Zhang Yimou's movies have always had a political subtext. More importantly, they have always had a subtext that the Communist Party of China would not censor. Raise the Red Lantern, for instance, could be read as a Marxist critique of a patriarchal capitalist order. Red Sorghum is about collective workers fighting Japanese imperialism. The Road Home is an idyll of pastoral life under Mao but before the Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four. Some films, such as Not One Less and Happy Times point the lens at poverty and inequality in modern China, but even these movies are careful not to lay blame with the Communist Party.

Hero, however, is probably the first Zhang Yimou film that could be read as an active endorsement of the Communist Party, rather than an attempt to just get round their censors.

EXTREME SPOILER ALERT

After Nameless realizes the meaning of "All Under Heaven" he also realizes that he must submit to execution by the Emperor. If China is to be united under one ruler, all of China under the one heavenly throne, then the Emperor is bound to execute him or anyone who will stop him. When Nameless sees that the Emperor comprehends the true essence of swordsmanship is not to fight, he is prepared to accept this death. He sacrifices himself so that the authority of the Emperor to unite China may be absolute. All of this could be read as just a load of pretentious art house plotting, but I find it hard to ignore the obvious comparison with Tiananmen Square. Only fifteen years ago, thousands died in a massacre so that the Communist Party could maintain its absolute rule. Is it possible that Zhang Yimou and his audience in China wouldn't have that in their minds watching this film? Perhaps Zhang Yimou means to emphasise the responsibility of the Emperor who knows he must ultimately rule without the sword, but that's a weak message after endorsing the bloody means by which he attains his throne. By that logic, Tiananmen Square was a necessity and the massacred were heroes, not for democratic expression, but for submission to the Party.

Ultimately, the sacrifice and death of Nameless is a frustrating disappointment, both ideologically and as a piece of filmmaking. Where a real hero would have rebelled, this one just caves in. Apparently tragedy under totalitarianism has no catharsis.