Dazzling Star Will Showcase Animation Series "Beijing Opera Cats" At the 2017 Las Vegas Licensing Expo

Beijing Opera Cats four main characters

As a leading Chinese animation production company, Dazzling Star is delighted to attend 2017 Las Vegas Licensing Expo with its award-winning animation work "Beijing Opera Cats", from 23rd to 25th May in Las Vegas.

"Beijing Opera Cats" is a hit animation in China. It is the first series combining Kung Fu and Beijing Opera elements, targeting audiences aged 6-12 years old. Since the debut of the first season in 2015, it has rewritten the record books in terms of reaching 18.02% of Chinese market share and accumulating over 700 million views on the mainstream platform. 

Dazzling Star also brings stores and characters to life through developing games, consumer products and theme parks across the world.  

The story takes place in a world called Purpetua, which used to be a paradise for cats, but after being taken over by evil forces, it has turned into a chaotic place with monsters everywhere. Only "Beijing Opera Cats" and their "harmony power" can lead the residents in the fight to take back Purpetua. 

The action is a mixture of Kung Fu, magic and comedic moments that also work to break up the fight sequences nicely. "Beijing Opera Cats" aims to encourage audiences everywhere to develop into kind people with curious minds, compassionate hearts, and courage so they can grow into their authentic selves and find their place in the world.

Combining Kung Fu and Beijing Opera elements, Dazzling Star aims to create a worldwide animation success.

Dazzling Star took 6 years to create "Beijing Opera Cats", which is the first original cartoon series combining Kung Fu and Beijing Opera elements. Cats, as the heroes, help convey a positive energy in the exciting plot. "Beijing Opera Cats" has been shown with several famous children channels and mainstream platforms. 

With its attractive legendary stories and delicate pictures, it received tons of positive feedback and attracted a legion of loyal fans.

Dazzling Star is committed to creating and distributing original animation work

"In the Chinese animation industry, there is an increasing number of production teams that tend to learn and copy from overseas teams. They lost themselves, I think."

YangGang Du, CEO of Dazzling Star

Dazzling Star Culture Development Co., Ltd. was founded in 2009. Providing a guidance of positive value for audiences was mission of the company. Meanwhile, combining Chinese Kung Fu and advanced technology are the key to success. 

Mr. YangGang Du, the founder of Dazzling Star, was mentioned in his interview, "Dazzling Star is a company that provides a high quality Asian cultural animation series on the world stage." Under this great dream and passion, Mr. Du leads the team and produced "Beijing Opera Cats". The excellent visual experience of Chinese animation is the goal of moving forward.

SOURCE: Dazzling Star Culture Development Co., Ltd.

The Trailer:

How Theatre Can Help Us Understand Donald Trump And Brexit

Image via Shutterstock

By Hans-Ludwig Buchholz, University of Aberdeen

When it comes to the chaotic policies of Donald Trump or the seeming irrationality of Brexit, traditional political explanations can fail to produce satisfactory answers.

Political science may help to solve some of these riddles, but far from all. For example, scholars may be able to argue that those disappointed or marginalised by the US political establishment voted for Trump’s promises. Or they could claim that people voted for the UK to leave the EU because it was seen as the project of a rich elite.

But they cannot fully explain why millions believe in “alternative facts”, or why the arguments for these are made so passionately. Perhaps unexpectedly, theatre can be an instrument for thinking about politics and making sense of Trump, Brexit and other political upheavals.

The type of theatre we’re talking about here isn’t Shakespeare’s historic plays or modern TV dramas in the style of House of Cards or The West Wing – they can make visible what happens behind closed doors. What we really need to do is take a step back to understand what is going on in the whole of society – and in ourselves. And it is theatrical comedy that opens up this way of thinking.

The Swiss dramatist and author Friedrich Dürrenmatt is considered an international writer of classic plays, but is popular only in German-speaking countries. However, Dürrenmatt can teach us how to make sense of irrational policies through the use of literature, and especially comedy. He shows us how everyone can use art to think politically.

Dürrenmatt’s position is that our complicated, chaotic world, where a clear morality no longer exists, has to be translated by literature into an understandable narrative. Theatre can represent certain aspects of the world and place them in a concrete story.

As the audience, we can step back from our own prejudices, and fear for or laugh at the figures on stage. In comedy especially, we can watch something we don’t need to take too seriously – only to realise afterwards that we behave in our own lives exactly as the characters on stage do. Our own frustrations and foibles are revealed to us as the play unfolds. By experiencing the drama, we have unwittingly considered, mocked and judged ourselves. Dürrenmatt once said: “I love to trick the audience into thinking about their own case, which is always political”.

So, how can this theory be applied?

Play for today
Dürrenmatt’s most famous comedy The Visit (1956) tells the story of Claire Zachanassian, a wealthy old woman who visits the now-impoverished village of her youth. She offers the villagers the sum of one billion Swiss francs under the condition that someone kills the owner of the village shop.

As a young woman, Zachanassian had loved this man, but he had jilted her when she was poor and pregnant. Now she wants to exact her revenge and see justice done. At first the villagers reject the immoral offer. But soon they start to talk about how the money could alleviate their poverty and suffering. Then, figuring they deserve it, the locals begin to buy expensive things on credit in anticipation of their wealth, making the shop owner increasingly nervous. In the end – spoiler alert – they accept the offer and kill him.

Of course, the comedy discusses big questions of justice, but as we watch, it mainly makes us laugh and judge. The characters on stage are portrayed in ridiculous ways: their obedient bow to the rich old woman is idiotic; their greed is farcical; their willingness to put aside loyalty is weak; their poor excuses for taking the money are laughable.

Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s play is a subtle but devastating critique of human nature and society. Amazon, CC BY-SA

After the play ends, we may ask ourselves how we would have reacted to Zachanassian’s offer. We can use it to think about the choices in our lives, like accepting high interest rates that are too good to be true from dubious banks; or voting for politicians who are only acting for those rich or British enough; or for parties advocating low taxation.

And suddenly all our usual excuses and justifications are toppled. In the course of the play we dismiss the villagers as laughable, ridiculous and shameful. But as Dürrenmatt claimed, we have been tricked into thinking about our own lives all along.

Through the parallels of the play to our own lives, we are led into thinking politically without the usual prejudices. Now we begin to understand why people believe lies and vote for irrational politicians. In this situation it is easy to avoid responsibility with feeble excuses – because everyone’s doing it and it’s necessary to survive. It is possible to convince yourself to vote for a necessary evil, just as the impoverished villagers decided to kill the shop keeper.

Dissolving limitations
Appalling lies are swallowed in order to make the chosen evil acceptable. The people hit by Trump’s travel bans, or Britain’s European neighbours, are the necessary sacrifices for what surely must be the only option left, some might reason.

Literature in politics can only hint at how we should think. Otherwise we repeat the problems of political science, which is stuck with a rigid way of thinking designed to produce absolute truths. Thinking about difficult moral questions with the help of literature is more playful, and dissolves all limitations.

Taking literature too seriously – making messages absolute and ideological – would destroy this possibility. Instead, literature has to be vague, emotional, and open – used as an opportunity to explore our sense of morality and justice. Literature may not be able to fully explain Brexit, but it can help make sense of it.

Brexiteers are Claire Zachanassian figures in that they promise to save Britain and the NHS – if Europeans living in the UK and British people living abroad are made to suffer the necessary sacrifice. Like the villagers in the play we are then asked the difficult question, and the answer we give should help us see ourselves more clearly – if we are honest.

About Today's Contributor:
Hans-Ludwig Buchholz, PhD candidate in Modern Thought, University of Aberdeen

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Seated Ballerina By Jeff Koons On View May 12 - June 2, 2017 at Rockefeller Center

Seated Ballerina, 2017 © Jeff Koons / Photo: Tom Powel Imaging

Kiehl's Since 1851 and Art Production Fund are pleased to present Jeff Koons's Seated Ballerina, a large-scale public art installation, hosted by Tishman Speyer at Rockefeller Center from May 12 – June 2, 2017. The inflatable nylon sculpture stands 45 feet high and depicts a seated ballerina from the artist's iconic Antiquity series.

