Last year in China could be summed up by the attempts to find an adequate response to a single overriding issue. Since national cinema production opened up to market demands, the most talked-about question is, What does the Chinese public want? What does the ever-growing wealthy and sophisticated population, with internet access (some 550 million users), who also watch films online (363 million people), and even on their cell phones (50 million people), want to see? There are colossal earnings in store for those who find the correct answer. This is, of course, the key concern in any film market which operates according to the logic of supply and demand. But the question has become prominent in debates about the state of the Chinese cinema market after distributors were confused by an unexpected phenomenon that took place at the end of 2012: the success of the relatively low budget comedy Lost in Thailand (Ren zai jiong tu zhi tai jiong), a film which set a historical record for box office takings in China .
The year began with forecasts of further development in the market, following the reasoning which states that films have to be increasingly grandiose, spectacular and expensive, because it is blockbusters which draw the crowds. The deal signed in Hollywood by Xi Jinping shortly before being nominated president of the People’s Republic of China, which followed on from commitments made by China at the World Trade Organisation, has increased the number of films imported on the basis of share-revenues from 20 to 34 (the 14 additional films are in the IMAX or 3-D format). The percentage of box-office takings given over to the distributor has increased from 16 per cent to 25 per cent .
The distributors’ reaction to the deal was immediate: film theatres were flooded with commercial films, most of them from the USA. The first six months registered a record 129 films released overall, an increase of 26 compared to the previous year. Many of them were in 3-D, for which tickets cost on average 50-100 per cent more than for 2-D films. Indeed, some of these had been specifically reformatted for the sole purpose of being distributed in 3-D (one of the first was Painted Skin: The Resurrection by Wuershan, which was distributed both in 2-D and in 3-D) .
The result was inevitable. After a number of years in which Chinese films seemed to hold their own against imported movies, the box office takings for the first six months were considerably skewed: 70 per cent in favour of Western films .
The authorities governing the sector were forced to admit that their national cinema was struggling, as Chinese productions were being crushed in theatres by the American colossi. While budgets for nationally produced films remains high, realistically speaking, it is still tough for Chinese films to compete with ones that have global recognition, and which do not have to face the obstacles put up by the censors, as Chinese productions do .
The responsible authority, SARFT, made an effort, if only temporarily, to make amends, setting aside a so-called “protection of national cinema month”, running from 28 June to 28 July. But the state of affairs did not really improve .
In the meantime, film production continued at an accelerated speed, reaching 893 units during the course of the year. The same goes for the construction of film theatres, which continued incessantly, with the addition of 3,832 screens. That makes for a total of around 13,000 screens in the country. A further 25,000 are planned for the coming five years. There are now a total of 100 IMAX screens in China .
High-level film deals have continued their unstoppable march. Dreamworks has announced the creation of a joint venture in Shanghai for the production of animated films. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see how the next Kung Fu Panda film will be embraced, by critics who stirred up controversy about alleged “appropriation” of a Chinese national-cultural symbol by Hollywood .
Unlike the previous two outings, this one will be produced in Shanghai .
The Bona Film Group – one of the major production and distribution groups – has sold a 20 per cent stake to News Corporation. Dalian Wanda Group has bought the US cinema chain AMC Entertainment for US$2.6 billion dollars, thereby becoming the biggest worldwide group in the sector (and establishing the record for Chinese investment in the USA so far). And James Cameron, whose Avatar and Titanic 3-D reaped huge rewards in China, has announced the founding of a joint-venture with Tianjin North Film Group for the provision of 3-D technology. Even the cinema advertising business reached stratospheric highs, with revenues of 20 billion yuan .
Foreign co-productions increased in both numbers and size. Co-productions with Hong Kong and Taiwan are now so frequent that, in the near future, it is likely that the definition of “Chinese” films will extend to Greater China productions, rather than referring exclusively to films made in mainland China. Bona, Huayi Brothers and other groups in the sector have announced the production of big-budget films, some of which will be made in the English language, and aimed at the international market .
Competition to conquer the Chinese market – which has now become the second biggest in the world, after the USA, and which is predicted to become the biggest by 2020 – has now become so tight, it has even attracted the attention of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC has begun an investigation into possible illicit dealings by American majors to clinch co-production contracts and/or revenue-sharing slots in Chinese film theatres. Even the relevant authorities in China have recently begun to criticize operations surrounding various megaproductions, which attempt to get around the import quota system by trying to pass as co-productions while not actually meeting the conditions required by law .
It is becoming clear that the Chinese market will progressively hold more sway on the global film industry. Films such as Skyfall, Looper, and Iron Man III were partly shot in China in order to more easily access the Chinese market. A high-profile, yet controversial, film such as Cloud Atlas (which took US$27 million in the USA) has so far taken US$21 million in China, despite it being from a genre that is not usually popular in the country. This capitalised on the presence in the film of the actress Zhou Xun .
But in all these frenetic business dealings, what has become of Chinese cinema? Has it been crushed, as previously mentioned, by huge economic interests which bear little relation to the original function of film as a mirror of culture and society? There were not many “important” films last year. Those that did fall into this category had to battle hard at the box office, as they were victims of the cynical logic of distribution, which led to them being released simultaneously, or in the wrong period. As for film genres, action/ adventure remained one of the most popular (44 per cent), followed by romantic stories (15 per cent) and comedies, up two points at nine per cent .
One of the most successful films was the spectacular Painted Skin: The Resurrection (Hua Pi Er) which took a box-office total of 727 million yuan – 300 million of which was earned in the first four days of release .
