Beijing Film Academy Yearbook 2017

Preface

Initiated by Mark Lewis, Managing Director of Intellect and Professor Wu Guanping, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Beijing Film Acacademy, this is the third publication of the Beijing Film Academy Yearbook project, as part of the Intellect China Library series.

What this particular project aims to do, is in a hope to enhance a cross-cultural academic conversation on the research on cinema, through introducing the latest research on cinema by Chinese scholars to Intellect’s readers. Any academic translation project is not easy, our BFA Yearbook in English is still learning and developing. As an annual practice, articles are selected at the end of each year by the Beijing Film Academy Yearbook editorial board, they are then translated and compiled into a volume in English. The only regret we have of this project is its slight delay in publication; each Yearbook is approximately one year behind the materials’ original release, due to the process of translation, editorial and production. However, this is a necessary period, from the series editor and the publisher’s point of view, in order to ensure its quality.

Indeed, some of the contents in these Yearbooks are more like a piece of criticism rather than a style which follows a standard peer-reviewed article. What these translated materials can offer to scholars who work in English-language academia, however, is their domestic insights, opinions, commentaries, industrial updates which will open many new opportunities and ideas toward the research of Chinese cinema and cinema in general. It is the belief of the Intellect China Library series, that only through translating outstanding research and writing by Chinese scholars into English, may we achieve a cross-cultural intellectual dialogue and mutual understanding. Beijing Film Academy Yearbook is only at the beginning of this ambition, and the wider project.

Beijing Film Academy Yearbook 2017 would not have been possible without the commitment of Wentao Ma, translator of this volume; Katie Evans and Jessica Lovett from Intellect, production managers of this project; Aleksandra Szumlas, designer of the book cover; and finally Beijing Film Academy, for their trust and faith in Intellect to deliver their academic voices to the globe on their behalf.

Chapter 1

Discussion Panel on the Survival of Film Festivals and Arthouse Cinema Exhibitions in China

Wu Guanping, Zhang Xianmin, Sha Dan and Yang Cheng

Wu Guanping (hereafter referred to as Wu): When considering Chinese art cinema in the past, we primarily focused on making a case for its existence, and on how to make a space for its survival. However, the recent change in the status of the Chinese film industry has altered the attitude of arthouse filmmakers. The issue of survival has subtly progressed to the question of arthouse cinema exhibition. Today, film exhibition ranges from regular screenings at the China Film Archive in Beijing, to more specialized curation at commercial cinema chains. Will these changes motivate a diverse model for Chinese cinema exhibition in the future? And how would this affect the development of Chinese arthouse films and the dynamics of Chinese film festivals and exhibitions? We will also discuss the multiple exhibition spaces provided by the film festival and the issues that have arisen as a result of changes in modern forms of communication. Professors Zhang Xianmin, Sha Dan, Yang Cheng and I would also like to offer some insights into the commitment of the Beijing Film Academy to continue to organize film festivals and curate film exhibitions in China. Let us now begin our discussion around these topics.

Zhang Xianmin (hereafter referred to as Zhang): Generally speaking, there are two perspectives that dominate the topic of film festivals and exhibitions in China: the horizontal perspective and the vertical perspective. In my opinion, horizontally, commercial cinema is always globalized, perhaps the only regionality is through its representation of ethnicities and nations. However, when it comes to this type of representation, it does not necessarily have to be a commercial model, nor must it have a direct relationship with globalization.

Hence, arthouse cinema in some European countries is not intended to make a profit, but endowed with certain ideas on the freedom to promote cultural difference. We are also aware that the Academy Awards (aka the Oscars), the most important award ceremony in Hollywood, is not a film festival but a commercially driven forum. In the specific context of China, there is also the horizontal integration of national politics in film to consider.

The integration of national politics in film is reflected in the government regulation of the Shanghai International Film Festival (SIFF). Obstacles arise when certain provincial governments or large corporations attempt to establish regional film festivals, such as the Wanda corporation’s involvement with the Qingdao International Film Festival. Political integration in film is beset with conflicts, so I very much doubt the assertion that film festivals and exhibitions contribute to political integration. To most political leaders, the larger a festival is, the more it should be included in the commercial tendency of globalization. In this sense, horizontal integration, no matter whether it is led by Hollywood or another political or commercial power, does not tolerate any form of multiplicity or diversity.

Consequently, does the share and dispersion of power shift, considering cultural awareness relies on the greater vision of government? Or does it rely on the value of film itself in the specific context of China? In my opinion, there are two types of horizontal integration: the first is commercial globalization and the second is the intensification of political power.