Often referencing historical imagery and found objects, Koons based Seated Ballerina on a small porcelain figurine. The sculpture acts as a contemporary iteration of the goddess Venus, and symbolizes notions of beauty and connectivity. Its reflective surface mirrors its immediate environment and engages with each viewer.  The work aims to bring awareness to National Missing Children's Month this May, in an effort to support organizations like the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) that work tirelessly to create a safer world for children.

"It's a pleasure to work with Kiehl's and Art Production Fund on this charitable project. This partnership will increase awareness and help the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children make the world a safer place for children," said Jeff Koons. "I hope the installation of Seated Ballerina at Rockefeller Center offers a sense of affirmation and excitement to the viewer to reach their potential. The aspect of reflectivity emulates life's energy; it's about contemplation and what it means to be a human being. It's a very hopeful piece."

"We have enjoyed a great relationship with Jeff Koons, starting with Puppy and recently with Split-Rocker, which were both a tremendous success," said Tishman Speyer President and CEO Rob Speyer. "It's an honor to work with the Art Production Fund and Kiehl's and bring Jeff's art back to Rockefeller Center. Seated Ballerina promises to offer one of those unforgettable New York experiences that will be remembered for years to come."

"We are honored to work with Jeff Koons, Kiehl's and Tishman Speyer to present Seated Ballerina at Rockefeller Center," said Casey Fremont, Executive Director of Art Production Fund. "We believe in the power of collaboration, and we are thrilled to present a public art project that raises awareness of the urgent need to protect children worldwide."

In honor of National Missing Children's Month, Koons has also created a limited edition Seated Ballerina tin for the Midnight Recovery Collection. Throughout May, Kiehl's will donate 100% of its net profits from the collection, up to $100,000, to directly benefit ICMEC. A fervent advocate for protecting children, Koons worked with ICMEC to co-found The Koons Family Institute on International Law & Policy in 2007 to combat child abduction and exploitation. 

He also serves on ICMEC's Board of Directors. The installation highlights the longstanding relationship Kiehl's has forged with Jeff Koons and ICMEC since 2011. Art Production Fund has also worked on a number of projects with Koons since 2009, donating a portion of sales from its Works on Whatever Collection to ICMEC.

"We're thrilled to continue what's become a Kiehl's tradition of partnering with Jeff Koons," says Chris Salgardo, President, Kiehl's USA."With more than 465,000 reports of missing children last year in the United States alone, it's gratifying to know that via this fourth partnership with Koons and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, we are able to make a difference in the lives of our children."

"ICMEC is proud and honored to partner with our long-term friend and Board member – the great American artist Jeff Koons – and with the iconic Kiehl's Since 1851, in a campaign that raises awareness and supports our efforts to make the world a safer place for all children," says Maura Harty, President & CEO ICMEC.

About Jeff Koons: 
Jeff Koons was born in York, Pennsylvania and studied at the Art Institute of Chicago and the Maryland Institute College of Art; the latter from where he received his BFA. He currently lives and works in New York City. One of the foremost internationally recognized contemporary artists of our time, Jeff Koons earned renown for his iconic sculptures such as Rabbit (1986), Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988) and his public sculptures, such as the monumental floral sculptures Puppy (1992) and Split-Rocker (2000), both of which were previously installed at Rockefeller Center.

About the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children: 
The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children is a private 501(c)(3) non-governmental, nonprofit organization. For almost 20 years, ICMEC has been a leader in identifying gaps in the global community's ability to protect children from abduction, sexual abuse and exploitation, and expertly assembling the people, resources and tools needed to fill those gaps. ICMEC focuses on programs that have an impact on addressing the issues surrounding missing children, child abduction, child sexual abuse and exploitation. 

Through The Koons Family Institute on International Law & Policy, ICMEC conducts and commissions original research into the status of child protection legislation around the world to help make children safer.

