanted to do a film about how people react under certain stressful circumstances. The story attracts me not only because it has an interesting plot with a twist, but mostly because the underlying theme is even more haunting than the events that take place. I intentionally made this film with a certain ambiguity of time and place — this story could have taken place anywhere in the world. Making films about people and human nature attracts me because I feel that people around the world have much more in common than they do differences. “Bus 44″ carries a universal theme that travels across all boundaries and societies, trespassing the dark side and bright side of human behavior. “

    Reply
31. blue water

    Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    It’s quite amusing to see how quickly and defensively Chinese become at any exposure of their weakness or flaws.

    The movie, “Bus #44,” describes a “dark side” of the Chinese social character. It has a Chinese director and takes place in China. The Chinese language is spoken by an all Chinese cast. Yet, some Chinese say it has nothing to do with China. Interesting.

    When the negative side of the Chinese character or society is identified, Chinese immediately want to point out it’s “universal.”

    “the film obviously wasn’t only about China, when I watch it I can tell it was about HUMAN nature, not just in China.”
    (NANA)

    “. . . it [movie] is showing the dark side of the human condition that is universal.”
    (Belle)

    “This movie is not about ‘bad sides of China’ as China is not the main topic here.” (nausicasia)

    However, when there is something positive in Chinese society Chinese are quick point out its uniqueness and “particularity” to the Chinese character or culture.

    I understand the need to maintain self-esteem and national dignity but when a nation, a people, a group refuse to face up to their weaknesses, well, that group is in denial and will have a bad end.

    Weak, passive Jews in Europe made easy pickings for Nazi bullies.

    Weak, passive Chinese made easy pickings for Japanese militarists.

    The movie, “Bus #44,” provides a good lesson for all people especially for some of the people who posted comments.

    In the movie, when the bus driver was being dragged away, a young man attempted to go to her aid but was stopped by his girlfriend.

    Note:

    “I wanted to react, but my girlfriend took my hand and asked me not to say anything, so I did not say anything.”
    (Nausicasia)
    …..

    “My gf holds me back but I feel like I should say something or warn people coz the two sha bi’s split up and starts prowling the bus for victims. My gf is adamant I don’t do anything . . .”
    (GuoBao)
    …..

    “maybe it was a good thing my gf was there to calm me down.”
    (GuoBao)
    ……

    I’m sure the girlfriends of the above “heroes” would have wanted someone to have come to their aid had they been the victim of a rape.

    The lesson of this movie (for Chinese), despite the disingenuous comments of the director, is that the Chinese (men and WOMEN) people must learn to be brave and fight against bullies, gangsters, and other criminals. Otherwise, the Chinese people will become further cowed into silence while the criminals will become emboldened.

    Reply
32. Belle

    Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Blue Water:

    You are truly one of the most ignorant, close-minded people that I have seen post on this website. All you have done is take bits and pieces out of context, put words into people’s mouths, and misconstrued pretty much everything.

    You are NOT a mind reader. Stop believing that you actually understand anyone’s intentions or meaning…because you keep making it painfully clear that you don’t.

    You are disgusting to brand Jewish people in Europe during the Holocaust as weak and passive. You are just as terrible for branding Chinese people as weak and passive during the Japanese invasion.

    Apparently all you know of your own culture is what you learned in school in China. Try reading the words of Chinese people that are not available to you in Chinese.

    You really need to open your mind a lot more. You may have “traveled around the world”…but it appears that you have learned nothing from it.

    Reply
    • mike

      Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 11:50 pm

      i think you both have a point, but both are not completely correct. i think most people from other countries who have traveled to asia notice the distinct lack of 公德心, i find it pathetic that most people would not help in an obviously life-threatening situation because they fear getting the blame, but then again, china’s law system is basically non-existant, in the US or Canada (etc) one would never have to worry about this problem and i personally have never seen people not help in these kinds of situations in those countries.

