- Position‹2 of 2
- Yes, people should #BoycottMulan
- Argument‹3 of 3
Disney shot parts of live action Mulan in Xinjiang, China
At a time when China's Uyghur minority is being persecuted, the film does little to showcase its plight. Instead it arguably comes down on the side of the Chinese government.
The argument
The objection here is not to the film's content but to where it was made and who was thanked for it. The corporation's decision to shoot portions of the live-action epic in the northwestern region of China placed a commercial production inside a region where, by widely reported estimates, one million members of the mostly Muslim Uyghur ethnic minority have been placed against their will in 're-education' camps, as part of an effort to forcibly assimilate them with China's majority Han population. What the camps are reported to involve is what gives the choice its weight. Some of those detained have been subjected to forced sterilisations and abortions, according to recent reports, with former detainees describing torture and inhumane treatment. Filming in such a place is not a neutral logistical decision: it requires the cooperation of the authorities running it, and it returns something to them — access, revenue, and the appearance of ordinary international business continuing in a region under scrutiny. That is why the credits became part of the complaint. The company did not merely film there but thanked government officials, which reads as an endorsement of the local authorities rather than an acknowledgement of a permit. The reaction has come from outside the campaign as well as within it. US politicians are among many who have expressed dismay at the decision to film in Xinjiang; Josh Hawley of Missouri sent a letter to Disney CEO Bob Chapek accusing the company of "whitewashing the ongoing genocide". The decision has been hugely unpopular, with Disney's top executives acknowledging that it has overshadowed much of the movie's release. On this argument, even the possibility of such acts having occurred should have deterred the company from shooting there or thanking officials — which is why viewers are asked to boycott the film.
Context
China has been embroiled in controversy following the exposure of seemingly unlawful detainment of Uyghur Muslims and nothing has been done despite months of public outcry. Despite this, Disney shot parts of the film in areas where the mistreatment is said to be taking place and thanked government officials in the movie credits.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The decision may have not been ideal however there are two broad reasons why boycotting is not an appropriate response. Firstly, Disney executives have acknowledged this as a lapse in judgment. Secondly, the thanking of government officials is a Chinese imposed regulation that Disney needed to fulfill to be allowed to film in the area.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The location and the credits are established, but the step to a boycott is left implicit. Filming scenery in a region is not participation in what is done there, and the argument never says what the boycott is meant to achieve — the loss falls largely on the film's cast and crew, while the studio's future decisions about where to film are what the objection targets. [Rejecting P2] The reports of abuses are grave and are not what is in dispute; what the premise does not establish is any connection between them and this production. A senator's characterisation is an allegation rather than a finding, and the counter's point that the credit was a local regulatory requirement goes to whether thanking officials constituted an endorsement at all — a question the argument treats as already settled.
Framing
The decision to shoot in a place where an alleged genocide is happening and then also thank the government officials is clear on how tone-deaf the production of the film was.