SOURCE: Tishman Speyer; Kiehl’s

'Horseshoe Theory' Is Nonsense – The Far Right And Far Left Have Little In Common

Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen (Guillaume Horcajuelo / Frederic Scheiber / EPA)

By Simon Choat, Kingston University

After the first round of the French presidential elections, several liberal commentators condemned the defeated leftist candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon for refusing to endorse the centrist Emmanuel Macron. His decision was portrayed as a failure to oppose the far-right Front National, and it was argued that many of his supporters were likely to vote for Marine Le Pen in the second round. Comparisons were drawn with the US presidential elections and the alleged failure of Bernie Sanders supporters to back Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Underlying these claims is a broader and increasingly popular notion that the far left and the far right have more in common than either would like to admit. This is known as the “horseshoe theory”, so called because rather than envisaging the political spectrum as a straight line from communism to fascism, it pictures the spectrum as a horseshoe in which the far left and far right have more in common with each other than they do with the political centre. The theory also underlies many of the attacks on the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who is accused of cosying up to authoritarian and theocratic regimes and fostering antisemitism within his party.

Taken one by one, these claims do not withstand scrutiny. Did Mélenchon give succour to Le Pen? No: he explicitly ruled out supporting Le Pen, and most of his supporters voted for Macron in the second round. Are there antisemites in the Labour Party? Yes: but there are antisemites in every British political party; the difference is that repeated incidents of racism in other parties go unremarked (as does Corbyn’s longstanding record of anti-racist activism).

Fans of the horseshoe theory like to lend their views weight and credibility by pointing to the alleged history of collusion between fascists and communists: the favoured example is the Nazi-Soviet Pact. But – aside from the fact that the Soviet Union played a vital role in defeating the Nazis – it is patently absurd to compare Stalin to present-day leftists like Mélenchon or Corbyn.

Can we instead find convergence between far left and far right at the level of policy? It is true that both attack neoliberal globalisation and its elites. But there is no agreement between far left and far right over who counts as the “elite”, why they are a problem, and how to respond to them. When the billionaire real-estate mogul Donald Trump decries global elites, for example, he is either simply giving his audience what he thinks they want to hear or he is indulging in antisemitic dog-whistling.

For the left, the problem with globalisation is that it has given free rein to capital and entrenched economic and political inequality. The solution is therefore to place constraints on capital and/or to allow people to have the same freedom of movement currently given to capital, goods, and services. They want an alternative globalisation. For the right, the problem with globalisation is that it has corroded supposedly traditional and homogeneous cultural and ethnic communities – their solution is therefore to reverse globalisation, protecting national capital and placing further restrictions on the movement of people.

Trump and Sanders both attacked globalisation – for different reasons. Michael Vadon, CC BY-SA

Is there a more fundamental, ideological resonance between far left and far right? Again, only in the vaguest sense that both challenge the liberal-democratic status quo. But they do so for very different reasons and with very different aims. When fascists reject liberal individualism, it is in the name of a vision of national unity and ethnic purity rooted in a romanticised past; when communists and socialists do so, it is in the name of international solidarity and the redistribution of wealth.

Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? The likely answer is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist.

Today’s fascists have also been facilitated by centrists – and not just, for example, those on the centre-right who have explicitly defended Le Pen. When centrists ape the Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing of the far right, many people begin to think that fascism is legitimate; when they pursue policies which exacerbate economic inequality and hollow out democracy, many begin to think that fascism looks desirable.

If liberals genuinely want to understand and confront the rise of the far right, then rather than smearing the left they should perhaps reflect on their own faults.

About Today's Contributor:
Simon Choat, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, Kingston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

James Bond Needs A New Attitude, Not A New Actor

Sexist and altogether out-dated, the same old James Bond. Anthony Devlin/PA Archive/PA Images

By Nicola Bishop, Manchester Metropolitan University

As someone who has recently taken to reading Ian Fleming’s books, I am drawn into the debate surrounding Joanna Lumley’s comments about actor Idris Elba not being the James Bond that Fleming created.