      Reply
    • Kai

      Monday, June 8, 2009 at 2:03 am

      Belle, don’t mind blue water. While some of his sentiments are not unreasonable and, in fact, shared by many, including the Chinese, his behavior above is. He’s intentionally misrepresenting your objection and position because he’s set on misrepresenting this movie as being about the Chinese and only the Chinese. He doesn’t care what the official synopsis says, what the critical reception was, or what the director says. He also doesn’t care that basic human intelligence could see how the phenomenon depicted in this movie transcends China and the Chinese themselves and applies to the entire human race wherever cowardice, hypocrisy, and lack of altruism rears its head. He’s intentionally playing stupid because he personally WANTS to limit the discussion to a criticism and persecution of Chinese only, nevermind that world history has plenty of examples of stories like Bus 44 in other countries and with other people. He doesn’t care about the universality of the moral of this story. He just wants to use this movie against the Chinese and the Chinese alone. It’s his agenda and you can’t reason with someone like that.

      Reply
33. blue water

    Monday, June 8, 2009 at 12:04 am

    @Belle

    As expected, I knew the response I would get from my last post would be the typical hysterical ranting of the ignorant when their reasoning ability has been exhausted.

    You obviously don’t know anything about the history of Jews in Europe. With the exception of the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto, the Jews went peacefully to the concentration camps. This is why Israel is strong and said, “Never again.”

    You obviously are also ignorant of Chinese history. How many photos have you seen of Japanese soldiers killing Chinese while the crowd of Chinese meekly watched?

    “Stop believing that you actually understand anyone’s intentions or meaning” (Belle)

    “All you have done is take bits and pieces out of context, put words into people’s mouths . . .” (Belle)

    I simply quoted what others wrote. It is not my fault that their words make them look foolish.

    “Try reading the words of Chinese people that are not available to you in Chinese.” (Belle)

    It is obvious that you are more cultured and knowledgeable than I.

    I stand corrected in light of your wisdom. If you would be so kind as to suggest the Chinese writers that I should read, I would be very grateful.

    Until I read these writers, I will not post any more of my ignorant comments on this blog.

    Reply
34. cuprite

    Monday, June 8, 2009 at 1:38 am

    Well done film. This is not just a China problem it is a global problem. If they had not only the grenades, but a gun, this could have been filmed in any country and made complete sense. When I saw the girl get back on the bus, and not go straight to the male stranger, I thought I might go crash the bus. (I have a darn good idea of how she felt, and to her in that moment the people who watched her be raped may as well have done the act themselves, and many people don’t care about life in that moment when you feel like your soul, and your entire sense of self has been forcibly stripped away from you.) The smile at the end seems inappropriate, but I think it was intened to portray that he got her message.

    The last comments… well, Blue Water has a good point but not well phrased. I would never try fighting someone I was aware had a knife, but as a woman… knee or leg straight to the groin, thief or whatever if they even threaten to hit me. Then I will do my best to restrain the person, and wait for the police to show up. It is terrifying to me in other countries that people have knives and guns and are willing to kill people who are good Samaritans. I think that being unwilling to potentially risk you own life or maybe just getting a little injured, for someone you don’t know is a problem globally, not just in China. It just seems more obvious here. Just look at the videos of the bus fire the on 6/5. I still feel stupid personally for getting into a car after seeing a car accident here (in China) just because someone told me to. EVERYONE needs to learn to take action, even when it might mean risking your own safety.

    Reply
    • cuprite

      Monday, June 8, 2009 at 1:49 am

      I forgot to mention, part of the reason I didn’t get out of the car but should have, is because there were already Chinese people in the street trying to help. The problem. They are not medically trained at all, and moved an injured person. I have a little medical training, and could have at least said “don’t move”.

      Reply
35. Stephen

    Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Nice movie but in reality we have: http://xi.gs/04sK

    Reply
    • Kai

      Monday, June 8, 2009 at 5:27 pm

      Heh, I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to offer some juxtaposition, but I think you’ll agree we tend to hear far more stories of inaction than action. Just the other day, I was told of a story where two young girls were repeatedly raped and assaulted on a long-distance bus with no one bothering to do something. That said, we definitely also see plenty of reports of vigilante justice happening, where some bastard is called out and often thoroughly trashed by a vengeful crowd brimming with pent up resentment towards a society where a lot of crimes go unpunished.