Vertically speaking, we need a more complex system in order to evaluate the complexity of film itself. And such complex system should be starting from an historical perspective. However, there is currently only one evaluation system, which is the box office. The period between 1910 and 1950 was a golden age of cinema in China, but the box office served as the only standard of evaluation; today, the situation is more complicated.

The culture of film criticism was introduced in the decades following 1950, which can be referred to as the second phase of Chinese cinema, when film magazines such as Cahiers du Cinéma (French) and Kine Jun (Japanese) were distributed in China. They included both film reviews and critical reflection on film theory more generally.

The third phase of Chinese cinema’s development covers the past thirty years and was initiated by the advent of the film festival in China, whose evaluative function is more complex than box office revenue and film criticism. At the same time, it is also difficult to articulate the complexity or core of a film festival in China due to the unique social and political situation. If we consider the film festival from this perspective, the traditional system (or first phase) of evaluation – the box office – is the simplest. The second phase includes film criticism, which will guide an audience in its way of viewing. The third phase treats the film festival as an integrated system for further evaluation. The system of evaluation could vary among specific individuals, but I am trying to weigh in from the perspective of the general public. The film festival is a major exhibition of film, but also a system of critical review. The questions that arise are: Should the film industry do away with the film festival? Does the film festival matter more than it should? I often cast such doubts on whether we have exhausted the functionality of the film festival, but I think these questions are unavoidable. What system should we use as a substitute?

In light of the history of cinema, which now spans more than 110 years, the film festival is still blooming, since we have yet to devise a more complex system of evaluation. Therefore, in the context of contemporary China, we must persevere with the film festival and attempt to match our own vision to its specifications, even if we are not satisfied. This discussion is not necessarily opposed to the film industry and criticism of it, and we even have to work with both sectors sometimes, but conflicts will inevitably occur as film festivals continue to develop. As a result, the system of film evaluation has become even more complicated.

Sha Dan (hereafter referred to as Sha): Due to my background as a film historian, inspired by my research experience, I believe that we need to present the results of our research on film history to the wider public in a more accessible way through the popular platform of the film festival. During the past few years, I have not worked professionally at the China Film Archive but have positioned myself between research and practice. Sometimes, I think that the articles I wrote when I was studying for my MA were more analytical, as I liked to quote from different theories and apply different methodologies. In comparison, my current writings have become more sentimental, and are written in a more common language.

Within such an unusual political context as China, when we talk about film festivals nowadays, especially how certain government-appointed film festivals have developed into their current state, we need to take the macro social condition and historical background into account. During the Republican era (1912–49), critics often referred to the liaison between film and the film festival. Examples that demonstrate this link include the early documentary Spring of Farmers (Huang 1935), which won the Third Prize at the International Competition of Rural Cinema in Brussels, Belgium; and Song of the Fisherman (Cai 1934), which was honoured at the Moscow International Film Festival. Debates continue within film academia regarding whether this particular honour was a proper film award or not; however, the example of Song of the Fisherman may inspire us to consider the following issue: the interaction between early Chinese films and international film festivals, as the details remain unclear to many.

During the era of Republican China, most Chinese films were aligned with the commercial model, therefore they were not included for consideration in the selection processes of international film awards and festivals. Occasionally, certain Chinese films were included in the programmes of international film festivals in response to factors outside of cinema, such as politics or culture. For instance, film submissions from China to the Soviet Union were very much encouraged, and this was due to the improvement of the diplomatic relationship between the two countries. At the beginning of the 1930s, however, diplomacy began to collapse as a result of the Zhongdong railway incident in 1929 and the Mukden incident in 1931. During that sensitive time, Song of the Fisherman was in a position to culturally ease bilateral diplomacy. A large volume of news coverage and relevant documentaries that have been preserved at the China Film Archive are testament to the significance of this film. However, I would argue that the Chinese film industry during the Republican era in fact did not realize the functional relationship between film festivals and the film industry.

From the 1950s onwards, the situation changed to some extent. If we look at the archival materials, we notice that some film magazines and newspapers began to publish advertisements and news on such events as ‘special film week’, organized in China by organizations from other socialist countries; evidence shows that even some left-wing Japanese organizations held a number of public screening events in China. Likewise, we also submitted our films to festivals taking place in other socialist countries and won several awards. To this day, these interactions remain rarely examined in Chinese film history research.

The three major film festivals in Europe – Berlin Film Festival, Cannes Film Festival and Venice Film Festival – were already very active at that time. In order to compete with them, the Soviet Union attempted to expand their film industry alongside its socialist allies. Therefore, from the mid-1960s onwards, the Soviet Union held an Asian–African Film Festival in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, as a way to communicate with its allies in the Third World sphere; the film festival was therefore set up with a certain political agenda. Within the capitalist western system, apart from film festivals designed for the more powerful countries, there were also film festivals specifically designed to promote films from Third World countries and regions. At the same time, the socialist allies of the Soviet Union were as also keen to promote these film festivals, but sadly, China had already alienated itself from the world during that period, and we never participated in festivals such as the Asian–African Film Festival. However, there were of course the Golden Horse Awards in Taiwan, and the Asia-Pacific Film Awards in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, which featured Chinese-language cinema during the Cold War.

We all know that Linda Lin Dai was honoured with the Best Actress Award four times at the Asia-Pacific Film Awards (1957, 19 58, 1961, 1962), as a mixed outcome of both industry appraisals and in response to the ongoing political climate at the time. In my opinion, the end of the Cold War was when China began to put effort into returning to the international scene, and this changing attitude coincided with the revival of political and cultural communication with western society, which witnessed western film festivals honouring films by the Fourth and Fifth Generation Chinese directors.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the Shanghai International Film Festival was launched and Oliver Stone – an American leftist filmmaker at that time who later became a patron of Chinese cinema – was invited to attend. At this time, Chinese cinema was experiencing difficulties after the government launched the ‘No. 3 Document’ in 1990 as an initiative to implement marketization and commercialism in Chinese society. Shortly afterwards, the government restarted another round of ideological reform and regulation. The emergence of the Shanghai International Film Festival in 1993 was one result of the government initiative. At that time, Deng Xiaoping had just completed his visit to the south of China for his political and economic reform initiative. Thus, the establishment of the Shanghai International Film Festival can be considered a positive attempt at returning Chinese cinema to the sphere of global cinema.

Nowadays, we are witnessing a growing intimacy between film culture and industrial policy, and film festivals have become a point of interest for the state government, and this has motivated the emergence of the Beijing International Film Festival (BIFF). As the ‘Eastern Hollywood’, Beijing’s significant position in the international film industry is undeniable. As the most important city in the Chinese film industry, Beijing has already replaced Hong Kong to become the ‘Eastern Hollywood’, while it is, indeed, at the same time, the centre of national culture and ideology. For this reason, it is important to implement a balance between the industry and the dominant discourse of culture. Therefore, in my opinion, BIFF is a ‘public film festival’ – its focus isn’t solely on the value of film art, but its wider sociopolitical importance and the need to commercially support the growing film industry, as initiated by the government. Considering recent debates around the competition of BIFF, I think it would bring negative results to the festival if we cancelled the film award system. However, if we consider this matter purely from the international positioning of the film festival, perhaps the impact of cancelling the award system is not so great after all. Due to the quota system of Chinese cinema, we are not able to attain the opportunity of world premiere for some cinematic masterpieces, even if we have a large domestic market. Because of this, the Beijing International Film Festival may be seen as similar as the Hong Kong International Film Festival, the Busan International Film Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival, to serve as an indicator for its local market and a cinephile carnival.

Nevertheless, it is still worthwhile to determine how much industrial power could be produced from the interplay between Chinese films and foreign film markets. You may discover alternative possibilities of film distribution in this process other than only releasing them at commercial cinemas in the major cities. These alternatives include subscription-based online streaming services, which would alter the economy of the film industry as determined by its quota system, as well as the Chinese television industry’s purchase of foreign films for the mainstream market. Regardless of whether we’re considering the Internet, television or other online platforms, they each offer films from all over the world, which has increased the sales and exposure of international films in China. In this respect, this ‘public film festival’ operating in both Beijing and Shanghai today generate enormous value for the industry.

Yang Cheng (hereafter referred to as Yang): In my view, the relationship between a film festival and its function in promoting a certain political ideology is increasingly insignificant nowadays. In fact, the value of film festivals is declining in several areas: its cultural value, its critical function and the exploration of film aesthetics.

On the contrary, the marketization of the film festival has lent it the air of a commodity fair or trade fair; this is closely linked to communication technology in film. Unlike music and books, film was harder to distribute during the celluloid era; it was only at a film festival that one could watch a variety of films. Despite this, the value of the festival has been reduced today when one can watch a French film in China on one’s laptop, but the marketability of the film festival is being recognized.

I recall a speech delivered by a government official at the opening ceremony of the Beijing International Film Festival the year before last, which centered on the idea of the film festival as a window onto commercial exchange. The recent cessation of the film award system at the festival certainly demonstrated further its commercialization.

I believe this is also the case at other major film festivals around the world, where the festival is evaluated by its film trade performance. The Venice Film Festival is the oldest example but it is the weakest when it comes to film trade and its influence is waning. The Berlin Film Festival is relatively better.