The TV series “Towards the Republic” describes Chinese history from the late Qing up to the beginnings of the Republican Era. Airing of the series began in April 2003 – during the SARS crisis - on the Chinese TV channel CCTV (China Central Television, the most influential TV broadcasting company). The series immediately reached top viewing rates because it portrayed famous historical figures such as Cixi, Li Hongzhang, Yuan Shikai, and Sun Yatsen in a very different light than official historiography had up until that point (such as the depiction given in history textbooks). It thus led to heated discussions in the media, especially on the internet and in newspapers, and sparked a controversy about the judgment of historical figures, democracy, and the republican system at large. Originally, CCTV had intended to broadcast the series on individual provincial channels following its nationwide premier. But this never happened and the series was ultimately discontinued. Why did “Zou Xiang Gonghe” provoke such a fierce response? Did the controversy surrounding it mirror the variety of attitudes about China’s situation today? How did film critics and academics respond to the series’ depiction of historical characters?

The heated discussion, which was especially prominent in the internet and in newspapers, basically centred on two points:

Historical Drama is not history

The discussion focussed on the issue of “Zou Xiang Gonghe” having revised already fixed historical judgments. In this context, author Ge Hongbing remarked that television is the most important media at present. Apart from entertaining it therefore also has the responsibility to guide the audience to cultivate a feeling for “national spirit” and “national culture”. This is a task which the TV broadcasting staff should take seriously. He continued to remark that he felt it was disturbing that many TV series today think it modern to revise judgments made about the past. The poet Yi Sha contested Ge’s views on the “revisions of judgements”. He wished to know what “revising judgments” is supposed to mean. Given that many existing judgements of historical characters and historical events have become contested in recent times, it is now rather questionable whether such a thing as a final and reliable judgment can ever exist.

A third, more neutral position held that the problem of revising judgements necessitates a more concrete examination. The scholar Wang Bingbing, for example, supported this view and contended that there are serious “revisions of judgements”, but also some that are only made out of commercial interests. The latter should not be taken into account as they merely serve to lure new spectators – to him a very questionable motive. “Zou Xiang Gonghe”, however, was different. The depiction of Li Hongzhang, for example, was essentially in conformity with the history of the Qing era, even though official historical narrative differs in this respect. In short, for him, those who are in general opposed to “revisions of judgements” mostly seem to believe firmly that there is one historical truth and that this historical truth must be upheld.

The historian Jiang Tao added that historical drama should under no circumstances be equated with historiography. However, less educated Chinese often fail to understand this and thus take historical drama as the depiction of historical truths. Moreover, the advertisement campaign accompanying “Zou Xiang Gonghe” promised the audience that it would present historical truths. Moreover, at the beginning and end of each instalment, monochrome pictures are screened showing historical figures which in turn could easily lead to the assumption that the series should be regarded as authentic as historical photos. This only furthered the spectator’s impression that the series dealt with historical truths. Therefore, Jiang Tao emphasised that the spectator should never take historical drama as history. The series’ dramatist and screen writer Sheng Heyu replied stating that he had never intended to write an account of historical truth. He went on to say that he remains a dramatist who allows his subjective emotions and aesthetic views to influence his writing. Literature and the arts feed off imagination. Historical basics should, however, be respected and it is only the details of the screenplay that may be altered according to the writer’s imagination. But he held that it is the audience’s response that ultimately matters the most: if the audience likes the series, then he has achieved his purpose.

The debate showcases contemporary currents of thought

In the beginnings of the 1980s, historians indeed revised the judgment of historical figures. The series, however, was the first instance in which a TV programme took up this revision which led to widespread public debate. Professor Chen Xihe of University of Shanghai felt that the actual reason for the re-evaluation of those historical figures was connected to and may stand representative for the contemporary political and cultural context. Since the Chinese state is in an era of construction, the government is in need of moral criteria and orientation for action which are distinctly different from the revolutionary era. Revolution and reform differ in that revolution aims to forcefully purge the old while reform aims to gradually achieve its goals. This differentiation plays a vital role in the making of Chinese reforms and probably also has a profound impact on the literary and artistic fields. As reforms progress, it is unavoidable to encounter pressure and opposition by various groups. It is therefore a sensitive issue to portray historical figures such as Cixi, Li Hongzhang and Yuan Shikai – who all oppose ideas of revolution and are even cautious with reforms – in an openly positive way.

Most scholars shared the opinion that the various debates actually showcase contemporary currents of thought. TV series are a relatively recent invention. The problems China has to deal with at the beginning of the twentieth century and the way in which different groups fought each other at the time, is still of immediate importance to China today. Professor Chen Xihe held that the existence of a divergence of opinion also reflects the existence of a new brand of popular culture which contests the established brand of elite culture. This ”popular culture”, he went on to explain, is basically conservative and relatively stable with an audience sticking to “received knowledge”. It is therefore difficult for “elite culture” (meaning “enlightened” historians or film makers) to change traditionally engrained perceptions. And thus, they encounter opposition from “below” as well.

Professor Yan Sanjiu from the University of Canton, however, voiced the opinion that China, in fact, is in the middle of constructing a democracy and a legal regime. The screening of the TV series therefore met with the expectations of the populace. But he also suspected that the public discussion it triggered did not have such a decisive impact on the audience’s thinking given that the viewers already hold their own world view and own criteria of judgement. Whether one accepts the interpretations offered by the media ultimately depends on the viewer. The importance of the series should therefore also not be exaggerated, according to him. It rather reflected than created differences of opinion.