      Bad things happen, everywhere, and I think limiting your thoughts to the differences between “Chinese” people and “other” people after watching this movie is tragic, petty, and a waste. The very least someone should learn, relearn, or better understand from this movie is that while we cannot control when bad things happen to us, we can control how we respond to them. Everyone feels fear and no one is keen on getting injured or being killed, but at what point should do we override our instinct for self-preservation to stand up for a principle?

      There was a passenger who refused to give up his money and the driver told him to give it up. The advice that money isn’t worth risking your life for is pretty universal (though plenty of people let their greed get the better of them all the time). But what about dignity? Would you risk your life for your own dignity? Another person’s? Would you do so when you have the advantage of numbers?

      To use another WTC analogy, the popular story of Flight 93 is that some of the passengers banded together to fight the hijackers after they learned of what happened to the other three planes. If you knew you weren’t just being hijacked for a ransom and were about to be murdered in a terrorist plot, wouldn’t you say “fuck it, let’s fight back”? I think quite a few people would, though quite a few people would probably still find it difficult to accept such an unfathomable fate. Reasonable knowledge of consequences is key. LoL, I’m sure the passengers depicted in Bus 44 might have acted differently had they known they were going to face the driver’s deadly retribution for their inaction. Unfortunately, most of the time, you don’t expect to be killed for your inaction, thus spurring your sense of self-preservation towards a greater threat to override your sense of self-preservation towards a comparably lesser threat.

      For Flight 93, upon knowing of what was likely to happen from their contacts with people on the ground, they risked possible individual injury and death from the terrorists in a bid to retake the plane to avoid what they rightfully judged to be certain injury and death to everyone and others. They made a rational choice. Many times, however, heroes are those who make the seemingly irrational choice. Heroes are the people who do what average people do not, who risk personal harm to do something they and most people believe to be “right” when others do not. If everyone was like this, there would be no heroes for us to celebrate.

      Reply
36. blue water

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 12:23 am

    @Kai

    After reading your comments, it’s obvious that you would not qualify for being a “hero.”

    Your silly pseudo-intellectual views are nothing more than the philosophy of a coward.

    You wrote, “from this movie is that while we cannot control when bad things happen to us, we can control how we respond to them.”

    You then stated, “Everyone feels fear and no one is keen on getting injured or being killed, but at what point should do we override our instinct for self-preservation to stand up for a principle?”

    However, with true spineless courage, you didn’t answer the question. Yes, at what point do you stand up for principle?

    Bullies, tyrants, criminals, etc. are allowed to run amok because people are not taught how to fight back or protect themselves.

    People are “taught” to “turn the other cheek,” to be non-violent, or confront violence with peace.

    In the political world, small, weak countries are told to acquiesce to strong, powerful.

    Political leaders with your cowardly thinking believe “reasonable knowledge of consequences is key.” This, of course, leads to appeasement – (see Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany)

    For many years, the Chinese people were looked down upon by whites and Japanese because they considered the Chinese people weak and inferior.

    There were also people like you who preached a passive acceptance to this humiliating condition. They were called “rational.”

    Fortunately, there were Chinese men and women who refused to listen to “rational” people like you.

    These people were the ones who made “the seemingly irrational choice” of choosing to fight and, if necessary, die for their national dignity.

    People like you would not understand that kind of sentiment or sacrifice.

    You are right when you say, “Heroes are the people who do what average people do not, who risk personal harm to do something they and most people believe to be “right” when others do not.”

    But your concluding comment shows your true colors: “If everyone was like this, there would be no heroes for us to celebrate.”

    Yes, that’s true but that is a rational for remaining “safe” and a coward.

    Instead of trying to justify why being a coward is “universal,” you should point out why it is necessary for Chinese people to learn how to overcome their fears and be brave and, in this way, make it difficult for bullies and criminals to commit their deeds.

    Mao Tse-tung and many brave people took a weak and frightened people and made them strong and brave. This is the spirit that must be restored in China.

    That is the lesson of “Bus #44.”

    Reply
    • Kai

      Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 2:00 am

      However, with true spineless courage, you didn’t answer the question. Yes, at what point do you stand up for principle?

      You’re an idiot. 1. It is a rhetorical question. 2. It is #1 because people have to figure out that point for themselves.

      Bullies, tyrants, criminals, etc. are allowed to run amok because people are not taught how to fight back or protect themselves.

      People are “taught” to “turn the other cheek,” to be non-violent, or confront violence with peace.

      Political leaders with your cowardly thinking believe “reasonable knowledge of consequences is key.” This, of course, leads to appeasement – (see Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany)

      Whoa, you just broadened your way into irrelevance. You’re preaching, not responding. More importantly, what you’re preaching has nothing to do with what I said or my objections with you.

      For many years, the Chinese people were looked down upon by whites and Japanese because they considered the Chinese people weak and inferior.

      There were also people like you who preached a passive acceptance to this humiliating condition. They were called “rational.”

      Okay, now you’re just pulling shit out of your ass. Where did I preach “a passive acceptance to this humiliating condition”? You clearly haven’t read my comments. Straw-man, look it up.

      You are right when you say, “Heroes are the people who do what average people do not, who risk personal harm to do something they and most people believe to be “right” when others do not.”

      But your concluding comment shows your true colors: “If everyone was like this, there would be no heroes for us to celebrate.”

      Yes, that’s true but that is a rational for remaining “safe” and a coward.

      Wow, you completely failed to understand that statement. It was not a prescriptive statement that people should NOT be like that SO everyone could have heroes to celebrate. It was a descriptive statement of fact that BECAUSE not everyone is like that, we have heroes to celebrate. Stop masturbating and read carefully.

      Instead of trying to justify why being a coward is “universal,” you should point out why it is necessary for Chinese people to learn how to overcome their fears and be brave and, in this way, make it difficult for bullies and criminals to commit their deeds.

      You’re confused. Correcting a self-righteous asshole who tries to pin cowardice or inaction in emergency situations as a Chinese national trait is NOT the same thing as discouraging Chinese people (or any people for that matter) to be brave and stand up to bullies and criminals. Like most humans, I can hold two thoughts in my head at once. That means I can criticize you for being a jackass while agreeing and exhorting Chinese people (all people in fact) to be aware of the consequences of their inaction and to do what is right.

      You seem to fashion yourself and your previous comments as some wise teacher trying to spur the Chinese into overcoming their fears and being brave. You’re doing a terrible job. Repeatedly insulting the Chinese as somehow being uniquely afflicted by what is actually a universal human condition isn’t likely to convince them. Refusing to acknowledge, evading, and then misrepresenting those who correctly point out the above only cements your self-righteous hypocrisy.

      Mao Tse-tung and many brave people took a weak and frightened people and made them strong and brave. This is the spirit that must be restored in China.

      That is the lesson of “Bus #44.”

      Hey, you’re free to read whatever subjective lesson you want into Bus #44. I’ll point out that what you’re saying now doesn’t exactly mesh with what you said earlier. I’ll point out that your “lesson” is indeed “subjective” and “interpretive” and wholly different from what the official synopsis says, what many critics have said, and what the director has said. I’ll point out that there was nothing wrong with Belle pointing out the difference between your interpretation and the director’s words, but there is something wrong with you declaring the director’s words to be disingenuous, as if you are in a position to decide what the director intended the movie to mean. I’ll point out that you could try writing a college argumentative essay with the thesis “The lesson of Bus 44 echoes Mao Tse-tung and many brave people who made the frightened people of China strong and brave”. I’ll point out that I’d probably give you a really low grade for it, because short of explicitly limiting your thesis as being merely an experiment in comparative analogies, you’re really stretching it.

      In conclusion, you’re an idiot. Bus 44 has more utility as a reminder to people of all countries, races, and cultures of the dangers of inaction than your twisted interpretation that it is a movie solely about Chinese intended solely for the Chinese. That’s like saying Schindler’s List was a movie about Germans for Germans. Get a fucking clue.

