<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>To live? - Asian American Film - tribe.net</title>
    <link>http://asianamericanfilm.tribe.net/thread/e209b3b3-103c-415c-a51e-a95ded79c066?format=rss</link>
    <description>Tribe.net. Local Connections</description>
    <item>
      <title>To live?</title>
      <link>http://asianamericanfilm.tribe.net/thread/e209b3b3-103c-415c-a51e-a95ded79c066#d3e4fb76-eed0-4e08-97a2-1d2c31297f6d</link>
      <description>I just watched "To Live".&#xD;
&#xD;
The movie was very sad, and I pondered at the end if doing what *seems* necessary to stay alive in a totalitarian society is really living, or just enduring. There seemed to be a subtle fear that underlies all the post-revolutionary conversations of the couple who are the main characters. They *live* by never standing up, by making concessions and sublimating their conscience to what is *necessary* to remain alive. I am certain the director toned down the reactions of the movies characters to the injustices which occur throughout the film, to accommodate the Chinese government. As a result, I was left wondering whether the couple subtly despise their actions *to live* by repeating to each other past mistakes (which led to personal tragedy) or see the life of their grandchild -- the hope in a future generation for a better life as a sort of redemption -- as justification for the compromises they made . Or perhaps both. &#xD;
&#xD;
Any answers?</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:13:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://asianamericanfilm.tribe.net/thread/e209b3b3-103c-415c-a51e-a95ded79c066#d3e4fb76-eed0-4e08-97a2-1d2c31297f6d</guid>
      <dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-11-22T09:13:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>



