Puyi became Emperor of China in 1908 at the age of two, and was forced to abdicate in 1912 (still only six, he might not have really appreciated what “abdicating” meant; or what “Emperor” meant, for that matter). The Articles of Favourable Treatment allowed him to keep his palace and his title, and to be treated as a foreign monarch by the Republic of China. But in 1917:
By that time the Emperor was 11 – old enough, at least, to have some sort of notion of what was going on. Why did Bernardo Bertolucci omit that episode from The Last Emperor? Seems to me he could’ve done something with it – at least, with showing Puyi’s reaction to the prospect of coming to real power or something like it.
Wasn’t that a major theme of the film; that the emperor was so isolated he had no real understanding of the world outside his palace?
Would a warlord have even needed to consult with the emperor or even inform him to restore him to the throne? Any proclamation the warlord wished the emperor to make, he could just write himself and attach the emperor’s seal.
A movie director has to keep the narrative moving along, and for a whole lifetime’s bio scope, you have to cut out a lot of factual details. So 11 days of putative-but-de-facto-meaningless power can be cut out since it was no more than a blip in the timeline, after which the same old obsolescent stasis of the Forbidden City returned for another 10 years.
Contrasted with Lady Jane, in which Jane Grey’s 9 days of (contested) reign formed the very heart of the drama.
Yeah, but, come on! Airplane bombing the palace! What potential for visuals! Eunuchs running in panic! Chamberlain desperately trying to come up with a plausible explanation fast and gabble it to Puyi! (Though, actually, I’m not sure whether this restoration-incident would fit in the timeline before or after the scene where Puyi finds out that he is not really Emperor any more.)
Pu Yi was emperor in name only-his “restoration” as a Japanese puppet (Manchukuo) was just a way for the Japanese to absorb Manchuria. Was the Manchu dynasty even legitimate? I thought the whole mess ended with Tsu Hsi’s death.
A good director isn’t going to cram things into a movie just because they seem cool. I have no idea whether Bertolucci has ever spoken about this particular topic, but I doubt there’s any reason beyond what has already been said – the 1917 restoration wasn’t important to the story he wanted to tell, and the movie was plenty long enough already.
This was the first film ever shot in the Forbidden City and, by virtue of its locations and production values, not a cheap movie to make. Since there’s no way the Chinese government would allow such pyrotechnics on the palace property, such a spectacle as you suggest would’ve added quite a bit more in time and expense (models/miniatures, recreations, etc.) and not contributed that much to the story arc.