The Gate of Heavenly Peace - Controversy

Controversy

The Gate of Heavenly Peace sparked controversy before it had even been completed. The film was part of a growing debate over the history of 1989; according to an article that appeared in The New York Times on April 30, 1995, “a central question for many in the student movement, and for some historians, is whether moderation gave way to extremism during those six weeks and whether the more radical student leaders spurned opportunities to declare victory by ending the demonstrations and preserving, perhaps, the reformist trend that was still a prominent feature of the Chinese leadership."

The New York Times article also quoted from a controversial interview that was used in The Gate of Heavenly Peace. On May 28, 1989, just days before the massacre, American journalist Philip Cunningham interviewed one of the student movement’s most prominent leaders, Chai Ling. In this interview, Chai indicated that “the hidden strategy of the leadership group she dominated was to provoke the Government to violence against the unarmed students. With statements like ‘What we are actually hoping for is bloodshed’ and ‘Only when the square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes,’ Ms. Chai denounced those students who sought to bring an end to the occupation of the square.” (op. cit.) The May 28, 1989 interview was undertaken at Chai Ling's request. She then asked Cunningham to release it internationally as her political statement on the student movement. The Gate of Heavenly Peace makes extensive use of this interview (necessitated in part by Chai Ling’s repeated refusal to be interviewed for the film).

The filmmakers suggest that “the hard-liners within the government marginalized moderates among the protesters (including students, workers and intellectuals), while the actions of radical protesters undermined moderates in the government. Moderate voices were gradually cowed and then silenced by extremism and emotionalism on both sides.” In following the fate of these “moderate voices,” the film raises questions about some of the decisions that were made by a few of the student leaders. For this, the film was angrily condemned by many in the Chinese exile community, including Chai Ling herself. For example, in April 1995—well before the film had even been completed (it premiered in October 1995) -- Chai wrote, "Certain individuals, for the sake of gaining approval of the authorities, have racked their brains for ways and means to come up with policies for them. And there is another person with a pro-Communist history who has been hawking documentary film for crude commercial gain by taking things out of context and trying to show up something new, unreasonably turning history on its head and calling black white."

The notion of extremism on both sides (i.e., hardliners among the government and students) was not a view unique to The Gate of Heavenly Peace. In a review published in The American Historical Review in October 1996, Michael Sheng writes, “The filmmakers... interpret the movement with passion and intellectual vigor," noting that "angry voices from the Chinese exile community have denounced the film and its directors as loudly as the Beijing government. The filmmakers, however, are not the first or the only ones to hold the argument that the polarizing approach of both sides made the tragedy inevitable. Many scholars, observing the divisions within the student leadership as well as in the government, have formed opinions similar to that of the filmmakers…. One of Tsou’s findings is that the kind of two-sided confrontation in the spring of 1989 is nothing new; it is deeply rooted in the traditions of Chinese political culture. Tsou’s arguments are convincing in light of Chai Ling’s behavior. Her ‘binary’ approach and intolerant attitude of ‘if you are not with me, you are against me’ is well documented in the film... And it becomes clearer in the debate over the film, when she attacked the filmmakers as co-conspirators of the Beijing regime.”

Such an attitude -- the "'binary' approach and intolerant attitude" -- persisted years after the film had been completed. In 2007, Chai Ling, her husband Robert Maginn (a former partner at Bain, the CEO of Jenzabar, and chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party), and their company, Jenzabar, sued the filmmakers over their website (www.tsquare.tv), accusing them of being "Motivated by ill-will, their sympathy for officials in the Communist government of China, and a desire to discredit Chai...." In a New Yorker article about Chai Ling and the lawsuit, Evan Osnos noted, "For the record, to anyone with knowledge of the film, the notion that it is sympathetic to the Chinese government is laughable..." Public Citizen—a consumer advocacy group whose litigating arm focuses on cases involving consumer rights, separation of powers, open government, and the First Amendment, among others—offered to represent the filmmakers pro bono; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wrote an Amicus Curiae brief. Although the lawsuit was dismissed by a Massachusetts court in December 2010, Jenzabar is appealing this decision. During the course of the lawsuit, Chai Ling—who converted to Christianity in 2009—accused the filmmakers of aligning themselves not only with the Chinese government, but with an even greater force, denouncing them as "tools of Satan." There were many others, however, who signed a letter condemning the lawsuit. Among those who gave their support to the filmmakers were prominent dissidents, some of whom had been jailed by the Chinese government for their role in the Tiananmen demonstrations. Additional signatories included Chinese students who had participated in the 1989 movement, noted artist Ai Weiwei, and scholars and professors from approximately two hundred fifty universities and colleges around the world. Articles in the Boston Globe ("A Victory for Free Speech"), The New Yorker (The American Dream: The Lawsuit), and The Guardian ("From democracy activist to censor?") criticized the lawsuit, and Boston’s PBS station Frontline stated that the lawsuit “poses first amendment issues and is a potential threat to all newsgathering, reportorial and academic sites.”

While the lawsuit focused on the website, some student leaders continued to criticize the film. Feng Congde wrote an Open Letter in May 2009, referring to what he said was "false reporting and editing" with regard to Chai Ling in The Gate of Heavenly Peace. The filmmakers posted both Feng's letter and a lengthy response on their website in July 2009; in this response, they write, "The alleged falsehoods that are described in the Open Letter simply do not exist in the film." They go on to provide a detailed examination of Feng's charges, citing specific examples from the film.