      Reply
37. blue water

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 9:41 am

    @ Kai

    Written by Kai to Blue Water:

    “You’re an idiot.”
    “now you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.”
    “Stop masturbating and read carefully.”
    “You’re confused.”
    “Correcting a self-righteous asshole who tries . . .”
    “I can criticize you for being a jackass. . .”
    “In conclusion, you’re an idiot.”

    Hahaha! Hahaha! I must have touched a nerve.

    Ad hominem arguments (ad hominem abusive) are typical of people who have a limited ability to reason. Oh, well . . .

    Let me make myself clear.

    The movie, “Bus #44,” used a situation that is often seen in Chinese society, the indifference of people (Chinese) to help others in danger. The movie was made to draw attention to this dark side of Chinese society. It’s universal application is besides the point. The lesson was for Chinese.

    What happened? In a remote area, a female bus driver picks up male rider. During the journey, bus driver again stops to pick up two men. At this point, the two men rob the bus passengers. One passenger resists and is beaten until he gives up his money. No one on the bus helps him. After completing the robbery, one of the robbers forces the female driver off the bus in order to rape her. While she is being raped, the people on the bus all move to the window to watch. No one on the bus helps her. Finally, the lone rider suggest that the people help her. When they didn’t, he attempted to help but was beaten.

    To make a long story short, when the driver returned to the bus after being raped, all the passengers turned their heads away in shame(?), embarrassment(?).

    Now, at this point the director could have had the driver simply drive away and that would have been the end of the movie. Then people could still say this cowardice behavior could be found among all people and is “universal.” End of discussion.

    However, the director didn’t end there. He had the driver kick off the bus the one person who attempted to help her. Then, the “pièce de résistance” was that the lone rider later discovered that the bus driver had driven the bus with all the “brave” passengers off a cliff. He smiled when he realized that she “rewarded” him by kicking him off the bus while “punishing” the passengers by driving them over a cliff.

    Now of course, the director will say the behavior of the people is “universal.” But which “people” the cowardly passengers or the revengeful driver?

    My interpretation is that the director knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to draw attention to the angry spirit of the raped bus driver. Morale of the story: don’t be indifferent to those in danger because the temporary security that cowardice may give may not be safe at all.

    For Chinese, this lesson is not taught in the schools or in society.

    I expressed my opinion that Chinese must eliminate this weakness in their character. Had I been in the US I would say that Americans should eliminate their arrogant, pompous, racist attitude they are afflicted with.

    This is my interpretation. That’s all

    Oh, I thought “Schindler’s List” was about a German.

    Reply
    • Kai

      Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 1:48 pm

      blue water,

      Hahaha! Hahaha! I must have touched a nerve.

      Of course, I think any time we respond, it means something has touched a nerve in us.

      Ad hominem arguments (ad hominem abusive) are typical of people who have a limited ability to reason. Oh, well . . .

      No, you’re confused. Substituting ad hominem arguments for reasoned arguments is indicative of people with limited ability to reason. Adding ad hominem arguments to reasoned arguments is indicative of people who don’t respect you and very likely delight in ridiculing you. I’m of the latter. Calling you an idiot is different from explaining why you’re an idiot. I’m doing the latter. You’re annoyed with it. That’s fine, let’s continue sparring.

      The movie, “Bus #44,” used a situation that is often seen in Chinese society, the indifference of people (Chinese) to help others in danger.

      Agree.

      The movie was made to draw attention to this dark side of Chinese society. It’s universal application is besides the point. The lesson was for Chinese.

      Disagree. The official synopsis, critical reception and review, and the director himself disagree. You’re free to subjectively limit the lesson of the movie to only the Chinese for yourself. But please do not dictate to others what lessons they intended or should derive from the movie.

      (Restatement of the plot)

      Now of course, the director will say the behavior of the people is “universal.” But which “people” the cowardly passengers or the revengeful driver?

