|
Bryan Stumpf's China Journal |
||
|
Shanghai Movie
Scene Tomorrow, Yaping and I are traveling to Tibet. I consider this trip to be the finale of all my China trips. Two weeks ago, we were cruising down the Yangtze River. Two weeks before that, we were climbing Yellow Mountain. But the Tibet trip is the main reason I stayed in China for six extra weeks – I could have left at the end of June, after I handed in Final Grades, like the rest of the American foreign language teachers. The Tibet trip will also be the most dangerous of our trips since there’s the risk of altitude sickness. But we’re taking all the necessary precautions, and we’re traveling with experts in Tibet travel. Before I write about any more trips, I wanted to write one journal about the odd, frustrating, yet ultimately enjoyable experience of watching movies in China. I’ve seen about six movies so far – one Chinese, two British, and three American. The Chinese movie, of course, had English subtitles. The British and American movies were not dubbed in Chinese - though that would have been pretty funny to see – instead, they had Chinese subtitles. The most frustrating part about watching American movies in China is the waiting period. It usually takes about half a year for American movies to reach Chinese multiplexes. However, two American summer movies, “The Day After Tomorrow” and “Troy,” actually opened in Shanghai at almost the same time they opened in America. After the openings of “Troy” and “Tomorrow,” I anticipated the arrival of more American summer movies. I hoped that maybe “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” would be the next American imports. And then I read in the Chinese newspapers that there was a possibility that both “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” would open in July. But then, soon afterward, it was announced that their release dates would be delayed indefinitely. The reason for the delay: Chinese movie distributors wanted to release the highly anticipated Chinese movie “House of Flying Daggers” in July. And they wanted this Chinese movie to have free reign in all movie theatres across China for the entire month. And they didn’t want “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” drawing audiences away. So last weekend, I decided I had to check out “House of Flying Daggers.” Fortunately, Shanghai is such an international city, Yaping and I were able to find a screening that had English subtitles. One of the main characters of “Daggers” is played by Zhang Ziyi, who some may know from “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Rush Hour 2.” The two other main characters are played by the Chinese actor, Andy Lau, and the Japanese actor, Takeshi Kaneshiro. All three are very famous throughout Asia. Andy Lau started out as a singer, but then he started doing movies. I’ve discovered actors and singers are seemingly interchangeable in Asia. Jackie Chan has released a few albums, all of which have sold in the millions. And Yaping has mentioned many other Asian actors who also sing, and Asian singers who also act. The movie was directed by the internationally renowned Chinese director Yimou Zhang. His films aren’t like the action-fueled sagas of John Woo, the Chinese director of “Face/Off” and “Mission: Impossible 2.” And his movies aren’t like the culture-hopping set pieces of Ang Lee, the Chinese director of “Sense and Sensibility,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Hulk.” Zhang’s films are often more intimate and more solidly rooted in Chinese history and culture. Most importantly, Zhang has avoided immigrating to Hollywood. “House of Flying Daggers” is set during the decline of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) and rebel armies are rising up against the emperor. Ziyi Zhang plays Mei, a member of the rebel group named the Flying Daggers. It should come as no surprise that the group is known for their proficiency in throwing daggers. Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro are secret agents working for the emperor. Both try to fool Mei into leading them to the House of Flying Daggers. Eventually, double-crossing occurs and, of course, there’s the inevitable love triangle. The main draw of “Daggers,” however, will be the fight scenes. Since director Zhang has mostly directed melodramas, I assumed the kung fu wouldn’t mix well with the dramatic material. But not only do the fight sequences blend seamlessly with the drama, they raise the bar of martial arts battle previously set by “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” Zhang actually outdoes Ang Lee – the bamboo forest fight scene in “Daggers” makes the bamboo forest fight scene in “Crouching Tiger” look like little shoving match. In fact, it looks like Zhang may have borrowed the fight choreographer from “The Matrix” for many of the fight scenes. Since I’ve referenced “Crouching Tiger” and “The Matrix”, you’ve probably already guessed that the characters in “Daggers” are somehow ordained with the ability to fly when the fight. Another draw will be Zhang’s impressive cinematography. He’s become world renowned for his use of color. In “Daggers,” he demonstrates again how he uses the natural environment - pastures filled with the green of spring, forests filled with fall foliage - to accentuate the emotions of the characters. Despite “Daggers’” appealing aspects, the reviews from Chinese movie critics have been mixed - the Chinese are often the harshest critics of their own movies. Though international audiences have always applauded Zhang’s efforts, his most recent films have been panned in China. To me, it seems the Chinese critics are too critical of the digressive plot of “Daggers.” The plot does have a few tangents, but the digressions serve to deepen the characterizations. And you need to let the plot idle long enough for the fight sequences. By the way, I’ve found out that a lot of Chinese saw nothing special about “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” After catching some Chinese TV shows, I can understand why. Practically, every TV show in China is a kung fu melodrama. So I can imagine why the Chinese would have a “been there, done that” reaction to “Crouching Tiger.” As for my own opinion about “Daggers,” I did have a few small quibbles. I know I am looking at the movie through my own cultural perspective, but when the laws of gravity inexplicably cease to exist, I lose all emotional connection to the story. When daggers can fly in right angles, we’re in a universe where anything can happen. The characters cease to be real living, breathing people. I accepted the flying in “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” because Ang Lee’s story had a mythical subtext. His narrative was populated with ghosts and witches. But in “Daggers,” there is no mythical subtext – all the characters are just a regular folks living in the Tang Dynasty. So if the laws of gravity don’t exist in “Daggers,” why should I care whether characters live or die? Why couldn’t characters rise from the dead at the director's whim? As it turns out, that is exactly what happens with one of the characters at the end of the movie. Just when you are sure the character has perished, the character sits up and says a few more “last words.” So nothing is really at stake for these characters during fight scenes - we have no emotional connection - all we can do is admire the fight choreography. Another quibble: during the final sword fight, there is set-up for a climactic battle scene between the Flying Daggers and the emperor’s army – but the battle is never shown. We see the army descending upon the House of Flying Daggers. But that’s it. Again, I know I am looking at the movie through my own cultural perspective, but not showing the big battle is like watching an ending to “Empire Strikes Back” that just shows Luke and Darth duking it out and forgets the whole Death Star battle sequence. And if “Daggers” couldn’t show the battle, I’d least like to have seen its outcome. There’s a pretty good chance “House of Flying Daggers” will make it to American shores in the future. If you liked “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” I highly recommend “Daggers.” And even if you didn’t like “Crouching Tiger,” any “Matrix” fan will appreciate “Daggers’” fight scenes. But audiences from every continent will agree that Yimou Zhang’s cinematography is his crowning achievement in “Daggers.” Though foreigners may assume that films are frowned upon by communist China, the government has made major strides in supporting the arts. It’s true that Chinese movie distributors are government-controlled. And it’s true that in following the government’s rules, movies produced in China have to, in some way, be related to Chinese culture. But despite government control, many cities in China have a flourishing arts community, and cities like Shanghai continue to foster artistic growth in the filmmaking industry. Actually, Shanghai has already made an indelible mark in the history of world cinema. During the 30s and 40s, Shanghai was the Hollywood of China. During the 1920s, film technicians from the United States trained Chinese filmmakers in Shanghai, and the American influence continued to be felt there for the next two decades. Many Chinese filmmakers, like Yuan Muzhi, director of “Street Angel” (1937) earned high status in Shanghai’s movie industry. And some Shanghai filmmakers, like Shen Fu director of “Light of Million Hopes” (1948), earned international acclaim. Chinese audiences flocked to see Shanghai-produced movies, and many wanted to be part of the Shanghai cinema limelight. One struggling actress in the Shanghai films, a young woman by the name of Lan Ping, caught the eye of a young revolutionary named Mao Zedong. The two later married and she became instrumental in many of Mao’s communist campaigns. Some say Madame Mao remained bitter over her years as a B-movie actress, and sought her revenge when she helped dictate the nature of politically correct cinema during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Though Shanghai is no longer the booming Hollywood of China it once was, it still hosts several film exhibitions, the most popular being the Shanghai International Film Festival. Originating in 1993, when American director Oliver Stone chaired the jury, the Shanghai International Film Festival was intended to broaden the tastes of Chinese moviegoers. However, many foreign movies were dropped during the selection process because they had sex scenes or they were deemed too political or controversial. In this year’s festival, I saw two foreign films – the Irish film “In America” and the British film “Touching the Void.” The selection process for foreign films shown in Chinese multiplexes is tightly controlled by the government. Only 20 foreign films are shown each year in China. The quota was put in place so that the public wouldn’t be susceptible to corrupting Western influences - of those 20, only about half are from the United States. It’s interesting to see how Chinese distributors and audiences respond to Hollywood movies. Like I said, I’ve seen three American movies since I’ve been here. In watching each movie, I’ve actually learned a little about Chinese culture. I saw “Cold Mountain” on May 9. It had just opened in Shanghai, about seven months after it opened in the states. For my first movie in China, Yaping and I decided to see a morning matinee. Chinese theatres screen movies all day long, from 9am – 11pm. Movies shown in the morning are usually the cheapest – around $2. Afternoon matinee prices are usually around $5, and evening admission prices are usually around $8. The theatre for “Cold Mountain” was very large, had stadium seating, and the seats were very cozy - cozier than most American theatres. Although there are electronic banners flashing warnings about no smoking or littering in the theatre, apparently there are no rules about using cell phones. At one point during the screening of “Cold Mountain,” not only did someone’s cell phone ring, but the owner answered it and proceeded to have a loud, drawn out conversation. Actually, at every movie screening I’ve been to in Shanghai, an audience member has answered his cell phone and talked on it loudly. What’s even more surprising is that no theatre usher or person sitting nearby strangles the cell phone user. But all in all, watching “Cold Mountain” was a thoroughly enjoyable movie-watching experience. I knew a lot about the movie because it garnered some Oscar nominations, and I also read the book the movie is based on. But I was still surprised by classy English actor Jude Law convincingly playing a Confederate soldier. And I was also impressed by Detroit rocker Jack White from the punk group The White Stripes playing a plucky, Southern minstrel. In fact, the whole movie was a pleasant surprise - more moving than I expected, and more closely based on the book than I expected. Though I tend to point out the shortcomings of movies, I just couldn’t look critically at “Cold Mountain.” Regardless of the content of the movie, just watching an American/British movie after living in Shanghai for six weeks was like stepping into a warm bath. I was happy just seeing familiar actors speaking English. For the two hours of the movie, I felt as if I were home. And then we saw “The Day After Tomorrow” on June 4th, about same day it opened in the states. I felt close to home just knowing that American audiences were getting their first glimpse of the movie at the same time I was. This movie felt more American than “Cold Mountain” – mostly because it showed a lot of American cities being pummeled by bad weather and American actors grumbling at the sight of it. Also, it starred Dennis Quaid, who seems to exude American-ness, and Jake Gylenhall, who also starred in that very American movie, “October Sky.” (Yaping mistook Gylenhall for Tobey Maguire. Whenever Gylenhall was on screen, Yaping would say, “It’s the Spiderman! It’s the Spiderman!”) Though being deprived of American movies has probably mellowed my harshness towards Hollywood product, there a few comments I’d like to make about “Tomorrow.” If you haven’t heard about “Tomorrow,” it’s about a dramatic temperature drop in the earth’s climate starting a chain reaction of cataclysmic weather conditions. First of all, I am a sucker for weather calamity. I consider Jack London’s “To Build A Fire” to be one of the great American short stories. And though I didn’t like the movie “Twister,” it was fun watching CGI tornadoes ripping through the heartland. In “Tomorrow,” we get all types of bad weather. And it’s the worst kind of bad weather – the kind that kills half of the earth's population. Director Roland Emmerich’s earlier efforts, “Independence Day” and “Godzilla,” were mired in movie clichés, clunky dialogue, and cardboard cut-out characters. In “Tomorrow,” the director shows he hasn’t made much progress in the character and dialogue department – though the inclusion of the indomitable Ian Holm adds a touch of class to the popcorny proceedings. But concerning his handling of the usual disaster movie clichés - perhaps I’ve become less cynical about Hollywood movies after being out of the country for three months, but I actually did not groan when the homeless man shows the rich kid how to keep warm in cold weather. Perhaps Emmerich has developed a more deft skill in doling out movie clichés. However, he definitely should have scrapped the cancer patient subplot. Usually, Emmerich throws too much excess on the screen - overblown special effects and sprawling doomsday destruction. In “Tomorrow,” it’s more of the same, but the CGI is astonishingly rendered – it’s more realistic and scarier than anything he’s conjured up before. It may sound boring on page, but just wait till you see what a sub-arctic temperature drop can do to a city. In the scene with the wolves that escaped from the zoo, however, you realize that CGI still has a long way to go in rendering convincing mammals. Stock footage of wolves in the Arctic might have been more convincing. Believe it or not, there are a few scenes in the film where Emmerich actually holds back – he abstains from CGI and allows suggestion to do the work. At one point in the tornado sequence, the camera remains focused on a closed door. The way the light seeps in through the frame of the door suggests something terrible has happened behind the door. The sequence is a creative use of light and shadow that even Hitchcock, the master of restraint, might have appreciated. I’m forecasting “Tomorrow” will be this summer’s most political action movie. It’s subtle, but during the quiet moments, you might notice a nice smattering of political satire. My next summer movie in Shanghai was “Troy,” which I saw on June 18th, about three weeks after it opened in the states. As usual, Yaping and I saw the movie at a morning matinee. At our screening, the guy sitting next to Yaping was still a little too sleepy – he snoozed and snored loudly through the whole movie. But it was fun waking him up during the end credits and seeing the look of surprise on his face. However, the man didn’t seem to be too upset that he slept through the movie – maybe “Troy” wasn’t what he expected. The movie wasn’t quite what I expected either. The movie hewed a lot closer to the Homer’s “The Iliad” than I expected, yet it was also more Hollywood than I expected. In Homer’s epic poem, the Greeks wage a war against the Trojans because Paris, the Prince of Troy, runs off with Helen, the wife of Menelaus, the King of Sparta. Menelaus goes to his brother Agamemnon, King of the Mycenaeans, for help. Agamemnon decides to defend the honor of his brother by uniting the tribes of Greece and waging war against Troy. All of these elements remain intact in this big-budget movie version of the story. But in this post-9/11 depiction, Agamemnon also trumps the supposed treachery of Troy as an excuse to attack the foreign nation. Director Wolfgang Peterson wisely chose to make “Troy” a historically accurate depiction of “The Iliad.” Whenever you have characters in togas, there’s a high potential for going camp. Also, in a bold move, he doesn’t choose sides – there are no clearly defined protagonists or antagonists. It really doesn’t matter what side a character is fighting for. Peterson simply presents flawed humans caught up in a war. Before seeing “Troy,” I read a few American reviews of the movie. Many critics blamed David Benioff’s screenplay for the sometimes-stilted dialogue. I actually thought the writing was quite good. I especially liked how characters all seemed to know they were in a Hollywood version of the “The Iliad.” In my opinion, it was the delivery of the dialogue, especially Brad Pitt’s delivery, that makes the writing seem flawed. Though Pitt has the physical presence to fill the role, he employs the same tics and mannerisms that he used in “Fight Club” and “Ocean’s 11.” So with Brad Pitt acting more like Brad Pitt than what we might imagine the mythological Greek hero Achilles would act like, it’s sometimes difficult to take his portrayal of Achilles seriously. But “Troy” also stars the great Peter O’Toole and the talented fresh faces of Orlando Bloom and Eric Bana - all of which portray Trojans. These are great casting choices. However, in a movie in which there isn’t supposed to be a good side or a bad side, I ended up rooting for the Trojans simply because they had the better actors. At the end of the battle, at the end of the movie, (and when it’s time to wake your slumbering neighbor) you are simply left with the futility of war. So in a way, Peterson’s “Troy” is more a political movie than a Greek myth. I just rather it more resemble Greek myth than Hollywood commodity. It was during the screening of “Troy” that I noticed the unmistakable sign of censorship – choppy editing around the sex scenes. I also noticed this choppy editing during a sex scene in “Cold Mountain,” but at that time, I thought maybe it was just a bad print of picture. For an American film buff like myself, censorship can be disappointing. The artistic freedom of the filmmaker, his/her creative vision, has been restricted. And what’s more irritating is the fact that I’m not seeing the same version that was shown in America. And even if you’re not a film buff, it’s very obvious when
a film has been censored – you notice an abrupt and jarring hiccup in the rhythm
and pacing of the movie. Movies are not the only Chinese media subjected to censorship. The Chinese government has been taking great efforts in controlling the Internet. When I surf the Net, I’m denied access to web-sites like CNN.com and TIME.com. And recently in Shanghai, there’ve been a lot of crackdowns on Internet pornography - software companies have been raided and web designers have been arrested. Along with censorship, another concern among the Chinese filmmakers and movie distributors is the rampant piracy of movies. Pirated DVDs are sold everywhere – in retail stores, in alley markets, on street corners. It’s amazing how pirated DVDs of American movies will be available on the streets of Shanghai within days after the movie’s release in the states. I actually bought a few pirated DVDs, just to check out the quality. On a couple of copies, the quality was impressive, but for the most part, it’s pretty obvious someone videotaped a screening of the movie. And the quality copies I bought seem to have an expiration date - although the DVDS worked fine on the first couple of viewings, when I tried to watch them a month later, my DVD player couldn’t play them. And even though the packaging on a DVD may look legitimate, there’s still a good chance that it’s pirated. It’s actually pretty hard to find non-pirated DVDs in China. Even legitimate DVD stores are usually well stocked with pirated DVDs. And there’re no real copyright infringement laws, so there’s very little regulation of pirated DVDs. Once in a while, you’ll hear about someone being arrested for DVD piracy. The arrest of two Americans and four Chinese in Shanghai for DVD piracy made headlines on July 31st. The two Americans were arrested for smuggling several thousands of pirated DVDs out of China every day. But the arrests don’t seem to curb the number of street vendors selling pirated copies. In the weeks before the release of “House of Flying Daggers,” authorities stepped up security to avoid piracy. On the opening night, audiences were searched for video recorders, and movie critics had to sign affidavits swearing their professional legitimacy. Yet despite all their efforts, DVDs of “Daggers” ended up on the streets of Shanghai the next day. Though the DVDs for “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” have been available on the streets, I’m not taking any chances. Besides, if all goes as planned, both movies will be opening in theatres next week. So it looks as if I’ll be able to see “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” in their opening weekends after all …their Chinese opening weekends. Though most people don’t choose to watch movies when visiting a foreign county, I believe checking out a country’s film output provides a window into its culture. China is a country that has much more regulation of its art than United States. What is shown on the movie screen in China is determined by the government, whereas what is shown on the screen in America is determined by public taste. By watching movies in China, you are provided window into the country’s political system, not necessarily the tastes of the movie-going public. The art the Chinese government chooses to honor and the art it chooses to censor can reveal its attitudes and suspicions towards its own citizens. And what the Chinese government deems as corruptive elements in foreign art reveals its attitudes and suspicions towards the outside world. A 20-film quota of foreign films may seem low, but at least China doesn’t shut its doors completely to all foreign elements. If it did, I wouldn’t be here. Hope all remains well on your side of the globe!
|
||