The black comedy Guns and Roses (Huang Jin Da Jie An), directed by Ning Hao took 157 million yuan. But it could have done better, if it had not been released in April at the same time as many other Chinese films, and just before a slew of films in 3-D. The thriller Mystery (Fu Cheng Mi Shi), directed by Lou Ye – the first film by the controversial director to be approved and distributed in China, after having been at Cannes – posted disappointing results, because its release was extremely limited, and preceded by a lengthy polemic caused by the censor’s requested cuts, and subsequent refusals by the director, who threatened to remove his name from the film’s credits. The historical drama Back to 1942 (Yi Jiu Si Er) by Feng Xiaogang, masochistically released on the same day as another eagerly-anticipated historical drama, Last Supper (Wang De Sheng Yan) by Lu Chuan, earned 371 million yuan. That was not a great deal considering the film cost roughly half that figure. Last Supper didn’t even earn back its production costs, which were around 80 million yuan. In addition, both film were released more or less at the same time as Ang Lee’s Life of Pi, which earned 570 million yuan .
Other films which were examples of quality popular cinema and, despite not achieving encouraging box office results, deserve a special mention, are the drama Feng Shui by Wang Jing, the nostalgic Beijing Flickers (You Zhong) by Zhang Yuan, the police thriller Beijing Blues (Shen Tan Heng Te Zhan) by Gao Qunshu, the thrillers Caught In The Web (Suo Suo) by Chen Kaige and Lethal Hostage (Bian Jing Feng Yun) by Er Cheng, the romantic Full Circle (Fei Yue Lao Ren Yuan) by Zhang Yang, and the black comedies An Inaccurate Memoir (Pi Fu) by Leon Yang and Design of Death (Sha Sheng) by Guan Hu. The film Million Dollar Crocodile (Bai Wan Ju E, released under the moniker Croczilla in the USA), by Lin Lisheng, stood out for being China’s first “monster movie” with an environmental message .
So all things considered, 2012 was a growth year for Chinese cinema. But it was still year plagued by crises .
Even one of the cornerstones of the “renaissance” of national cinema, the partnership between the director Zhang Yimou – one of the only directors able to compete with the Americans in terms of spectacular blockbusters – and his long-term producer Zhang Weiping, broke up in 2012, after 15 years and 11 films. It fell victim to economic interests, which have now taken on mega proportions in the film industry .
A reprieve for Chinese cinema – and perhaps the answer to the question we opened with – came along in December, bringing with it some stability to box office figures, which at the year’s end hit a total of 17 billion yuan, of which 48.5 per cent can be attributed to national productions. This was an overall leap of 30 per cent, compared to the previous year’s tally, in line with trends of the past few years .
What determined this change of course? It’s true that more than 20 Chinese films hit the 100 million yuan mark, that six films took more than 200 million, and that three films exceeded takings of 700 million. But the real dark horse of the year in film in China was a simple little comedy released in December, a film that confounded all expectations. The success of the film Lost in Thailand (Ren Zai Jiong Tu Zhi Tai Jiong) rubbed salt into the wound of everything that is wrong with Chinese cinema – and perhaps answered our initial question. The film took over one billion yuan at the box office, establishing an all-time record for takings in the history of Chinese cinema. It was seen by some 38 million people. How could that be? It was a film that “only” cost 30 million yuan, a simple comedy, by no means spectacular, which tells the tale of three feather-brains on their way to Thailand .
Lost in Thailand is a sort of slapstick comedy which requires little perception to discover a different socialpolitical reading. It’s semi-absurd story without too many plot twists or cameos by stars, something which is in vogue at the moment. Starring three of the most popular character actors in China, Xu Zheng (who also wrote and directed) Wang Baoqiang and Huang Bo, it has been defined as a kind of Chinese-style “Three Stooges”. Xu Zheng, riding the wave of the incredible success of the film, claimed that Lost in Thailand “is more than a film. It’s a cultural phenomenon.” Why? The public has almost certainly been conditioned to want spectacular, action-packed films (as proven by the box office takings of films imported from the USA). But it obviously has an even greater craving for films with popular actors, and with entertaining dialogue: in short, films that they can recognize themselves in. Audiences want films that deal with the lives of today’s new middle classes and which explore the world of material and spiritual wellbeing, a world which is becoming a reality for an increasing number of people in China .
Now, all we can do is sit back and get ready for an influx of imitations of this film, probably produced with mind-blowing speed and with progressively disappointing results. Unfortunately, this appears to be the trend in Chinese cinema in the past few years, carbon copies galore of themes and styles. So, all things considered, the success of Lost in Thailand does not shine a ray of hope for the future of Chinese cinema. Indeed, the film Bring Happiness Home (Kuai Le Dao Jia), another even simpler comedy about the adventures of a lost dog and the race to claim the reward money, has already made more than 100 million yuan since its release in January. This film, which cost 30 million yuan and was criticized for being superficial, absurd and badly acted, has also found favour with the public at large, partly helped by the fact that it stars Xie Na, a famous host from Hunan Television .
Some have made other predictions for the near future: the explosion of the micro-film phenomenon, the production of which already hit 2,000 units in 2012, financed by commercial brands which have discovered a new source of product placement in these brief films made by young directors that are watched on the internet. With these films, and Lost in Thailand, in mind, the moral of this Chinese year of film is that Hollywood success stories do not necessarily need to come from Hollywood: in fact, small may be beautiful after all .
Maria Barbieri