      The reason why the themes of this film is universal is because everyone can identify with the feelings present in all of the characters. We can identify with the fear of getting involved, with the disappointment of other’s inaction, with the shame of failing to act when one should have, with the desire for vengence, with the desire to exact justice, with the affirmation of having done what was right, etc. It is universal because this kind of stuff happens not only in China but everywhere…and it happens too often. Ascribing this movie as being a lesson only for the Chinese is being narrow-minded. There is a lesson in this movie for everyone who has ever found themselves in similar situations. This is what Belle and others, including myself, are pointing out to you. You simply refuse to accept it and, for some ungodly reason, insist on this being limited only to the Chinese despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

      My interpretation is that the director knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to draw attention to the angry spirit of the raped bus driver. Morale of the story: don’t be indifferent to those in danger because the temporary security that cowardice may give may not be safe at all.

      How is this at odds with anything anyone else has said? How is this in any way countering our criticisms of your previous statements? In fact, it echoes what we’ve said.

      For Chinese, this lesson is not taught in the schools or in society.

      Okay…this still has nothing to do with our objections and criticisms of your previous statements.

      I expressed my opinion that Chinese must eliminate this weakness in their character. Had I been in the US I would say that Americans should eliminate their arrogant, pompous, racist attitude they are afflicted with.

      This is my interpretation. That’s all

      No one disagrees with the opinion that the Chinese must fight against the proclivity to “mind their own business” when such inaction further ndangers others. You’re being disingenuous. What we disagree with is, for example:

      It shows in a very graphic way the insidious weaknesses and flaws in the Chinese character – cowardice, hypocrisy, and lack of altruism.

      “Buss – 44″ is a “wake up call” for Chinese to think about what kind of society they have.

      The lesson of this movie (for Chinese), despite the disingenuous comments of the director, is that the Chinese (men and WOMEN) people must…

      What we disagree with further is your misrepresentation of other’s objections toward your statements above:

      By trying to make it “universal” does not make this cancer go away.[...]

      Trying to hide them behind the label of “universalism” is not a solution.

      No one is trying to make it “universal” or hiding “behind the label of ‘universalism’. It IS “universal”. Nor is anyone stating so to make this cancer “go away”, hide, or use it as a “solution” (what was Belle trying to solve?).

      You came across as ascribing this cancer to only the Chinese (you’ve since either wisely tempered your statements or have tried to recharacterize your previous statements), while Belle and others pointed out that the themes and lessons of this movie go beyond the Chinese only and touch upon all people. There is nothing wrong with this statement. It is supported by the evidence Belle and others brought up. You are wrong in dismissing them and misrepresenting their objection to you.

      It’s quite amusing to see how quickly and defensively Chinese become at any exposure of their weakness or flaws.

      No one is being defensive about the exposure of Chinese weakness and flaws. They’re objecting to you suggesting such weakness and flaws as being limited to the Chinese.

      The movie, “Bus #44,” describes a “dark side” of the Chinese social character. It has a Chinese director and takes place in China. The Chinese language is spoken by an all Chinese cast. Yet, some Chinese say it has nothing to do with China. Interesting.

      Who said it has nothing to do with China? No one said that. You’re misrepresenting other people’s positions.

      When the negative side of the Chinese character or society is identified, Chinese immediately want to point out it’s “universal.”

      This goes in line with you misrepresenting others’ objections and projecting defensiveness onto them. Again, no one disagrees that this is a negative thing present (even prevalent) in Chinese society. They’re just correctly pointing out that it is present (even prevalent) in ALL society. It is not just Chinese people saying this, but non-Chinese as well. It is not about defensiveness, it is about objecting to you suggesting it is limited to ONLY the Chinese. Your suggestion is wrong. It is correct to identify something wrong as “wrong.”

      However, when there is something positive in Chinese society Chinese are quick point out its uniqueness and “particularity” to the Chinese character or culture.

      Which one of your detractors were quick to point out any positive ting as being unique or particular to Chinese character or culture? I don’t think any of your detractors did this.

      I understand the need to maintain self-esteem and national dignity but when a nation, a people, a group refuse to face up to their weaknesses, well, that group is in denial and will have a bad end.

