The Gate of Heavenly Peace (continued)

The film premiered at the 1995 New York Film Festival to kudos and controversy. The Chinese government was so outraged by the documentary that it attempted to have it banned from the festival. But because the filmmakers, Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon, are American, China had no recourse-except to prevent esteemed Chinese director Zhang Yimou from attending the festival for the screening of his film "Shanghai Triad."

At its premiere screening a New York Times critic wrote: "[`The Gate of Heavenly Peace' is] an enthralling documentary film of those events [of 1989]....The film probes much more deeply into the student democracy movement than one could have believed possible, given that the film makers are Americans. This unglamorous but absorbing film...is thorough and well-organized."

"We wanted to contribute to the long-term record on Tiananmen to help ensure that the protests of `89 are accorded their proper place," says Hinton about her motivations for making this film. "Today, the movement apparently lies dormant, yet repression has not ended China's internal political crises, and the forces that brought millions into the Square will continue to affect China's future."

"The Gate of Heavenly Peace" follows the history of the 1989 protest movement while weaving into its structure the events which led to the conflict and commenting on the political habits and attitudes that have come to dominate public life in China over the past century. It documents the development of the movement and reflects the drama, humor, absurdity, heroism, and tragedy of the six weeks from April to June in 1989.

On April 15, following the death of deposed Communist Party reformer Hu Yaobang, students began to occupy Tiananmen Square. They used the occasion of Hu's death to protest government corruption and to call for political reform. Three student leaders carried a petition to the steps of the Great Hall of the People and demanded to speak with Premier Li Peng. Cheered on by more than 100,000 students, they received no government response.

Lu Jinghua, a Chinese worker, saw the trouble beginning in the Square. "We workers felt, `Premier, you should come out. Even if you don't agree, you should at least make some gesture.' But the Premier just...completely ignored the students." Ge Yang, who had taken part in the Communist revolution forty years before, voiced the same sentiments and questions: "How could the government be so callous? What the students were opposing now were the very same things we had opposed in our youth. Why had we turned into a party which was against the people and the students?"

An editorial in the Communist Party newspaper People's Daily on April 26 accused a "small handful of plotters" of causing the student protest with the motive of overthrowing the government. Such accusations amounted to an official condemnation of the protesters and were an age-old tactic used not only to mislead the public, but also to strike fear into those who might support the protesters. To be labeled a "counterrevolutionary" by the government was tantamount to being accused of treason. But the tactic backfired and instead drew students from over forty universities who marched in protest of the editorial the next day.

Chinese citizens responded ardently to the student demonstrations. At the height of the movement, more than a million people marched in the streets of Beijing to support the students. As news of the protests spread, mass demonstrations broke out in other cities around the country.

"I supported this demonstration because it was focused against one of the most fundamental means by which the Communist Party maintains rule...to accuse people of fabricated political crimes. The students showed real conviction," says Dai Qing, a journalist and writer.

In early May, the international media converged on China to cover the visit of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The press came for a summit but walked into what looked like a revolution. It was clamorous, colorful, and highly photogenic. Thousands of students were camped out in the Square. The students took advantage of the international attention to stage a massive hunger strike, upstaging the first Sino-Soviet summit since 1959.

The international media painted moving portraits of idealistic pro-Western students willing to die for democracy pitted against aging Communist autocrats. The reality was far more complex and disturbing. Student leaders were united by a sense of their own historical importance, but they did not always agree about goals, strategies, or tactics. Even while they protested some principles of Communist rule, their own ideas and behavior were heavily influenced by Communist Party ideology. The government was divided as well-some leaders saw all protests as counterrevolutionary, but others were anxious to avert repression and to push China in the direction of gradual political reform.

It could be argued that Tiananmen was one of the most intensely covered news stories of the twentieth century. Despite this, few viewers to this day really know what the protesters wanted or understand the history and culture which informed their actions. Fewer still know what really happened on the night of June 4.

Back

Forward