Censorship in Chinese Cinema has always been an issue under spotlight. Its restriction to artists’ creativity has been criticized by public and has caused many talented Chinese artists to face the dilemma of whether to compromise to meet the official criteria and to have their films approved to be screened, or to freely express themselves but risk censorship and result in possible financial lost. These independent films often contain explicit sexual content, graphic violence or sensitive political issues, and therefore are prohibited from screening, and sometimes distributing in China. In exploring stories behind the blooming Chinese cinema, some interesting findings are revealed in these independent filmmakers’ desire to achieve excellence. As more and more independent filmmakers begin to submit their films to a variety of international film festival and receive acclaims and awards, these film festivals seem to become a sanctuary for those Indies banned by the Chinese government; therefore they lead to a new direction for filmmakers to step out China and to make a stage pose on the international film stage. With this shift, censorship in China may not be playing the same antagonist role for these independent filmmakers. On the contrary, while still criticizing censorship, many filmmakers have found a way to utilize the function of Chinese film censorship and the “banned by the government” issue to promote their films.
To understand film censorship in China, some side notes should be given. The film censorship law was passed in 1931, “mandating all movies receive clearance from the National Board of Film Censors before they could be exhibited in China” (Smoodin 57). There are many historical and cultural factors contributed to the form of this law order. As a major vehicle to transfer thinking, films play an important role to shape ideology in society. For a country like China, which possesses long history of single administration party, whose democratic system is delicate and not yet developed, streams of thoughts are considered striking and provocative as they provide both good and bad impacts on society. When a film is screened, the audiences could be a mass of people who are not socially conscious, than the educated “quality audiences” who have the ability to understand the content and oversee it from comprehensive perspectives. The administrative department feels the obligation to have control over the ideology within society. Therefore, as the Chinese society is currently experiencing the era before the born of a comprehensive film rating system, Chinese administration uses ban as an official exclusion to films that may instablize or harm the society.
Screening system in China is another obstacle. Due to the limited amount of theatres and other business problems, not every film can be screened in theatres. Furthermore, China is a country that implements public ownership; therefore most of the films that can be screened are nation-owned studio productions. Although now China has become more encouraging to independent filmmaking that many region-owned productions or independent films already have more chances to pass the censorship to be screened; there are still some films that fail to fulfill the technical criteria or other requirements (most screened films are large scale productions). For films that cannot make to the theatre, distribution is their one way out, and the other is asking help from the oversea market.
The yearly amount of films submitted to overseas film festivals or distributed abroad is not officially calculated. But there is an adage that public and the media use to describe the phenomenon in recent year that indicates its frequency. “樯内开花樯外香”, literally meaning flowers bloom inside the yard but its aroma is sniffed from outside the yard, is commonly known as a phrase that describes something not welcomed at home but acclaimed by outlanders. In search of this phrase on Internet, many of the results come from titles of articles about those Chinese films sent to the overseas film festivals (Google Search). Of these films, we can find young independent filmmakers who are first introduced, and also world-known directors who participated in festivals earlier in their career that granted them international attention (Digital Museum of Science and Art).
Jia Zhangke is a frequent patron of independent film festivals. As a famous artistic film director heavily influenced by French New Wave, Jia Zhangke usually portray marginalized people and the cruel side of reality in China with a documentary style. Before his fourth feature film the World permitted to be screened in China in 2004, he was an unknown “underground” director to Chinese audience. No one knew his name or his works; or the fact that his first three films Xiao Wu (1997), Platform (2000) and Unknown Pleasure (2002) (see Fig. 1) had won more
Fig. 1. Jia Zhangke, Poster, Platform 2000
than 8 awards in overseas film festivals including Berlin International Film Festival and Cannes Film Festival; simply because these three were not screened in theatres when they came out, yet they were not entertaining enough to have pirated DVD merchants bothered to make copies. In addition, his first two films were banned, because he submitted them to film festivals without obtaining a license from SARFT (the State Administration of Radio Film and Television).
In comparison, Zhang Yimou is now more of a commercial film director than an artistic director he used to be in his early career. He was the first one to explore oversea market through film festivals with his first film Red Sorghum (1988) that won Golden Bear Award in Berlin International Film Festival in 1988. The film, with its provocative sexual insinuation, was controversial but lucky to be screened (see Fig. 2). With the acknowledgment from overseas film critics ever since then, Zhang Yimou gradually took the first director chair in China.
Fig. 2. (Left) Jiang Wen, Still from Film, Red Sorghum 1988
As we can see from experiences of these two directors, international film festival can be a springboard for Chinese filmmakers to launch at a broader market where they harvest both reputation and profits. With repression from film censorship, filmmakers seek for a place where their voice can be heard and their creativity can spread without boundary. Film festivals that favor independent films become just what they look for as a matter of course.
