The Real Threat from China

        I can’t start this blogpost without actually addressing a previous one I had done. Previously, I had written that in the long term China was not a threat to the United States economically and I stand by that. Ignoring my initial statements, other issues exist with China nationalizing industries, angering their neighbors, internal conflict and struggle, blowback from responsibility in the COVID pandemic, and a disorganized military. Overall, there are many weaknesses China has that will continue to hold it back in its attempt to expand globally. However, the main threat to America isn’t Chinese infiltration (though that is a problem), but instead Wall Street’s support for the People’s Republic.
        Various American companies have actively been increasing their support for China through investments. Bond purchasing from American companies have actually INCREASED in spite of their responsibility for COVID. This means that they are actively pursuing investments that help a country that is in direct competition and a threat to the US.
        More than mere financial investments, the connection American businesses have means they will act in a way that benefits China at the expense of American citizens. Since China is a communist country, their businesses are usually tied to the Chinese government, especially since “the banks in China are under the ruling Communist Party’s control, the biggest firms outside of banking are also under the party’s control, and investments by foreign business are heavily regulated to keep foreign competition out of the equation”, so these businesses are agents of the Chinese government as opposed to merely private. So unsurprisingly, this leads to favoritism by American companies towards that nation.
        More importantly in the media, American media companies have been making huge investments in the Chinese box office. Disney has actually been increasing their focus on revenue from the country from making films primarily focused on China like the “Mulan” remake, putting two theme parks in the country, and actively editing content to better appeal to them. However, the greatest sign of their relationship with them is probably the fact that former Disney CEO Bob Iger is interested in becoming the US’s Ambassador to China.
        Disney’s relationship to China though has been of huge concern to the USA as its actions have actively invited spying and promoted genocide (seriously). According to former Attorney General William Barr, Disney actually gave Chinese officials positions in management and recently Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy promised collaboration with the government as well. This means they have indirect access to the Department of Defense (DOD) since the company has to work with the DOD for military hardware. In addition, they actively thanked the organization carrying out Uighyr genocide in Xinjiang in the credits for Mulan. Considering the color of the Chinese flag, it’s appropriate that Disney has this many red flags.

        They’re hardly the only company that has been doing this though. Paramount, Dreamworks, Lionsgate, the NBA, and Warner Brothers have all been working with Chinese affiliates for a while. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in censorship for China as well with these studios, such as the NBA banning slogans on jerseys that promoted the Hong Kong protests. Since 20 percent of U.S. box-office ticket sales was accounted for by China, it should come as no surprise that Hollywood has a huge stake in the nation.
        This causes problems though as many news stations are owned by those companies. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS is owned by Paramount, and CNN is owned by Warner Brothers. Ask yourself: how likely are these news networks likely to critique anything China does if their owners are in bed with Beijing?
        Of course, it is hardly Hollywood that is alone in its relationship with the Asian nation. Manufacturing is quite large there as a lot of US products are shipped in from there. So it should be only slightly surprising that Nike, Apple, and other companies actively worked to kill a bill that punished China for slave labor in the Xinjiang province. Despite all the virtue signalling in favor of social justice, these companies seem to have no problem with full on genocide.
        Finally, big tech has a lot of investments there as well. Apple has already been discussed, but Google has been working with Chinese Universities on technological projects while also promising to continue to invest more in the nation. Facebook has also been hiring Chinese nationals to work on its censorship program known as “Hate Speech Engineering.” Even worse, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company.
        With Google, Facebook, and plenty of other companies finetooning their search engines, it makes one wonder if they would also be willing to rig their search engines or content to please the nation. There is also worry of privacy and giving info to the Chinese government as well which must be considered. So one must continue to ask if there is interest from the People’s Republic since these companies seem interested in pleasing them.
        There are still many more companies that have ties to or done favors for China (such as AMC or Activision), but the point stands. With the continued push from Wall Street to please foreign investment, one must act if they will begin helping out the government in cleaning China’s image. While there are still problems facing the nation, the interest in American business may hurt American citizens more than economic competition with a country that American businesses were considering leaving. Vladimir Lenin once said “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.” It should come as no surprise then that the country may hang itself as it sells out to China.

Shrek Revisited

*Spoilers*

Last night, I went to see Shrek at the Starlite Drive-In.  It had been a while since I had last seen the film and I wanted to see if it held up.  Surprisingly, there were parts I quite appreciated, but it was not as enjoyable for me as it was when I was younger.

Back when it was first coming out, the film was advertised as though it was going to be the next big fairytale.  There was this feeling that the film was going to be the next major animation staple, especially since past fairytale characters were included in commercials, which made me feel like I needed to see it.  Unsurprisingly, I thought it was great when I first saw it and continued to watch it for years afterwards.

This was the first time seeing it again and I did not maintain the same level of enjoyment.  A huge part of that was probably the comedy as it was not as funny as I remembered.  Part of that is because I remembered the jokes extremely well, but they still did not feel like they would have worked if I did not remember them.  However, comedy is subjective so part of that may be that my tastes may have evolved so it could still work for others.

Also, the last third part was rather dull.  It follows a lot of tropes including the third act misunderstanding, the slow build up of their relationship right before that, and the last moment attempt to stop the wedding and get the girl.  The message of “things are not always what they appear” has been done a lot as well so it can feel heavy handed.  As a result, it does not stick the landing.

However, there were still elements of the film that worked quite well.  Shrek was quite enjoyable as the main character.  He has defined and respectable goals, a sympathetic backstory, and a grumpy personality that can be relatable if you want people to leave you alone.  In a way, he was strangely endearing and I did still find myself rooting for him to win.

Donkey was an extremely good counterbalance as well.  The comedy may not have worked, but Eddie Murphy still gave him an optimistic personality that could keep Shrek moving forward even when they were at odds and bring him back to see the light when he wandered off trail.  As a result, he was still extremely likable.

The animation also held up extremely well.  The characters were constantly moving around, the visuals were inspiring, and the designs of the characters were pretty good.  Despite being almost 20 years old, the film still looks impressive.

There is a lot of Disney satire as well that was quite enjoyable for interested audiences.  Lord Farquaad looks like then Disney CEO Michael Eisner, his kingdom looks like Disney World, there are obvious shots at it like it being empty, he is constantly abusing fairytale creatures which is a metaphor for Disney using its brands to exhaustion, the list goes on and on there.  For those aware of the legendary Eisner v. Katzenberg feud, this was a nice touch.

Finally, the story for at least the first hour is pretty interesting.  This is less Shrek’s story and more he is interrupting someone else’s fairytale.  Basically, Lord Farquaad wants to get a princess, and then Shrek enters with his own problems which he can only accomplish through a deal with Farquaad.  From that perspective, it is quite interesting to see Shrek handle the events thrown at him, especially since he knows how it goes due to his own knowledge of fairytales, which lead to a lot of meta references.  For that reason, the perspective makes it much more interesting

Despite my misgivings, it is hard to understate the impact Shrek has had on animation.  It was the first animated film to win the Best Animated Feature Oscar, it made Dreamworks a household name, it convinced companies that 3-D animation was popular for non-Pixar films, and it inspired a variety of ripoffs like Hoodwinked and Happily N’ever After.  So it is hard to say Shrek does not have a place of prominence in animated history, even despite not aging as well.

Nevertheless, parts of the story are weak, the comedy does not age with the viewer, and its place in viewer hearts is largely overshadowed by its sequel.  The basic story, characters, and satire are still pretty strong, but it is far from perfect.  Inevitably, the film could be better, but is probably still worth a watch for the young or nostalgic viewer.