copyright 2010, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media
Jump Cut
, No. 52, summer 2010

Transnational China and Hollywood-ized Chineseness: interventions and discontents

Review of Gina Marchetti, Tan See Kam, and Peter X Feng’s edited volume Chinese Connections: Critical Perspective on Film, Identity, and Diaspora (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009) and Kenneth Chan’s Remade in Hollywood: The Global Chinese Presence in Transnational Chinese Cinemas (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009).

by Kin-Yan Szeto

In this age of transnationalism, the flow of capital, people, and ideas shapes the ways we perceive cultural identity—beyond national or ethnic contours. Film participates in such a global circuit of capital flow, talent and culture. Its popularity alone provides critics with important justifications for attending to its representations of society, popular culture, and processes of cultural production and consumption. More important, the transnational nature of film production and circulation problematizes using ancestry and nationality as a prior rationale and logic to define identity. The increasing global presence of Chinese-language cinema and the international influence of its producers, directors, and actors have caused scholars and critics to raise important questions about this cinema’s sociocultural consequences. Considering Chinese and Chinese diaspora film, two recent scholarly volumes tackle issues of spectatorship, representation, and identity from a transnational perspective: Gina Marchetti, Tan See Kam and Peter Feng’s edited volume, Chinese Connections: Critical Perspective on Film, Identity, and Diaspora, and Kenneth Chan’s Remade in Hollywood: The Global Chinese Presence in Transnational Chinese Cinemas. Both Chinese Connections and Remade in Hollywood reveal how today’s cinema calls for a reconsideration of issues such as cultural identity and demands new critical models regarding spectatorship, production, consumption, nationalism, and hybridity in the process of border-crossing. In addressing the global circulation of films, both books deal with the overlapping contact zones between Chinese diasporic cinema and other cinemas (such as Hollywood, etc). Each book suggests a different paradigm for theorizing the multidirectional flows of capital, people, film traditions, and politics in the overlapping zones.

Marchetti et al., editors of Chinese Connections: Critical Perspective on Film, Identity, and Diaspora, note that the concept of “transnational China” presents a particular challenge to film studies because it throws issues of spectatorship, representation, national cinema, and genre as well as gender into a state of crisis.[1] [open endnotes in new window] “Transnational China” is also the book’s guiding concept. The anthology deals with the multidirectional trajectories of filmmaking networks and cultural production, particularly focusing on the work produced by major filmmakers and film artists who shuttle between Hollywood, European, Asian American, and Chinese cinemas. In fact, “transnational China,” as suggested by Marchetti et al., is a concept that expands upon Tu Wei-ming’s notion of “Cultural China” (1-34). In this case, Marchetti et al. use this concept within the larger framework of a transnational public sphere, a framework that attempts to contest China-centrism in its analytical paradigm. Alternatively, Kenneth Chan’s Remade in Hollywood: The Global Chinese Presence in Transnational Chinese Cinemas suggests that the arrival of Chinese cinemas in Hollywood is an “Asian invasion” into U.S. multiplexes. He examines how Chinese cinemas deal with “Hollywood’s multiculturalist approach to cultural appropriation and syncretism” (1). In general, Chan indicates that such an uneven power relation in the Chinese-Hollywood relation is revealed in two major ways: the Hollywood representation of Chinese as the ethnic Other and the Chinese film artists’ self-representation as “autoethnography” (11). Both of these aspects reflect how mainstream U.S. consumers continue to consume “Hollywood-ized Chineseness as Chineseness, with its Orientalist and stereotypical elements, reconfigured and transformed for contemporary audience consumption, remaining more or less intact” throughout Hollywood’s history (176). Under these uneven situations, Kenneth Chan notes that these Chinese directors or film artists making films in Hollywood are further limited by Hollywood’s ideological and cultural biases about the Chinese Other.

Chinese Connections in transnational China:
global connections

The book’s first section, “Global Connections,” consists of eight articles that examine the interactions among U.S., European, and Chinese cultures as they are represented in films. It explores the flow of Hong Kong film talent to Hollywood through examples such as The Matrix (1999), Lethal Weapon 4 (1998), and Rush Hour (1998). This section deals with the intersections of Hong Kong action films and African American hip-hop, the use of music in Taiwan’s New Wave cinema, an account of the Chinese reception of Hollywood films, and a study of Hong Kong cinema in the context of a globalization. Overall, the transnational interactions demonstrated in various case studies in this section offer different ways of thinking and contesting the East/West dichotomy.

