摘 要

英雄主义是电影中常见的表现形式之一。中西方电影中的英雄主义表现形式 有异同之处。首先, 我们可以发现中西方英雄在伟大人格、道德规范、英勇善战、殊途同归等方面具有相似之处。其次，我们也可以发现在使命义务、忠诚对象、 力量来源等方面存在的不同。第三，近几年来，中西方英雄主义电影也在形式上 和意义上体现出了逐渐融合的特点。通过对中西电影中英雄主义表现形式的比较, 我们可以发现, 这些差异大多是由权力距离、个人主义和集体主义、电影本土历史等文化差异造成的。

关键词：英雄主义；中国电影；西方电影；对比；文化原因

Contents

1. Introduction 1
2. Demonstration 1
   1. General theoretical survey 1
      1. Hofstede#39;s Cultural Dimensions Theory 2
      2. Heroism in Chinese and Western cultures 2
   2. The comparison of heroism embodiment in Chinese and western films 5
      1. The similar embodiment 5
         1. In the great personality and moral code of the heroes 5
         2. In the common endings of the heroes‟ struggles 5
      2. The different embodiment 6
         1. In the source of the heroes‟ power 6
         2. In the heroes‟ image design, identity setting and attitude towards history 7
      3. The gradual fusion of embodiment 9
         1. In form 9
         2. In meaning 10
      4. Discussion: cultural causes 13
3. Conclusion 15

Works Cited 16

Bibliography 17

A Comparative Study of Heroism Embodiment in Chinese and Western Films

Introduction

Heroism is not only an eternal topic but also the perpetual mainstay of different cultures in history. As an essential part of national culture, heroism culture displays the most valuable highlights in civilization and embodies the values of different cultures. True heroism is by no means just a relic of the past, or a few individual acts of the heroes, but is closely related to the preservation and perfection of our personalities.

There are similarities and differences between the heroism in Chinese and Western films. This paper makes a comparative analysis of the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western heroism films and the causes to explore the cultural differences and their deep roots. Under the background of the continuous development of modern society and the constant exchange and integration of Chinese and Western cultures, only mutual understanding can help promote the smooth dialogue between different cultures, and at the same time seek joint references and common development.

Demonstration

• 1. General theoretical survey

Cultural differences refer to the differences in language, values, religious beliefs, ethics, codes of conduct and so on between different countries, different nationalities and different cultures. There are many different definitions of culture, and Spencer believed that culture is a vague set of beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, basic ideas, and values. These attitudes, beliefs, habits, ideas, and values among each member can explain both the behavior of the member and the act itself. (Li 126)

Spencer pointed out that the core of culture is basic ideas and values, that is, assumptions, values, beliefs, etc. They have existed in the minds of people for a long

time but are not recognized, and have a normative dimension that can determine the social behavior of the members of the organization. They will influence people#39;s thoughts, beliefs, and social behavior. It also explains the reasons why people think so. (Li 129)

• • 1. Hofstede#39;s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Cultural Dimensions Theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It describes the effects of a society#39;s culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis. Hofstede developed his original model as a result of using factor analysis to examine the results of a worldwide survey of employee values by IBM between 1967 and 1973. It has been refined since. The original theory proposed four dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task-orientation versus person-orientation). Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In 2010, Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint. (Wang 35-36)