A filmmaker’s enthusiasm to tell a story to the public should be the reason that initials his or her work. However, because filmmaking is such an elaborate and collaborate process that takes labor and expenses, and its payoff is not as stable as any office work, it is hard for a production company to avoid taking the film’s future perspective into consideration before any decision is made. Therefore, making a film is usually not based on a filmmaker’s solely passion and his or her eagerness to express. As a business practice, filmmaking needs to be a combination of artists’ intuitive passion and also the critical thinking about the overall film market.
Let us take a look at Lou Ye’s political epic Summer Palace that was banned in 2006 after the production was complete, as it best presents the conflict of film censorship and filmmakers’ intent. Told through a narrative way as the heroine Yu Hong reads her dairy, the love story depict her entanglement with her college lover Zhou Wei. With no progressive plot, the film portrays people’s emotions underneath the great time period of the late 1980s, especially focusing on the Tian’anmen Squre Event on June 4th, 1989.
It is not hard to understand the reason why the Chinese government is not fond of this film. Summer Palace approaches the two college students’ confusion and fluctuated political belief through massive scenes of explicit sex and nudity, in expression of their anxiety, repression and rebellion in political chaos. Other than this, the love triangle among Yu Hong, Zhou Wei and another girl Li Ti is based on sexual relationship, and it is bold enough to provoke moral judgment. Another factor is that it is the first and only film retrieves the Tian’anmen Squre in a realistic and expressionist style carried out through individual emotion. It takes the audience on a journey so intimate, astonishing and striking (see Fig 3). The purpose for banning this
Fig. 3 (Right). Lou Ye, Still From Film, Summer Palace 2006
film can possibly be preventing the issue of Tian’anmen Square Event to be openly discussed, as it would smear images of the Communist Party.
Having been working in the Chinese film industry, Lou Ye is very familiar with regulations for censorship. He had already known the problem his film would raise as soon as the idea was born. But he and his production team’s determination to carry it out indeed require courage. In the Summer Palace DVD, distributed in America, Lou Ye and Summer Palace’s producer An Nai clearly states her initial reason for producing this film,
“I think filmmaking begins deep within our hearts and dreams, and that’s the most important thing of filmmaking. What happens to the movie afterwards, whether it will rock the box office, win awards at film festivals, or be penalized, is not of primary concern when we first embark on this process. All we can worry about is to present to the audience an entertaining and outstanding film.
“Some things happened in 1989, and they are being slowly forgotten. But some memories will always persist in some people. And these memories will come into play again some day. That’s the way things are. People need to know the history, especially young people. (Summer Palace, Interview)”
From their point of view, all they expect to acquire from the movie they have made is a chance to conceive, and an opportunity to have their perspectives realized by the audience. Lou Ye and his production group retain such passion of filmmaking and primarily aim at the purpose of expressing themselves and transmitting message to the audience. It is indeed encouraging and appraisable to the audience and other fellow filmmakers. Nevertheless, their confession leads to an essential question, if they do care about their audiences that much, how can they present a film to the audience if it is banned? The Tian’anmen Square Event is already controversial in western world; the ones who lack of the historical knowledge are the Chinese people, “especially young people”, as Lou Ye points out. But their intent fails, or could only effect on people other than their target audience, and could raise confusion and misinterpretation for people who are not familiar with the history; if the majority of the audiences are still western moviegoers, or if the Chinese audience cannot see this film. Taking a closer look at this banned film, things may not be as simple as it seem. One significant detail seems to be ignored by the public.
Director Lou Ye submitted his film to Cannes before and without obtaining permit from the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT), when it is evidently stated in the file “Rule No.1. SARFT the 20th Order” newly issued on December 1, 2003, that all film production companies attempting to participate in oversea film festivals must have their films censored by the SARFT and to obtain a ‘Film Screening License’ no later than a month before the festival” (SARFT Official Website, par 1). It is also indicated in rule No. 3 that no films will be allowed to participate in any kind of film festival without ‘Film Screening License’ Any violation will receive punishment according to ‘Film Management Order’ (SARFT Official Website, par 1-10). As a matter of fact, while Lou Ye and his cast were walking on the red carpet in Cannes, rumor said that Summer Palace’s film copy at the festival would be withdrawn by the Chinese government due to his violation of submitting it to the festival without a license. He responded to the media, “I’m really happy that the festival has chosen my movie this year. We (are trying) to send it to the Film Bureau as soon as possible” (Landreth, par 4). Lou Ye’s ignorance about the notice of violation was astonishing. The film was eventually screened at the Cannes Film Festival, although unfortunately, it did not receive any award. The violation notice was imposed on director Lou Ye and producer An Nai in September 2006, four months after the Cannes Film Festival. The ban prohibited Summer Palace from screening and distributing in China, and it also prohibited Lou Ye and An Nai from making films in five years (Summer Palace, Interview).