Peter X Feng highlights through the example of Matrix (1999) that Hollywood’s cinematic fantasy, film diegesis and narrative continue to be defined as by the local instead of the global, despite the fact that our contemporary economic reality depends on the flow of transnational capital, which has already restructured local and global economies. Alternatively, Grace An examines Irma Vep (1996), a remake of Les Vampires (directed by Louis Feuillade, 1915), and the way that Oliver Assayas’s French remake utilizes the presence of an internationally well-known Hong Kong star, Maggie Cheung. An finds in the film “Parisan” and “Asian” geocultural encounters of cinemas. She problematizes the East/West dichotomy as she interrogates issues such as Orientalism and misunderstandings about the East, and reflects on the state of French cinema in globalized political economy of film culture (34). In another essay, Aaron Han Joon Magnan-Park examines the reception of Hong Kong cinema in France and discusses how Hong Kong cinema, particularly action film, should not be considered simply as ethnic cinema but instead as part of a transnational film phenomenon.

In a different vein, Frances Gatward suggests that a “culturally hybrid approach” can subvert “categorical oppositions” (66). In particular, she investigates close links between hip-hop and Hong Kong martial arts films, and how these cultural phenomena address experiences such as marginalization, cultural imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, and political subordination. In contrast, Gayle Wald points out important transitions in the U.S. multiculturalist imagination of race, masculinity, and citizenship in Hollywood films such as Lethal Weapon 4 and Rush Hour. She concludes that the multicultural representations of minorities such as African-Americans, Asians and Asian-Americans in these Hollywood films, however, only re-inscribe the dominant racial discourse, which does not pose any threats to the U.S. nationalist narratives. Wald’s investigation ties in with what Feng suggested earlier about The Matrix: it may be interpreted as “an allegory of transnational capitalism” that reveals how Hollywood’s cinematic fantasy continues to be characterized by the local instead of a more global discourse (16-17).

By revealing that the neocolonial interface between local and foreign cultures is more complex than an East/West dichotomy can explain, Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh examines transnational connections in Taiwan’s New Wave cinema. Yeh states that the music in Edward Yang’s films, particularly in A Brighter Summer Day, demonstrates Taiwan’s neocolonial appropriation of U.S. popular music and illustrates a kind of freedom and pleasure that allows the restless youth of the 1960s to enact their independence and individuality. Such an essay traces an historical moment of allegiance to Western culture in Taiwan. In another perspective on Taiwan, Gina Marchetti explores Ang Lee’s Hollywood film Hulk within the discourses of the history of Taiwan, the politics of U.S. minorities, Orientalism and the “threats to [U.S.] national security” as a result of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (96). By examining Lee’s work “not only geopolitically, but ideologically, culturally, and aesthetically,” Marchetti provokes an analytical framework that takes into consideration Lee’s film transnational trajectory and also contests the local/global dichotomy (94).

This section concludes with Chuck Kleinhans’s essay that examines how transnational interactions between Hong Kong and Hollywood require an analytical model that also contests an East/West dichotomy. Kleinhans asks: If the game of competition in a global film market considers only box-office success, what critical criteria we would take into consideration in our analysis and discussion. Would it be economic, ideological or artistic success? Kleinhans’ critical questions echo many similar concerns with spectatorship, representation, identity, and processes of cultural production and consumption discussed by other authors throughout this volume.

Chinese Connections: questions of gender

The six articles in second section of Chinese Connections, “Questions of Gender,” deal with the representation of masculinity, femininity, sexuality, and queer sexualities and identities in the films made in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong from the postwar years onward. This section indicates how examining gender representation in film can reveal the complex cultural aspects of presenting various local, transnational, flexible and interpersonal structures and processes, as these function inside and outside “transnational China.”

