A boy of two is carried into a palace and told he is a god. For the next fifty years, other people decide what he is to do next.
Need an easier version? Read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Work through the four short activities. Each word is shown in a situation that gives its meaning away — no need to know the film yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.
Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor (1987). Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. (There are spoilers ahead — that's the point; we're here to talk about it.)
Winter, 1908. Soldiers come at night for a child of two. His mother is not allowed to go with him. He is carried through gate after gate into the Forbidden City, the vast walled palace at the centre of Beijing, and set on a throne in a hall so large he cannot see the end of it. Thousands of officials kneel. The boy, Puyi, climbs down and runs towards a curtain moving in the wind. He is now the Son of Heaven, and he is frightened.
Four years later the empire ends. Outside, China becomes a republic; inside, almost nothing changes. Puyi keeps his title, his eunuchs, his court, his protocol — but only within the walls. He grows up ruler of a country that consists of a few courtyards, waited on by hundreds of people who must obey him in everything except the one thing he wants, which is to go out. His little brother tells him, cheerfully, that he is not emperor of anything any more.
In 1919 a Scottish tutor arrives: Reginald Johnston, who brings spectacles, a bicycle, the English name Henry, and news of a world with taxis and telephones in it. Puyi cycles round the courtyards, expels the eunuchs after a fire, marries a bride chosen from photographs, and dreams of studying at Oxford. Then, in 1924, soldiers arrive at the gate and give the household a few hours. The doors close behind him. He is eighteen, and he has never chosen anything.
1. What happens to Puyi's status in 1912, and why does his daily life barely change?
2. What does the arrival of Johnston open up for him?
1. The empire is abolished and China becomes a republic, but he keeps the title and the whole court inside the palace walls — so he goes on being treated as emperor of a place a few hundred metres across.
2. A window onto the outside world: Western learning, a bicycle, glasses, an English name, and the idea that he might one day leave and study abroad.
Expelled, Puyi lands in the foreign quarter of Tianjin and reinvents himself: dinner jackets, jazz, tennis, a wife and a secondary consort, photographs in the newspapers. But he wants his throne back, and the only people who take that ambition seriously are Japanese officers, who visit, flatter him and wait. His wife Wanrong begs him to see what they are. He does not listen.
Japan seizes Manchuria in the north, and in the early 1930s Puyi goes to them. He is installed as head of a new state called Manchukuo, and in 1934 he is crowned emperor again in a ceremony that copies the old rituals and means nothing. Very quickly he discovers the shape of his new job: documents arrive already decided; his ministers answer to Japanese officials; his own guards report on him. He signs. Outside his palace, the occupation does what occupations do.
Wanrong collapses into opium. When she bears a child that is not his, the baby is taken away and she is taken away too, and the last he sees of her is a car pulling out of a courtyard. In 1945 Japan surrenders. Puyi, in a small airport waiting room, is about to fly to safety when Soviet soldiers walk in. The film handles all of this quietly: no battles, just doors opening and closing on a man who has never once been in the room where things are decided.
1. Why does Puyi accept the Japanese offer, and what does he actually get?
2. How does his time as emperor of Manchukuo end?
1. He wants his throne back and believes he is being restored. What he gets is a crown with no authority — a figurehead in a state run by the Japanese military, signing decisions taken without him.
2. Japan surrenders in 1945; as he waits to be flown out, Soviet troops arrive and take him prisoner.
The film's frame is a prison. In 1950 Puyi is handed back to China and taken to a re-education centre, where he is one number among many. He cannot dress himself; he has never tied his own shoes. Over ten years, in interrogations and in the confession he is required to write, his whole life is taken apart and read back to him by a patient, unyielding governor who wants him to say plainly what he was part of.
The confession is the heart of the film. Puyi wants to be a victim — a child put on a throne, a man moved by others — and much of that is true. But he is also asked about the years when his signature sat on the papers of an occupation, and about the people who suffered under a state that carried his name. What the film is really examining is whether contrition is possible for someone who was never taught that his choices had weight.
