Home » Opinion » Chinese Views
Low-brow trash succeeds while better films fail
Print Edition
THE other day I went to see the movie “Brotherhood of Blades.” It was set in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and revolved around the life of three brothers, who worked as assassins for Jin Yi Wei, or imperial palace guards.
They were sent on a mission to kill Wei Zhongxian, a notoriously powerful eunuch who established his personal cult and ruthlessly purged whoever dared to oppose him. Although it has received quite positive feedback from moviegoers, the film didn’t fare well commercially.
On the first day it premiered, it grossed only 8.5 million yuan (US$1.42 million), which was a tiny fraction of top-grossing movies. As of August 13, the box office takings had risen to 57.3 million yuan, but still, the film was a commercial flop compared to hit films that debuted around the same time.
For instance, “The White Haired Witch of Lunar Kingdom,” a film based on ancient Chinese mythology, had easily generated 300 million yuan within just a week of its premiere. And the figure is growing. This is despite the fact that it was fiercely slammed for its lackluster, or indeed, mediocre plot. The film received a mere 4 points on a 10-point scale at douban.com, a major film-rating website. “Brotherhood of Blades” topped 7.7 points.
It is sad that a good film isn’t rewarded with box office sales befitting the buzz it has created. It is even sadder when we contrast the commercial fiasco of “Brotherhood of Blades” with “Tiny Times,” the series of movies composed of “Tiny Times 1.0,” “Tiny Times 2.0” and “Tiny Times 3.0.” The series was adapted from the works of Guo Jingming, a frivolous fiction writer who was once accused and convicted of plagiarism but grew to become the richest Chinese writer, with a personal wealth of over 700 million yuan.
The triology of “Tiny Times,” directed by Guo himself, was basically a vanity fair-style story about a handful of young people in pursuit of an egregiously luxurious lifestyle. It is a tribute to unabashed materialism, something abhorred in the mainstream opinion today.
Yet it is likewise a resounding commercial success. The trilogy earned a staggering 1.3 billion in aggregate box office sales. And there will be another sequel, “Tiny Times 4.0,” scheduled for perhaps next year.
What’s cinema for?
While the commercial success of “Tiny Times” can be ascribed in big part to the huge following of fans Guo has, it raises a deeply disturbing question: What do we go to the cinema for?
Do we go just because a film like “Tiny Times,” however it insults our intelligence and corrupts social mores, is what everybody seems to be talking about and following the trend is a fashionable thing to do?
It is true that cinema exists mainly for entertaining the masses, but it has another role, which is often forgotten but equally important — education. Movies are cultural products with values. These values, not always correct and sometimes downright wrong and annoying, like “Tiny Times,” are likely to be picked up and internalized by young, innocent minds who perceive movies as a window on the real world. The materialistic, pernicious values touted in “Tiny Times” could inspire the behavior of immature movie-goers and lead them astray.
Chinese cinema has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, with box office receipts surging to a record 21.8 billion yuan in 2013, second only to the US market. But behind its facade of prosperity often lies spiritual emptiness, artistic banality and half-baked storylines. Such contrast is well demonstrated by the chronic shortage of competitive Chinese contenders, and winners, of world-class awards at famous film festivals, such as those held in Venice, Berlin or Cannes — let alone a coveted Oscar.
While Chinese films are often also-rans in major film festivals abroad, they have to cope with the challenge from Hollywood blockbusters in the meantime.
Under market pressure to turn a profit, many domestic filmmakers choose to compromise the artistic quality of their works in exchange for lucrative “kitsch” that panders to the crass tastes of the audience.
As unwitting accomplices, Chinese moviegoers are not entirely without blame.
In going to the cinema to support low-brow trash, we are indulging in some filmmakers and movie producers’ zeal to churn out a lot more.
Of course, appreciation or taste is a very personal thing, and we cannot force people to accept films they find boring or unattractive, such as “Brotherhood of Blades.” But it should dawn on our cultural censors that they ought to review more critically big-budget movies that make a travesty of values we hold dear, and preferably, stop them from hitting the big screen.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