This section begins with Zhou Xuelin’s essay that relates the limitations placed on gender and sexual representation in the films made in the PRC to the fact that Mainland China is “currently a developing country still in the initial state of socialism” (134). Thus, gender and sexual representations found in modern films made in Mainland China embody contradictions surrounding nationalism, tradition and modernity. Expounding on the same theme of tradition and modernity, Andrew Grossman indicates that many Chinese films reveal “the ideological tensions between Eastern and Western feminism” and are often weighted against discourses such as “liberal humanist content” and “Hollywood xenophobia” (139, 150). He argues that both Western patriarchy and the economics of international film distribution also have great impact on how women are represented in Chinese films.

In a different way, Helen Hok-Sze Leung considers “queer sexuality as a metaphor for Hong Kong’s postcolonial predicament” in Hong Kong comedies (162). Similarly, Chris Berry looks at China’s emergent gay and lesbian culture by reviewing the film, East Palace, West Palace, taking up the connection between the director Zhang Yuan’s interest in social marginality and position as an independent filmmaker. Both Leung and Berry examine how the representations of queer sexualities and identities in films can either contest “the homogenizing discourse about Chinese nationalism” or reveal contradictions between “the government’s efforts to control access to public discourse” and the “eagerness of citizens to engage in public discourse” (162, 174). Both authors not only articulate how queer sexualities and identities challenge heteronormative discourse of sexual orientation, but they also unearth paradoxes found in the hegemonic representation of geopolitical locality, nation, ethnicity or social class.

Li-Mei Chang points out how a First and Third dichotomy exists in the geopolitical separation between Hong Kong and Mainland China. Cinematic representations of the Mainlanders and Hong Kongers in Hong Kong cinema demonstrate “binary oppositions and power dominance of Hong Kong/First World/male and mainland China/Third World/female” (181). Chang shows that such a binarism is sustained by patriarchal discourse, desire for capitalist consumption, and internal Orientalism despite the ethnic ties between Hong Kong and Mainland China.

With a different approach, Aaron D. Anderson concludes this section by examining Asian martial-arts cinema. He suggests that Chinese martial arts movement cannot be described in static dichotomous terms as masculine versus feminine (196). He indicates that Western scholars can see by way of contrast with Asian conceptions of the body the contradictions within Western “cultural ideas of gender” and static notions of an ethnic Other (202). Thus, Anderson contests the contradictory dichotomies often used for understanding gender relations, femininity/masculinity, bodily movement, culture, and identity.

Chinese Connections: at the millennium and beyond

The concluding section “At the Millennium and Beyond” maps “transnational China” by including films made in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China. It brings together five essays about Hong Kong directors, new Taiwanese filmmakers like Tsai Ming-Liang, contemporary Singaporean films by Eric Khoo, and Chinese Fifth and Sixth Generation Filmmakers.

Giving an account of modernity’s economic, social, and cultural implications is the strategy of essays written by Tan See Kam and Jenny Lau. Tan See Kam brings into focus how the Singaporean filmmaker Eric Khoo portrays a dark and deviant side of the nation state that undermines “one dimensional Singapore” in the way that his scripts challenge the official discourse of “economic achievements, good governance, and obedient citizenry” (207, 216). Similarly, Jenny Lau examines the films of the 1990s made by the so-called Sixth Generation, whose films show that how Beijing is caught between “its role as a city of culture, history, community governmental power, national symbolism, and revolutionary idealism, and its new role as a city of modernization and materialism.” (222). These films show “instability in identity, life, and human relationships” as Chinese cities like Beijing move toward globalization and a market economy (231). 

On a different note, Peter Hitchcock suggests that Tsai Ming-Liang’s films problematize the politics of place and Taiwan’s desires as a nation. Tsai deemphasizes “the specificity of his urban locales in order to generalize his commentary on the human condition,” and thus his films question monolithic notions of Chineseness, Taiwanese identity and Chinese modernity (242). Alternatively, Esther C. M. Yau discusses how nostalgic songs and tender disembodied female signing voice in Hong Kong films such as Victim are entwined with the patrilineal logic of capitalism. In conclusion, Evans Chan critically explores how the film Hero reveals Zhang Yimou as a “self-elected national myth-maker” whose creation of “facist aesthetics” and “facist hero” strives to fashion an unifying narrative of China as a “ideal capitalist state” with “superpowerdom and expansionism” in the global capitalist system (268, 269, 271, 273, 274). Chan reveals the intricate politics of power and art woven by China, a driven economic giant in the global entertainment industry, as Chan observes “China’s resurgence in the new millennium” (276).