He is released in 1959. The last emperor of China becomes a gardener in Beijing, in a cotton jacket, buying his own tram tickets, tending flowerbeds. Years later, an old man pays to enter the Forbidden City as an ordinary visitor, steps over the rope, and reaches behind the throne where he once sat. It is Bertolucci's most beautiful invention, and it says the thing the whole film has been circling: the palace is now a museum, and the god is a man like anyone else.
1. What is Puyi required to do during his years in the re-education centre?
2. What has become of him by the end of the film?
1. Live as an ordinary prisoner, learn to look after himself, submit to years of interrogation, and write a full confession of his own life — including the Manchukuo years.
2. An ordinary Beijing citizen working as a gardener, who at the end returns to his former palace as a paying visitor.
Some futures you choose. Others are handed to you already decided — by a court, a government, an army, a family. English has a structure for exactly that: be to + infinitive. It is the language of announcements, of orders, and — in the past — of fate. No life needs it more than this one.
Complete each gap with the correct form of be to (present or past, active or passive) and the verb in brackets.
1. According to the announcement, the treaty (sign) at noon tomorrow. (an official arrangement — passive)
2. Nobody (speak) to the prisoner without written permission. (a strict rule)
3. The delegation (leave) the following morning, but the storm closed the airport. (an arrangement that did not happen)
1. is to be signed (present, passive — an official announcement)
2. is to speak (a rule laid down by an authority)
3. was to leave (a past arrangement; the sentence tells us it fell through)
Complete each gap with was / were to and the verb in brackets. Keep never in its natural place where it appears.
1. He signed the papers without reading them. He (regret) that signature for the rest of his life.
2. She waved from the platform, and she (hear) from her brother again. (never)
3. The two men shook hands in the courtyard. They (become) the last people ever to live in that house.
1. was to regret
2. was never to hear (never sits between was and to)
3. were to become
Fill each gap with be to, be about to or be due to in the right tense, plus the verb in brackets. Read it aloud when you're done.
The order came at midnight. The palace (clear) by morning, and no one (take) more than a single suitcase. The car (arrive) at six. He (ask) the officer why, then thought better of it and said nothing. He did not know it yet, but he was never to see those courtyards again.
was to be cleared · was to take · was due to arrive · was about to ask
Notice the three jobs: be to = ordered from above; be due to = on the schedule; be about to = one second away. And the final sentence shows the fourth job — the past of destiny, looking forward from a moment that has already gone.
Carry this into the Speak tab. Almost every sentence of this man's life can be built with it: he was to be made emperor, he was to lose the throne, he was never to be free of the palace — and not one of those verbs has him as the person deciding.
Almost every improbable turn in this film is documented. Puyi was a real man with a real, verifiable life, and the film draws on the autobiography he produced himself. What the record does not settle is the question the film is built around: how much choice does a person raised as a god ever really have — and how much of the blame is still his?
Aisin-Gioro Puyi was born on 7 February 1906 and enthroned in December 1908, at two years and ten months old. He was forced to abdicate on 12 February 1912, ending 268 years of Qing rule and China's imperial system, which had run for more than two thousand years. Under the Articles of Favourable Treatment he kept the imperial title and the northern part of the Forbidden City — so a six-year-old went on being addressed as emperor inside a palace that no longer ruled anything. In July 1917 a warlord briefly restored him; that restoration lasted about twelve days. He was expelled from the palace for good on 5 November 1924 by the warlord Feng Yuxiang, and moved to the Japanese concession in Tianjin in February 1925.
Sir Reginald Fleming Johnston was born in Edinburgh and arrived in March 1919 as tutor to the thirteen-year-old Puyi, brought in for his knowledge of Chinese history and culture. He introduced Western subjects and, by most accounts, encouraged both his pupil's monarchism and his interest in Japan. He left in 1924, later became Professor of Chinese at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, retired to a Scottish island, and died in Edinburgh in 1938. His memoir Twilight in the Forbidden City was published in 1934 and remains one of the very few eyewitness accounts of the court's last years — written, of course, by a man who loved his pupil. In the film he is played by Peter O'Toole.