The Chinese government’s punishment for Lou Ye and An Nai seems like disfranchisement indeed. However, censorship in Chinese cinema, being as the way it is, seems difficult to alter due to the peculiar national conditions. Therefore, we may not argue the value of the institutional regulations because of our limited ability to amend these regulations. But, being a citizen in this country represents the obligations to obey institutional regulations. Failed to fulfill the obligation, Lou Ye, as well as the producer An Nai, were punished for a legitimate reason. It may be morally wrong for the SARFT to ban a film that merely contains sensitive political content, but it is legally wrong for a citizen to ignore constitutional principles in such a disregarding manner. Artists are no difference than people of any other occupation in the society. As a matter of fact, they should have a better ability to choose a better way to propose or demonstrate their unsatisfactory to the government rather than directly confronting and defying the law.
Critically speaking, Summer Palace is a remarkable piece. It recreates a period that is so authentic that it resonates with many people who share the memory. The unspoken, hazy and dazzling feeling of uncertainty and confusion shrouded by the great time period can not be better portrayed through the documented-like colors, handheld camera and the amazing performance given by Hao Lei and Guo Xiaodong. Long tracking shots seem to be Lou Ye’s favorite; and he masters them beautifully. All these cinematic languages capture the extraordinary sensitivity of what it feels like to be young in a time of sexual and political experimentation (see Fig. 4). Yu
Fig. 4 (Right). Lou Ye, Still From Film, Summer Palace 2006
Hong’s dairy is an essential approach to the historical event and it gives direct access to a young mind responding to the breakout of the event. Along with her love life and other trivia, the event walks into her life almost quietly, but life altering at the same time. However, sadly, the worldwide attention of Summer Palace is not attributed to the film’s excellences, but its controversy. There is a lot more to explore in the movie in terms of its theatricality and cinematic techniques. But the spotlight on the fact “it was banned by the Chinese government” dimmed the actual contribution Lou Ye made in this film (see Fig. 5). On the other critical perspective, its congested sex scenes and the heroine’s constant depression throughout the film reject audiences,
Fig. 5 (Top). Lou Ye, Cover of the American Distributed Version, Summer Palace 2006
Fig. 6 (Button). Lou Ye, French Version Poster, Summer Palace, 2006
especially young audiences who are surpassingly the target audience, from relating to the characters and the overall film(see Fig. 6) (About Summer Palace and the Very Subjective Review, par 3).
If take look at Lou Ye’s list of works, we would be surprised to find that he already seems to be on the black list of SARFT. His first film Weekend Lover (1995) was not screened in China due to its disqualification of the small scale of production. After that, in the year of 2000, his second film Suzhou River was sent to the International Film Festival Rotterdam and won the Tiger Award without obtaining license before submission (WIKIPEDIA). Lou Ye has one violation in his record. However, he again challenges the film censorship with great certainty. “Film censorship is not a new problem,” says Lou Ye, “This is the second time I’ve been punished by the film censors. I understand that there could be political problems. It’s not much about the story itself; it’s the timing. The historical background of this story involves certain tensity of time, such as 1989, June 4th event. (Summer Palace, Interview)”It is surprising to see that six years later, Lou Ye tripped at the same place again for Summer Palace. This should be something Lou expected to happen.
Many of Chinese famous directors have been banned to some extend in their careers for submitting their films to foreign film festivals without permission form SARFT. Jiang Wen, one of the most talented and famed Chinese actors and directors, also submitted his allegory about Japanese’s invasion during World War II Enemies At the Doorstep to Cannes Film Festival in 2000. It was not screened for its sensitive political issue and strong violence and gore; and also banned for submitting to Cannes without a permit (see Fig. 7, Fig 8) (XHBY.NET). Jiang Wen
Fig. 7 (Left). Jiang Wen, Still from Film, Enemies At the Doorstep 2002
Fig. 8 (Button). Jiang Wen, Still from Film, Enemies At the Doorstep 2002
was banned for making film for seven years due to this violation. Interestingly enough, Fang Li, one of the co-producers of Summer Palace was again banned for his new film Lost In Beijing in 2007 (XHBY.NET). All these facts happened recently has become a trend that provokes suspicion as the audience cannot help doubting these filmmakers’ primary intent: are they really trying to express themselves through all obstacles from the Chinese government, or are they just trying to success in the film business and being too ignored about the fact that their films don’t have audience?
