- Position‹2 of 2
- Yes, people should #BoycottMulan
Liu Yifei, who plays Mulan, publicly posted her support for the Hong Kong police, who have been using force against the Anti-Extradition Bill protesters. Supporting the film means supporting anti-democracy and police brutality.
The argument
Lead actress Liu Yifei reposted a viral pro-police comment on Chinese social media platform Weibo from the government-run Beijing newspaper People's Daily that read (in Chinese): "I also support Hong Kong police. You can beat me up now" and adding in English: "What a shame for Hong Kong." Her post flies in the face of the real grievances that Hong Kongers have with Beijing. That such support comes from the lead of a movie that was branded as Asian representation makes her words more harmful. Furthermore, Liu Yifei holds American citizenship which has led to further backlash with proponents of the boycott pointing out that she probably accesses liberal freedoms in the USA which are being deprived of people in Hong Kong.
Context
In 2019, anti-China protests following the proposed Extradition Bill caused fears of greater suppression and encroachment from mainland China. The authorities in Hong Kong were heavily criticised for handling the protests with brutality, hence it is a sore point for many that the lead actor of Mulan would show support for the police.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The situation in Hong Kong is politically charged and it follows that there will be individuals who align with one side over the other. Liu Yifei's support for Hong Kong police is not grounds for a boycott of the movie, given that the actress was expressing her personal views on her personal social media platforms. There is also a separation between artists and the art they produce. Mulan remains a potent film created by individuals external to her and other cast and crew who do not deserve to bear the brunt of the lead's personal views.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The repost expressed support for the Hong Kong police force. The title converts that into support for police brutality, which is a different claim and not one the quoted words make — whether the two amount to the same thing is precisely what is in dispute between the positions. [Rejecting P2] Marketing a film as representation may raise the stakes of its star's politics, but it does not connect those politics to the film itself, and the counter-argument's objection is unaddressed: a boycott's cost falls on the hundreds of cast and crew who had no part in the post. [Rejecting P3] The citizenship premise argues about the speaker rather than the claim. Holding an American passport may make the position look inconsistent, but inconsistency in an advocate is not evidence about the merits, and what the conclusion needs is a reason to boycott the film, not a charge of hypocrisy against its lead.
Framing
The insensitivity of the post is reason enough to boycott the whole movie.