Remade in Hollywood: Hollywood-ized Chineseness

Instead of deploying “transnational China” as an ideological framework to contest China-centrism, Kenneth Chan’s Remade in Hollywood exposes the politics that accompany Hollywood-centrism in the global film market. He shows how many Hollywood-produced or distributed films made by Chinese or Chinese American film artists are limited by the racial and cultural biases long-evident in Hollywood film history. According to Chan, many of these filmmakers and artists have to compromise with Orientalist stereotypes, racialization, and “Hollywood-ized Chineseness” in their films. In this book, he also discusses how China is represented in Hollywood films, and he examines how the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to the PRC became an important filmic representation as it coincided with the influx of Hong Kong based film artists, such as John Woo, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Chow Yun Fat, among others into Hollywood.

Chan’s book consists of seven chapters and a coda. The first chapter lays out a number of framing questions. Chan questions whether the current Asian presence reinforces Orientalist imagery and racist depictions of Chinese as used within “the yellow peril” narrative in classical Hollywood. Chan suggests that the contemporary Chinese-Hollywood phenomenon reveals “an uneven cultural, financial, and political power dynamics in these cinematic contact zones” (11). He further indicates that how the Hollywood produced or distributed films made by these directors and film artists of the Chinese descent are limited by a Hollywood-centrism paradigm in the international film industry.      

Chapter two offers film examples that deal with the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty, including Wong Kar-wai’s Happy Together, Wayne Wang’s Chinese Box and Evans Chan’s The Map of Sex and Love. The 1997 handover provoked specific issues of cultural and diasporic identity, and politics in these films. From another perspective, chapter three discusses films such as Red Corner, Kundun, and Seven Years in Tibet, especially in terms of the films’ historical shortcomings and how they framed human rights and lack of democracy in China through a Hollywood imagination about China’s Otherness.

Chapter four assesses how the Chinese wuxia (swordplay) film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon represents the significant moment of the wuxia genre’s arrival in Hollywood. The film interrogates traditional cultural and patriarchal hegemony in China while it is still entwined with “self-Orientalizing” and self-exoticism discourse (80). Chan also discusses the thirst for ethnic differences that is represented by Chinese wuxia cinema, including Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Chapter five considers Hollywood films such as Lethal Weapon 4, The Corruptor, Rush Hour, Rush Hour II and Romeo Must Die, and the ways these films circulate the cinematic representations of Chinese in terms of illegality and criminality, a trope of villainy associated with U.S. national, ideological, racial, and Orientalist discourses. 

Chapter six details Hollywood’s fetishism of Chineseness, particularly through its appropriation of action cinema. The author assets that Jackie Chan’s success in Hollywood shows an intercultural tactics of “mimicry as failure,” about which I will explain more later. In contrast, he interrogates how a postmodern aesthetics of intercultural hybridization in the Kill Bill films creates complex tensions between “cinematic pleasure and its complicit relation to various modes of exploitation in a capitalist film economy,” especially as Quentin Tarantino pulls various elements from Asian cinemas out of their original context (130, 150).

Chapter seven is about spiritualism. It analyzes how Bulletproof Monk, Double Vision, The Myth, and The Promise represent Otherness by using themes of Chinese religious beliefs and superstitions. The author argues that “Chinese supernaturalism” continues the East-West divide, as it reifies racial stereotypes and cultural assumptions around issues such as ethnic assimilation in the United States.  The book concludes with a brief coda by reinstating its thesis about how mainstream consumers continue to consume “Hollywood-ized Chineseness” as Hollywood perpetuates its Orientalist and stereotypical assumptions for consumption.

Interventions and discontents

Both Chinese Connections and Remade in Hollywood deal with the transnational sphere of film circulation and consumption. Rejecting the parochial view of cultural identity, Gina Marchetti et al.’s edited volume Chinese Connections explores “larger” China beyond the so-called “three Chinas:” Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong (2). This book also brings together the connections between both Chinese and non-Chinese language cinemas, and its authors use methodologies from Chinese studies, Asian American studies, diasporic and global studies. Thus, Marchetti et al. use the term “transnational China” to indicate a separation from yet connection to China (2). Terms such as “cultural China” or “transnational China” demonstrate as a commonplace the structures of contemporary geopolitics and global economics of production, consumption and cultural exchange. 