      How is anyone refusing to face up to their weakness or in denial? None of your detractors are doing this. The Chinese comments translated above even acknowledge this weakness in Chinese society. How are they in denial? What you are doing is fabricating an opposition. Straw man, look it up.

      Your persistent misrepresentations of other people’s objections suggest that you’re either a jackass or you are seriously misinterpreting what other people are criticizing you for. You’ve failed to identify what they are objecting to, and in turn, you’ve ascribed positions to them that do not exist based upon your own misinterpretations. The former (being a jackass) may not be curable, but the latter can be cured if you just read what other people are saying carefully.

      Reply
    • Kai

      Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 1:55 pm

      Oops, hit submit too soon.

      This is my interpretation. That’s all

      Disingenuous. You previously insisted that your interpretation IS what the movie is about IN OPPOSITION to Belle and others telling you that the movie could be far more than your limited interpretation. You also previously declared the director’s own words about what the movie is about to be wrong. When Belle and others pointed out the official synopsis and critical reception, you declared them all to be wrong. Coming down from that previous insistence that everyone else is wrong and conceding that what you’ve said can only be taken as your interpretation is a step in the right direction.

      Oh, I thought “Schindler’s List” was about a German.

      Go re-read that paragraph.

      Reply
38. Jameson

    Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Uh, sorry Blue Water, but the director is actually American (not Chinese as you claimed) and READ what he said on his site (NANA re-posted it above), he clearly said he intended the film to be about human bystander effect EVERYWHERE (yes, that also includes China)…THAT’S why the film won in so many festivals because of its UNIVERSAL THEME… For some reason you are trying to force a point that this is soley a China issue, it doesn’t make sense and frankly it borders on being rascist dude. You’re preaching to the choir when you say it’s a problem in China, because no one disputes it because IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE!!! ANYWHERE = USA, CANADA, CHINA, RUSSIA, EGYPT, IRAQ.

    Reply
39. blue water

    Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 10:05 am

    First you call me names, now you try to smother me in drivel and inanities. This is no way to debate an issue.

    I won’t resort to name calling. I believe you know my opinion of your intelligence and you personally but, that’s neither here nor there.

    Using your language, I’ll try again to explain why I believe the movie, “Bus #44,” has a particular application to contemporary Chinese society.

    Yes, it’s true that cowardice, indifference, lack of altruism, selfishness, etc. are universal traits.
    These traits are found in all cultures.

    However, the way they are manifested will be unique or “particular” to that specific culture.

    Allow me to give an example. Racism is found in every country. It’s a “universal” social phenomenon. However, the racism practiced in India will be different from the racism practiced in Russia. Racism among blacks will be different from that among Asians or whites. American racism is different from Brazilian racism.

    Within the “universal” there is the “particular,” within the “particular” lies the “universal.” To see only the universal and not the particular is like ignoring the trees for the forest.

    To analyze the phenomena of why Chinese are “indifferent” or lack altruism requires an understanding of Chinese history, culture, and psychology.

    My comments were focused on how Chinese should overcome or solve this particular drawback.

    Unfortunately, Belle and all sort of clowns came out trying to impose some form of “Chinese political correctness” on me. After one rebuttal, she and others scampered back under a rock. This is precisely the kind of behavior I dislike in Chinese society.

    Now she has to rely on a foreign white American to make noise to save her face.

    (Forgive my digression.)

    The display of “collective cowardice,” as shown in the movie, is a reflection that something is wrong in the society.

    Of course, the movie, “Bus #44,” could have been made in England, Brazil, Israel, or Russia. However, the historical and social reasons for people in different countries collectively behaving like social cowards will be different. The reasons for this behavior would be “particular” to that specific country’s or society’s history.

    Chinese must discover the “particular” reason why, as a group, they will not join together and fight back or struggle against bullies or criminals.

    I’m a nationalist. I want to see the Chinese nation rise and display its unique genius. However, this means that Chinese must be able to face and analyze their flaws and weaknesses. There is no room for “saving face” or allowing whites to dictate what’s good for China and what’s not.