Japan's Kwantung Army seized Manchuria after the Mukden Incident of September 1931. On 1 March 1932 the puppet state of Manchukuo was proclaimed with Puyi as Chief Executive; on 1 March 1934 he was crowned its emperor under the reign name Kangde. Real power never came near him: the Kwantung Army commander could veto his decisions, and each Manchukuo minister worked under a Japanese vice-minister who set the actual policy. The League of Nations found that Japan had acted in breach of international law, and only a handful of states ever recognised the regime.
And that regime's record is not a background detail. Millions of Chinese civilians were put to forced labour in its mines and factories; farmland was confiscated; the state ran an opium monopoly; and it was on Manchukuo territory that Japan's Unit 731 carried out lethal human experimentation. Puyi did not order these things and could not have stopped them. But he was not dragged north in chains either: he wanted his throne back, the Japanese were the only people offering one, and he put his name and the prestige of the Qing house at the service of an occupation for thirteen years. That makes him a collaborator as well as a victim, and the film is gentler about this than the record is.
Soviet forces took Puyi prisoner in August 1945. In 1946 he appeared as a witness at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, testifying across eight days — the longest appearance by any witness there. Observers found him evasive: he presented himself as a wholly controlled front for the Japanese, was vague about dates and documents, and at one point asked not to be questioned about dates at all. His own later autobiography concedes more knowledge, and more willingness, than he admitted on the stand.
He was handed to China in 1950 and held at the Fushun War Criminals Management Centre, where Manchukuo, Kuomintang and Japanese prisoners underwent years of intensive "thought reform". He received a special pardon on 4 December 1959, among the first group of thirty-one prisoners released. He then worked at the Beijing Botanical Garden — first in the mechanical repair shop, then as an assistant gardener — married a nurse, Li Shuxian, in 1962, and later worked as a researcher on historical texts. He died in Beijing on 17 October 1967, aged 61. His wife the empress Wanrong, who is in the film, did not survive the fall: she died on 20 June 1946 at Yanji in Jilin, aged 39, of malnutrition and opium withdrawal, and her burial place is unknown.
The screenplay is adapted from From Emperor to Citizen, the autobiography published under Puyi's name in 1964 and worked into shape by the editor Li Wenda. That is exactly why historians handle it carefully: it was produced by a pardoned prisoner, inside the political conditions of the state that had re-educated him, and roughly 160,000 words were cut from the manuscript before publication — a fuller version only appeared in 2007. A confession is not a neutral source, and this film's foundations are a confession.
Specific departures worth naming: the film considerably softens Puyi's cruelty as a young man in the palace; it moves his real interrogation, which took place before the Tokyo tribunal, into the hands of Chinese questioners; and its final image — an old man buying a ticket into his own former palace and finding a cricket still alive beneath the throne — is invention, and lovely, and not something that happened. What is entirely true is the film's own place in history: The Last Emperor was the first Western feature permitted by the People's Republic of China to shoot inside the Forbidden City, and it won all nine Academy Awards for which it was nominated at the 1988 ceremony, including Best Picture and Best Director.
This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.
Tell the story of The Last Emperor in your own words, as if to someone who has never seen it. Move through the arc: the child carried into the palace → the empire ends but the court does not → Johnston, the bicycle and the world outside → the expulsion in 1924 → Tianjin, and the Japanese offer → Manchukuo and the papers he signs → the Soviet soldiers, the prison, the confession → the gardener.
Work in at least five key words (abdicate, seclusion, figurehead, complicity, renounce, contrition, collaborate, pawn, protocol, preordained), and use be to + infinitive every time somebody else decides his future: "at two years old he was to be made emperor"; "he was never to live an ordinary life until he was over fifty".
Build the case. He was taken from his mother at two, never allowed out, never taught that his choices had consequences — and he then lent his name for thirteen years to an occupying power whose regime used mass forced labour and ran human experiments. Argue one side properly: is he principally a man who was used, or a man who chose badly and should be judged for it? Then argue the other side as well as you can. Bring in comparisons if you know any — other figureheads, other collaborators, other people tried after a war.
Step back from the film. How much of any life is actually decided by the person living it — and where do you personally draw the line between explanation and excuse? Make your case.
Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it: