By: Michael WENG
IV. Questions on the standards adopted
Even though China has become much more welcoming with foreign and joint production films, the fundamental sensitivity will always be there no matter. As a general principle, any form of anti-Chinese or demeaning Chinese themes are unlikely to receive approvals from Chinese authorities. This standard is applicable to both Chinese and foreign directors. A domestic film Devils on the Doorstep by a famous Chinese director Jiang Wen was banned because the movie portrayed too much of the stupidity, ignorance, and servility of the Chinese farmers during the time of the Japanese invasion wars (instead of the heroic acts of the people). In a Hong Kong invested 1994 co-production movie To Live, the characters portrayed the course of three generations in a peasant’s family under the wave of Communist revolutions. The movie is banned in China because it is critical of the government and its activities during the years after 1949 and effects on the poor and powerless. The original production and follow-up revisions of the movie No Man’s Land were reviewed by the Content Review Committee of SARFT for over four years before the final release was approved in 2013. The main reason is because the authorities noted that all the characters in the original movie are terribly bad guys (including the policemen), thus would portray a negative image for Chinese in general.
Nevertheless, the standard for cutting and censoring films outlined by existing laws is deemed incomprehensive. A lot of plots or symbols in the films are too arbitrary to define one way or another. For example, when the rules say not to “insult”, say, the public security department, does it really mean we could not even joke about the policemen? Moreover, it is no secret that the reviewing panels themselves often have disagreements regarding to specific genres of films, so the uncertainty with censorship is definitely what worries all filmmakers in and outside of China.
The good news for the foreign and joint production films is that they are more likely to receive leniencies from Chinese review authorities. For instance, a few months prior to the 2008 summer Olympic Games, the authorities issue clarification guidelines that request deletion of scenes that include “ghosts and monsters, wronged spirits and other inhuman portrayals”, and as a result, all ghosts themed movie are generally prohibited in China to date even though these restrictions were officially lifted in late 2010. The exceptions include the House That Never Dies, a joint production ghost themed movie with Hong Kong movie director and actors, and the Haunted Road, a Chinese-Korean co-production of a ghost-based horror story; both movies were released in China in 2014. Another example is in 2011, the Chinese authority issued guideline warned audio-visual producers to avoid dramas employing time travel, for the fears that such scenes will promote feudalism, superstition, fatalism and reincarnation. However, the Looper, a Hollywood production in 2012, focused on the exact time travel theme, was able to be imported and released in China with only a few minor edits.
In addition, for Sino-Foreign co-productions especially, the Chinese government seems to focus as much on the cultural involvement as on content appropriateness. The Deputy Director of SARFT, Mr. Zhang Piming once suggested that a genuine co-production should include more of the Chinese actors and/or Chinese cultural elements. Those that take one or two Chinese actors as supporting roles and rely mostly on the traditional model shouldn’t be encouraged as co-productions. The cultural fusion that advertises for the Chinese culture and Chinese ideology, for instance, is also important for the Chinese government to keep up its welcoming attitude.
V. Penalties
Per the Film Management Rules of PRC, when any entity produces films in China with the forbidden contents in previous section, or distributes and shows films in China with knowledge of forbidden content involvement, criminal charges will be pressed against such entity according to the Chinese Criminal Law. If a criminal case cannot be established, the authorities will confiscate the film and the profits of the film. The entity will be demanded suspension and readjustment. If the illegal profit is over RMB 50,000, there will be a fine from 5 to 10 times the profit; if the profit is less than r RMB 50,000, the fine will be from RMB 200,000 to RMB 500,000.
For individuals, the legal representative of entities that are suspended will also be suspended from conducting film businesses. Such is the case with Mr. Jiang Wen, the director for the Devils on the Doorstep, was suspended from directorship for 5 years for illegally entering the film into Venice International Film Festival.
As to foreigners, in addition to the above mentioned penalties, when foreign investors independently produce films in Mainland China, all materials will be confiscated and there will be a fine from RMB 300,000 to RMB 500,000.
VI. The past, now and future of content regulations
It is difficult to define a clear position for Chinese movie content review system. Is it a continuation of series of political revolutions, a part of the Chinese culture tradition and mainstream ideology, or is it generally in line with the standard of the rest of the world on how the people should be screened of what they perceive. In the first half of 20th century, when the Chinese nationalist party was in charge, the nationalist’s movie censorship committee, the first censorship committee in contemporary Chinese history was established as early as in 1931. The general public then was in general agreement with censorship of imported foreign films, mainly because Chinese patriotism was the key of the era. For instance, the Paramount film Welcome Danger took a big hit in Chinese society for its “insulting contents” toward Chinese. A similar example was The Good Earth, adapted from Pearl Buck’s Nobel-winning novel. Because some part of the original novel may be viewed as a humiliation to China’s poverty, or a poor reflection of Chinese people, the movie producing company MGM then even agreed to allow Chinese supervisors to supervise the production of the film. MGM eventually cut many scenes of the original movie in order to pass Chinese censorship committee’s review.
After the liberation and the founding of the new People’s Republic in 1949, there was always a sense of looming from the Western world as China was chasing after a much industrialized and stronger world. The movie censorship committee under SARFT was founded in 1982, a time again when China was facing the choice of opening up or reserving in, and when the Chinese society was evolving and struggling with massive cultural and economic changes. Therefore the regulations on films at that time can be described as more on the ideology and the culture side—a preservation of the socialist ideology, the national ideals, the customs and traditions of the Chinese. It is probably true that the mainland ideology at that time was more conservative than today and political wave from the culture-revolution era still maintains significance, and as a result, some of good quality movies in China then failed to pass SARFT’s content review.
However, it would be wrong to jump to conclusions that the content regulations are only a Chinese phenomenon. In order to pass rating authorities’ review in US, for instance, it is not uncommon for Hollywood directors and writers to rewrite and remake speeches and punch lines of actors and actresses, and to edit certain scenes. Further, political and culture sensitivity is hardly a Chinese thing, and different countries have different standards. China has many films that cannot be publicly released in Japan. Lu Chuan’s famous 2009 movie Nanking! Nanking! (City of Life and Death) simply cannot be publically shown in Japanese theatres because of its descriptions of Nanjing massacre, according to many Japanese are too fabricated and fictitious. Take another example, Mr. Liu Cixin, the recent Hugo Award winner for his famous science fiction book Three Body Problem, explained that in order for his book to be published in U.S., he and his English translator had to do lots of works to rewrite parts of his original works published in China to water down the so called “sexual discrimination”. For instance Mr. Liu was very confused that the US editor of his book requested him to limit the number of times he uses “purity” and “angelic” to describe female characters, and he cannot use the word like “beauty” to refer to the female UN Secretary character in his fiction.
The times have changed again and China has become much more developed and confident, and thus more open with foreign and especially western ideology. Therefore, from content regulations perspective, instead of passively forbidding and restricting movies with wrong and inappropriate contents, the Chinese regulators shall also consider the means and ways to guide the movie producers and directors to make movies in the directions that are more consistent with Chinese ideology and culture. For imported movies in China, China has established a quota system that only allows certain numbers of imported movies to be shown in Chinese theatre each year. The result of such quota system is that the blockbuster type of Hollywood movies dominates the imported movie market. This is not ideal. In fact, there are many good quality content appropriate foreign films. Using an example, last year’s A Women in Gold, a movie introduced a heart-breaking story of the struggle of a Jewish lady who seeks to regain a world famous painting of her aunt plundered by the Nazis during World War II. The restitution theme of the movie would clearly echo China’s efforts to recover China’s own stolen art treasures. As a result, China should establish a system that allows these types of good quality movies to be exempted from the rigid quota system. The message will be clear, if Chinese directors in the past are used to produce good movies to suit for western taste for western market, then it is nothing wrong to encourage foreign directors and producers to be more Chinese ideology and culture friendly to access to Chinese market. Using guidance measures jointly with restrictive methods, maybe a better result for all parties can be achieved.