The term “transnational China” shows how this phenomenon is global in scope, while also analyzing transnational cultural production with particular reference to the domain of the Chinese diaspora. It retains a perspective of cultural Chineseness that challenges the forces of China-centrism yet at the same time collapses nuances of emerging dissident socio-cultural discourses with the “borderless” paradigm of transnationalism. For instance, Melissa J. Brown’s book Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on Changing Identities explores how the category of Chineseness cannot fully describe the Taiwanese experience.

Overall, using “transnational” China as the overarching framework, Chinese Connections touches on many key questions of Chinese culture, nation, and geopolitics.  Its structure also contests China-centrism, although China certainly remains a major point of reference within the analytical framework of “transnational China,’ culturally, geopolitically and economically. Yet, no nation or geopolitical entity including China can claim to be the “center” within this intellectually challenging endeavor. Thus, these transnational Chinese connections demonstrated in the volume edited by Marchetti et al. become its critical methodology and intellectual intervention. 

Chinese Connections concludes with Evans Chan’s essay, which indicates there is a new global driving force, a new logic defined by China’s globalist perspective, compared to a more widely considered, Hollywood-oriented narrative of globalization. In this vein, Hollywood-centrism is the focal point of critique in Remade in Hollywood. In Remade in Hollywood, the author discusses how the film artists deal with issues of Orientalist stereotypes, diasporic identity, gender politics, racialization, and global market forces in their works. Kenneth Chan examines how an ethnic Otherness such as Chineseness is circulated in the global film market in a way that suits Hollywood’s ideological and cultural constructions, based on a long history of screen representations of Chinese. The major issue that needs examination here is not merely Hollywood’s racism but how understanding this as a transnational cultural phenomenon reveals a global framework that is also Hollywood’s. 

Both Chinese Connections and Remade in Hollywood point out important issues regarding the kinds of analytical frameworks we may use in analyzing global mediated culture. In Chinese Connections, Peter X Feng argues how “a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries” in the age of transnational capitalism has problematized W.E.B. Du Bois’ earlier notion of “double consciousness” in regards to race. Now postmodern subjects can easily pass from one ethnic consciousness to another, so this kind of flexibility in identity dilutes a political intonation (16). On the other hand, Gina Marchetti evokes the same “two-ness” in Du Bois’ argument to discuss the kind of political awareness that a “colored” subject embodies as the subject reflects on how “the white world views him” (98). Marchetti engages with Trinh T. Minh-ha’s concept that “within every third world there is a first word and vice versa” (105). Undeniably, in a postmodern and global world, double consciousness is no longer the only, or even main perspective held by a colonial or ethnic subject. However, the political edge of a colonial subject who has endured the history of colonialism, politics of socio-political displacement, and state of oppression, cannot be discarded. The flow of transnational capital may be borderless, but as it has restructured local and global boundaries, subjects, and ideas, it has also restructured but perpetuated inequalities.

Similarly, Remade in Hollywood also brings up a point about the fine line between postcolonial and postmodern models when analyzing film texts (146). For instance, the author discusses how Jackie Chan’s intertextual hybridization of U.S. film icons like John Wayne and James Bond as examples of “mimicry as failure,” a concept based on the work of postcolonial scholar Homi Bhabha (130, 133). In comparison, in the Kill Bill films, by parodying or mimicking Asian film genres, such postmodern aesthetics reveal the “playfulness of camp” and “sadomasochistic pleasure of cinematic gaze” that still do not necessarily question or undermine the subject integrity of the Caucasian Bride character played by Uma Thurman (145, 149). In particular, the author notes that Jackie Chan’s comic intercultural mimicry of Western action heroes such as John Wayne reflects “racial castration” as Chan is “pitched against the racial impossibility of measuring up to the mythic standards of a John Wayne” (141).

