Critique+-+Purpose

We see differences between these three sources already in terms of purpose, as illustrated by the table below:


 * Source: || Purpose ||
 * Reforms and Reformers || To depict and explain the reforms in China during the rule of the CCP, being a factual historical account of CCP actions and reforms. ||
 * "To Live" || To depict life in Communist China during the periods before CCP rule, and during the Great Leap Forward as well as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and to highlight/exaggerate (as part of a movie) their respective impacts on the standard Chinese populace. ||
 * Economic Necessity and Political Ideals in Educational Reform during the Cultural Revolution || To assess the respective weight of economic necessity and political ideals in the educational reform in an attempt to shed some light on the nature of the new "world outlook " which the Cultural Revolution advances. ||

In that sense, we see a clear marked difference when comparing the sources. One could say that the main piece, "Reforms and Reformers", is the most neutral of the three selected pieces. Being a recount and factual recollection, "Reforms and Reformers" does present a relatively neutral account of the key figures in the Cultural Revolution. To that end, it does achieve its purpose of being an account of the key events of the Cultural Revolution.

However, when contrasted to the other two sources, the purpose of the main source seems rather trivial or mild in comparison. For instance, Zhang Yimou's purpose is extremely clear in the film "To Live": it is to highlight the failings and turmoil during the rule of the CCP in the 1950s and 1960s. So too is Marianne Bastid's, seeking to evaluate and assess the importance and relevance of the educational reforms of the Cultural Revolution.

As we can see, while "Reforms and Reformers" does establish a clear purpose that it has been able to meet, questions still remain over the relevance of its purpose. Is merely being a factual recount a significant enough purpose?