    You dislike my opinion, well, so what. People like you are simply pimples on China’s butt. China will be better off when American whites missionaries return to their own country.

    Reply
    • Kai

      Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm

      blue water,

      First you call me names, now you try to smother me in drivel and inanities. This is no way to debate an issue.

      No, misrepresenting and evading other people’s objections is no way to debate an issue. More importantly, you need to understand what exactly the issue IS before you debate the issue. As it is, you have repeatedly failed to understand (or choose to ignore) what the issue is that Belle, others, and myself have taken up with you.

      I won’t resort to name calling.

      Belle and all sort of clowns

      Interesting.

      I’ll try again to explain why I believe the movie, “Bus #44,” has a particular application to contemporary Chinese society.

      Not necessary. No one is disagreeing with you that this movie can be applied to contemporary Chinese society. Not Belle, not myself, nor any of the other “clowns” you saw fit to misrepresent.

      Unfortunately, Belle and all sort of clowns came out trying to impose some form of “Chinese political correctness” on me. After one rebuttal, she and others scampered back under a rock. This is precisely the kind of behavior I dislike in Chinese society.

      Now she has to rely on a foreign white American to make noise to save her face.

      I’m sorry, where did you get the idea that any of these people were Chinese or foreign white American missionaries?

      I’m a nationalist. I want to see the Chinese nation rise and display its unique genius. However, this means that Chinese must be able to face and analyze their flaws and weaknesses. There is no room for “saving face” or allowing whites to dictate what’s good for China and what’s not.

      You don’t read, do you? No one is disagreeing with the idea that Chinese (or anyone) must face and analyze their flaws and weaknesses. No one is trying to “save face” much less “allowing whites to dictate what’s good for China and what’s not.”

      Reply
40. blue water

    Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    @ Jameson

    My bad. Of course he’s an American!!

    (where do they find these people?)

    Dayyan Eng, known as Wu Shixian in China was born in Taiwan in 1975.

    Majored in directing, Beijing Film Academy, China.

    Majored in film arts, University of Washington, USA

    Director is a Chinese-American filmmaker.

    Reply
41. Frog

    Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    It is a universal theme.

    BUT, if sure is something that needs a good hard ponder here in China.

    Reply
42. nausicasia

    Friday, June 26, 2009 at 2:03 am

    This is funny: Kai and Blue-Water have so much time to spend online to talk about some fictions movies… What a waste of time.

    Inbetween I went to Nepal and Tibet with my Girlfriend, and almost forgot about bus 44 movie topic.

    I was arrested in quarantine during transit at Lhasa airport with 9 passengers because I had 38.6 fever on board due to very simple throat infection. 9 passenger were arrested with me, because I maybe was contageous, maybe I had H1N1, but surely because the Lhasa sanitary authorities can get money from the government if they keep more and more people in quaratine for 48 hours at the Gongkar District Quarantine Hostel paid by government.

    H1N1 quarantine in Shanghai only arrest people with fever, not bother all passengers 3 seat raws arround one sick passenger.

    Chinese passenger arrested with me due to my high fever were angry (sorry for this my fellow passengers) but agreed on the idea that local Lhasa sanitary inspectors got some money from “hostel and restaurants expenses” from arresting many many people “just to check” H1N1. The more people are under quarantine, the more hotel and restaurant expenses they get.

    They said : “it may be true but it’s like this, the system is so, we cannot change”. Then “the Sanitary inspectors are very nice, but let it be, we cannot change”. The true think is that the sanitary inspectors were very nice to us during the quarantine.

    WHY NO ONE DARE TO TELL WHAT IS WRONG, AND ALL “LET IT BE, WE CAN NOT CHANGE IT” LIKE THIS ? ? ?

    Online chatting and sharing is nice, but not sufficient enough. I saw to many people disagree and saying “we cannot change the processes it’s like this”.

    Talking online is nice anyway.

    I leave the platform , because my speach is out of the topic of bus 44 anyway.

    Reply
43. Hummy

    Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I managed to track down a copy of the film to watch online

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqG4gQEEGKA

    I finally understand what was meant by the unexpectedness of the ending.

    Reply