While this argument has explanatory power within the U.S. nationalist and cultural framework, the issue at stake is how to examine this transnational “Asian invasion” of the U.S. multiplexes within and beyond Hollywood’s cultural and racial discourses. On that note, the author of Remade in Hollywood indicates that Jackie Chan reinforces his star image’s “universal cosmopolitan appeal” (133) and what David Bordwell calls “calculated cosmopolitanism” (132) in the way that Chan playfully mimics Western white heroes. But such mimicry turns out to be failure as he is “almost the same but not white” (134). In this case, there is nothing automatically political about cosmopolitanism; one may cross national boundaries or live in a multicultural metropolis such as Hong Kong or Los Angeles without being politicized about it.

However, Jackie Chan’s transnational repertory moves beyond multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to explore a cosmopolitical identity that emerges from geopolitical knowledge and experience. Indeed, there is a difference between cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitical. Chan’s cosmopolitics, as I have argued in another context, emerges from the experience of multiple displacements in consciousness that occur in the process of acquiring the tactical knowledge needed to operate from a number of geopolitical locations and multiple subject positions.[2] His integration of Asian and Hollywood cinematic knowledge reveals him to identify with and represent himself as a political minority as he works across hegemonic power structures that pervade the histories of the Chinese diaspora, colonialism, postcolonialism, Orientalism, and globalization. Chan’s screen persona is constructed in relation to the conventions of his parody of idealized Chinese martial masculinity as well as white masculinity. His comical superspy/cowboy/kung-fu hero images playfully displace dominant and idealized notions of masculinity in both Hollywood and Chinese contexts. The key is to explore the emergence of new ways of thinking about identity and geographic boundary critically.

The interactions between Hollywood and its Chinese counterparts (or East and West) challenge the operations of specific perspectives offered by capitalist regimes of production that are rooted in stable national identities. These two scholarly volumes open up the different possibilities of understanding, answering and writing about the array of transnational sites surrounding cinema and its multiple connections. Marchetti et al. have suggested that the “contradictions surrounding the label of ‘Chinese cinema’ call for a truly dialectical film criticism” (5). By problematizing the paradigms of area studies that are, as what Rey Chow has indicated as, an “offshoot of the U.S. cold war political strategy that found its anchorage in higher education,” we would need to consider critically how to handle the diverse experiences that are articulated in our studies (17). By reimagining a geopolitical field that contests essentialized notions of China- or Hollywood-centrism, we could also remind ourselves that thinking, writing and teaching film and cultural criticism demands a dialectically critical approach, one that unveils what has been concealed and failed to be articulated in the East/West dichotomy.


1. In Spaces Of Their Own: Women’s Public Sphere in Transnational China (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), Mayfair Yang indicates that the term “transnational China” refers to Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Chinese communities in other parts of the world (3). Similarly, Gina Marchetti extends on this concept of “transnational China” is in her book From Tian’anmen to Times Square: Transnational China and the Chinese Diaspora on Global Screens, 1989-1997 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006). In this book, Marchetti presents a range of work by filmmakers and media artists working within China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and on transnational co-productions involving these different locations. The book also deals with examples within the Chinese diaspora and work produced on China by non-Chinese. [return to text]

2. Kin-Yan Szeto. “Jackie Chan’s Cosmopolitical Consciousness and Comic Displacement.” Modern Chinese Literature and Culture, vol. 20, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 229-260.

Works cited

Brown, Melissa J. Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on Changing Identities. Berkeley: U of California P, 2004.

Chow, Rey. “Introduction: On Chineseness as a Theoretical Problem.” Modern Chinese Literary and Cultural Studies: Reimagining a Field. Ed. Rey Chow. Durham: Duke UP, 2000: 1-25.

Marchetti, Gina. From Tian'anmen to Times Square: Transnational China and the Chinese Diaspora on Global Screens, 1989-1997. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2006.

Szeto, Kin-Yan. “Jackie Chan’s Cosmopolitical Consciousness and Comic Displacement.” Modern Chinese Literature and Culture, vol. 20, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 229-260.

Tu, Wei-ming. “Cultural China: Periphery as the Center.” The Living Tree: The Changing Meaning of Being Chinese Today. Ed. Tu Wei-ming. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1994. 1-34.

Yang, Mayfair. Spaces Of Their Own: Women’s Public Sphere in Transnational China. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota P, 1999.

To topJC 52 Jump Cut home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.