More people have realized the importance of advertisement. “Banned by the Chinese Government” has now become the best commercial slogan. “Some might say it has even lent them a certain cachet – international art house distribs sometimes joke that nothing sells a Chinese film better overseas than a ‘Banned in China’ sticker on the DVD” (Jones, par 8). Jones seizes the actual problem in Chinese cinema. Chinese cinema censorship has gained a bad reputation around the world; therefore, people would like to see what the government has done to those talented artists. Also with the psychological fact that some moviegoers seek novelty, a lot of films today capture the chance to attract audiences by advertising themselves to be controversial, and to be taboo. Therefore, it does not matter if a film is banned in China, because if Sundance does not favor it, there is always Cannes, Berlin International Film Festival, Venice Film Festival, Montreal World Film Festival, San Sebastian International Film Festivals and a lot of places the film can turn to. Only if it touches on taboo, controversial political issues, or in the case of recent Chinese cinema, portrays the brutality and scandal in the Communist Party. It is the sad fact artists have to face. But what is important to them is to remain the consciousness for filmmaking, that they are making the films to be screened, and if the films do not get to be screened and conceived by audiences, there is no point in making it.
Nevertheless, five years is not a short period of time in a filmmaker’s career. Being prohibited from making films for five years should not be something Lou Ye and other filmmakers is expecting. Five years without hearing from a talented director could also be the lost of moviegoers who favor his films. Their intention for filmmaking indeed involves their passion about the topic. Therefore, in stead of experimenting themselves to push the boundary of censorship as a sacrifice, as artists, they do need to consider more about the audience, the way we approach this topic, and the market of whether audience will be able to see it before they make the film; because essentially, artists make films to be seen by spectators, not the films that go to their own collection. In addition, as another question could be raised, can these ‘underground filmmakers’ and their works still be appreciated if they are not constrained? Some of their works are indeed remarkable pieces, but they are normally decadent, narrow and dispirited like the heroine in Summer Palace, which may seem to be compelling to a minority of the people, not the majority of the audiences, because of a lack of greatness in humanity. That makes them the “underground filmmakers”, who are controversial, but can never be well acclaimed by the public. In this increasingly competitive era in film industry, they need to work hard to a point where their eagerness of expression and the audiences’ reception meet, to upgrade their works. It does not mean that they to become the mainstream, but they need to have more listeners when they speak.
It is definitely possible that there are more political schemes and plots behind the curtain other than the ones suggested in this essay. However, whatever the censorship may turn to be like, if the essential motivations for a filmmaker to make a film is to convey a message to a wide range of audience (assuming the filmmaker’s desire is to target as many audiences as possible, because it would benefit the filmmakers both in fame and in financial success), the smart way to a filmmaker to success should be finding a point to approach the issue that can pass the censorship following legal procedure. It is not a matter of compromising to the administration. Nevertheless, regulation does require filmmakers to excel beyond solely their personal need to express, and also to fulfill both aesthetic and commercial functions of a film.
Works Cited
Smoodin, Eric Loren. Regarding Frank Capra. Duke University Press, 2004.
GOOGLE search engine. Key Word “樯内开花樯外”. Trans. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=樯内开花樯外香+电影&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= Apr 7, 2009
Digital Museum of Science and Art. “World-renowned Chinese Films Chart.” Trans. http://www.e-museum.com.cn/dmsa/entertain/movie/78653.shtml Apr 5, 2009
Summer Palace. Dir. Lou Ye. Perf. Hao Lei, Guo Xiaodong. 2006. DVD. Laurel Films, Dream Factory, Rosem Films, Fantasy Pictures, 2006.
The State Administration of Radio Film and Television Official Website. “Notice About Mainland China Films Participating in Overseas Film Festivals (Including Hong Kong and Taiwan District).” Trans. http://www.chinasarft.gov.cn/articles/2007/09/08/20070908142934840921.html Apr 4, 2009. Sep 8, 2007, 14:42.
Jones, Arthur. “’Banned Filmmaker’ Is A Relative Term.” Variety. Feb 8, 2007: Paragraph 8.
Internet Movie Database (IMDB). “Award for Zhang Ke Jia.” Apr 5, 2009. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0422605/awards
Landreth, Jonathan. “’Palace’ producers challenge Beijing censors.” The Hollywood Reporter. Apr 6, 2009. Apr 22, 2006. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384372
Pei, San. “About Banning Summer Palace and the Very Subjective Review.” Mtime, Film Review. Trans. http://www.mtime.com/group/filmov/discussion/174812/ Apr 6, 2009. Mar 8, 2008, 15:43.
WIKIPEDIA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ye Apr 6, 2009
Xin Hua Newspaper and Press. “Lost In Beijing Banned, Producer Banned Filmmaking For Two Years.” http://news.xhby.net/system/2008/01/05/010179983.shtml Trans. Apr 7, 2009. Jan 5, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment