Hollywood films, whose primary purpose is inarguably to entertain, are not often welcome in the realm of serious historical reconstruction. However, in his book History in Three Keys, Paul Cohen draws parallels between the process of constructing a film and the processes of constructing history. Says Cohen, the historian must choose between a “re-presentation” of historical data or a “new production, lacking some elements that existed in the past and incorporating others that did not.” (Cohen 3) So, though their goals may differ, the historian and the filmmaker must both make this important choice. This is easily observable within the mythologization of the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 and how a history colored by these interpretations reflects itself in Nicholas Ray’s 1963 film 55 Days at Peking. Though its inclusions, omissions, and areas of focus, the film contributes to history in and of itself by allowing us to analyze the viewpoint it encompasses. Because the film is presented from the perspective of the Great Powers, we first observe the point of view and portrayal of the Boxers to create a complete picture of events. Their experiences are almost completely ignored, for the only interactions the characters have with the Boxers apart from trying to repel their assault is at the beginning when a Boxer is torturing an Englishman for reasons never articulated. (Ray 2-3:00) The Boxer shamelessly attempts to extort Charlton Heston’s character and resorts to violence when this attempt is unsuccessful. The implications of such needless greed and cruelty are clear, (that the Boxers delight in violence against foreigners for its own sake) but their motivations are alluded to elsewhere in the film. When the British foreign minister attempts to negotiate with the Empress Dowager, she remarks that the Boxer response is an understandable one to the foreign occupation of China. (Ray 5-6:15) The minister calmly retorts that unprovoked violence “will not redress their grievances.” In response, the empress impulsively declares that all foreigners are to depart Peking within twenty-four hours, her trembling rage seemingly conveyed through the visible swaying of her headdress. The two contrasting demeanors make no secret of the sympathies the film wishes to convey. Additionally, in directly implicating the Chinese prince in coordinating Boxer attacks (Ray 5-4:15), the film implies that the Boxers are nothing more than pawns for the Chinese leadership used in a quixotic attempt to obtain international hegemony. Opinions will inevitably vary about the validity of the Boxer motivations, but it is not similarly debatable that key details about the Boxers and the Relief Forces were omitted from the film. The origins of the Boxers can be traced to several organizations, prominent among them was the Big Sword Society. (Cohen 17) This society was devoted to the elimination of bandits constantly plaguing the Chinese countryside, and they were quite ruthlessly efficient at it. So much so that the bandits cleverly converted en masse to Catholic Christianity, “with its legally immune (and convert hungry) foreign missionary leadership.” (Cohen 19) Frustration mounted among the Big Swords, and it erupted in the Juye Incident of 1897 where two Catholic missionaries were murdered by an unknown assailant. (Cohen 20) Blame immediately fell on the Big Swords, and the Chinese government quickly acquiesced to foreign anger, ceding land to the Church and a German sphere of influence in China. (Cohen 21) The Germans were particularly indignant about the incident, presumably as a pretext to obtain their own foothold. So, when Chinese attempts to enforce order in their society were demonstrably and actively undermined by foreign powers in this and other ways, the aforementioned black-and-white moral contrast in the film does not do the situation justice. Vagueness surrounding the Boxers origins in the film creates an aura of illegitimacy around their actions. The inverse is true regarding the vagueness surrounding the actions of the relief forces only briefly glimpsed at during the end of the film. The experiences of the Great Powers are distilled down to unjust suffering, from the soldier having limbs amputated to the young British boy shot without warning. Their heroism, righteousness, and civility is unassailable throughout the film, and perhaps best exemplified when the British foreign minister is seen personally rescuing Chinese youths from what is presumably a Boxer siege. (Ray 10-8:00) However, the aftermath of the relief was observably less heroic in reality. It was plagued by chronic looting by all Allied forces, and it was explicitly stated in the lecture that entire train cars were devoted to carrying the spoils. Cohen verifies this image of foreign savagery, stating that the victory was “followed by several days of unrestrained killing, looting and raping…”. (Cohen 53) Furthermore, the relief forces engaged in what Cohen calls “punitive expeditions” against the Boxers characterized by indiscriminant slaughter of civilians due to the difficulty of identifying Boxers at this point in the conflict. (Cohen 55) This is to say nothing of the extraordinarily punitive Boxer Protocol, which inflicted indemnities on China that far exceeded its net tax revenues. (Cohen 56) Thus, the characterization of both sides of the conflict is undermined, to a degree, by omissions before and after the fact. We now turn our attention back to areas of focus that work to create the film’s overall narrative. Cohen testifies thoroughly about the re-interpretation of the Boxers through the lens of the Cultural Revolution; so too must we see the film through the lens of Cold War America. There are attempts, both great and small, throughout the film to portray countries in a certain light based on their Cold War allegiances. Take the Japanese for example, who became staunch allies of the United States after World War II and are portrayed amicably in the film. When a commander awakens a group of Allied forces in their native tongues, he is unsure of what to say to a Japanese soldier, to which the Japanese man responds with an English greeting of “good morning”. (Ray 7-7:20) This is a marked contrast to the average Chinese civilian in the film who clearly speaks not a word of English. The film also goes to lengths to demonize certain nationalities, foremost among them being the Russians. The Russian baron is seen pestering the doctor about giving a certain soldier preferential treatment because of his noble lineage, only to be angrily rebuffed. (Ray 9-6:40) Also notable is Ava Gardner’s Russian baroness, who drove her husband to suicide because of her affair with a Chinese man. (Ray 10-3:00) Finally, we have the portrayal of the Chinese, whose behavior is shown to be contemptible and barbaric from top to bottom. Significant among these portrayals is that of the empress during the climax, who is stripped of her garish robes and is visibly distraught as she repeats “the dynasty is finished.” (Ray 15-0:45) This implies that her only concern lies with her political power, in contrast to Allied leaders like the British foreign minister, who constantly agonizes over putting his men in danger by remaining in Peking. Dramatized as they may be, these portrayals nonetheless give us essential insight into how Boxer Rebellion was reconstructed in the collective memory. Examining 55 Days at Peking as a legitimate historical narrative is a plainly futile exercise, given the film’s flagrant omissions and fantastical set pieces. (e.g. the Boxers using a multi-tiered artillery machine that fires Chinese rockets) However, the film as entertainment for a specific and temporal audience is the main area of insight. It is difficult to deny the existence of a moral and cultural dichotomy the director wishes to display. Underneath the veneer of drama and cinematic splendor lies the very “re-presentation” that all historians must confront. History is never examined in a vacuum; the shifting perceptions of it are just as significant as the events that occurred. It is in this way that Ray’s film, regardless of his intention to do so, tethers his era’s history to that of the Boxers.

Works Cited
55 Days at Peking. Dir. Nicholas Ray. Perf. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner. 1963. Laser disc.
Cohen, Paul A. History in Three Keys: the Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. New York: Columbia UP, 1997. Print.