Film writer Caspar Salmon’s column in the Guardian made several valid points. The most persuasive being that we should abandon the “emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition”. Bond is a “hero” who is heterosexist, misogynistic, and racist – so inherent in 1954’s Live and Let Die that getting beyond the first chapter proved too much for this reader – more needs to be done than just another change of actor.

Yet the “who-will-be-the-next-Bond” discussions never stop. According to the press, Elba is equally not interested, a contender, and a sure thing. We’ve even had a “Jane Bond” social media campaign which saw Gillian Anderson throwing her metaphorical hat in the ring.
Given that the creative minds behind the BBC’s Doctor Who – a series predicated on the doctor’s ability to regenerate, which gives completely free reign over the actor who is cast – have managed to reincarnate the good Doctor a mere 13 times as a white man, do the chances of real diversity seem beyond even science fiction, let alone upper-class Cold War imperialism?

The eternal playboy
Historian Tim Stanley argues that to give Bond “breasts” would be to “lose the magic behind the character” – so we can safely assume that Bond is merely a powerful metaphorical penis. In keeping what have become the stock symbols – the fast cars, expensive suits, the Martinis and the exotic locations with their equally exotic women – the films have arguably become more one-dimensional than the novels. Books which, for all their issues, can still be located within a different social and historical context. So what is our excuse now?

In the conclusion of 2015 film Spectre, there is an inevitability to which the final shot – of Bond and Madeline Swann walking across London Bridge – seems fated to result in the kind of brutality with which Teresa di Vincenzo met her abrupt end in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1963). In the novel, if not as explicitly on screen, Bond’s joy at the planning of his future wedded bliss extends to the imagined home-making in his London flat, long and loving phone conversations between them as he works to bring down super-villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and the growing awareness that his life finally holds richer meaning.

Teresa, like Madeline, was Bond’s match: flighty, adventurous, fearless, daughter of a high-ranking criminal with an understanding of the necessity for “real men” to carry concealed weapons. Both women are victims of their own violent pasts – they are strong but need rescuing from themselves. Bond, however, has to be a playboy, he can save them, avenge them even, but he cannot be “tamed” by them.

Self-destruction
Spoof spy character Austin Powers ridiculed the constant disruption of the spy’s romantic bliss in the beginning of The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999). His new wife turned out to be a fem-bot, which must self-destruct or risk bringing down the spy himself. Even Judi Dench, after 20 years as M, met her end as a foolish female victim – how could the head of the secret intelligence service inexplicably use a torch on a dark Highland escape? Forget a female Bond when so few of the women in the films last beyond the end credits.

Perhaps the bigger question is not who should play the next Bond but why haven’t we moved on? Looking back at the original stories, and even ignoring the problematic 1950s cultural landscape, they are a mixed bag. Some are gripping, well-paced and thrilling, others loose and unwieldy, slow or confusing. Casino Royale (1953) is almost entirely focused on a card game that no one understands any more (when not playing cards, Bond is busy calling Vesper Lynd a “bitch”). Moonraker (1955) takes place in Dover not California, Venice or Rio. There are episodes in which even Bond is bored; chapters where he sits at his desk and complains about paperwork, moving it from in-box to out-tray.

All of this is a far-cry from the jet-setting man of mystery in our cultural imagination – the whirlwind of cocktails and casual sex, heightened by theatrically high kicks and slow-motion punches, casual Western imperialism, and upper-class patriarchy. More important than who will play him, is the question of why we have unnaturally prolonged the life of Ian Fleming’s spy.

Guardian readers were quick to call Salmon’s assertion that Bond is effectively the same age as Prince Philip unfair, and they’ve got a point. We don’t hold Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple to their fictional birth dates. We do, however, recognise the need to update the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie, taking the essence of their detection and applying it in modern ways. Bond, on the other hand, has all the latest gadgetry, new global enemies, and even an invisible car, but his “essence” has sadly stayed the same.

About Today's Contributor:
Nicola Bishop, Senior Lecturer in English/Film and Television, Manchester Metropolitan University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.