Film Studies in China 2

Selected Writings from Contemporary Cinema 2

Contemporary Cinema (China Film Archive), Chase Coulson Christensen

• Publisher: Intellect Books
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781789381627
• eBook ISBN: 9781789381641
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

Film Studies in China 2 is a collection of selected articles chosen from issues of the journal Contemporary Cinema published throughout the year and translated for an English-speaking audience. As one of the most prestigious academic film studies journals in China, Contemporary Cinema has been active not only in publishing Chinese scholarship for Chinese readers but also in reaching out to academics from across the globe. This anthology hopes to encourage a cross-cultural academic conversation on the fields of Chinese cinema and media studies. Following the successful release of the first volume this is the second collection to be released in the Film Studies in China series.

SECTION II

CULTURE AND AESTHETICS

5. The Internationalization Strategy of Chinese Cinema: Theory and Practice

饶曙光/Rao Shuguang

Part 1: The ‘Hot on the Mainland Cold in Other Lands’ Dichotomy

China has become the world’s second largest film market and the gap with the North American film market is narrowing as we speak. It has changed the pattern of the world film market at a rapid pace of development. In terms of growth, there was a surge of $1.2 billion USD in global box office revenues in 2013, of which the Chinese film market contributed 67%. In 2014, the global movie box office grew by ￥1.6 billion CNY, and the Chinese film market also contributed sizeable gains of 75%; hence, there is no doubt that the Chinese market has become the driving force of growth of global box office (Lei 2015). Chinese film has also established partnerships with ever more countries. By the end of 2014, there were 10 countries that inked co-production film agreements with China, such as China–France, China–South Korea deals. The mainland film market is by all accounts enormous. The sheer growth potential has brought Hollywood film companies and filmmakers out of the woodwork to China seeking to forge partnerships with local production companies.

A retrospective of 2015 reveals that Chinese cinema could be summed up in a single word, perhaps ‘high-octane creativity’ might be apropos, but the most fitting term has certainly become ‘the new norm’ of Chinese film development. Chinese cinema was strong and vital in 2015, regardless of whether it is in terms of growth in the number of screens, number of filmgoers or the box office receipts. In the first three quarters of 2015 (January to September), national box office receipts reached ￥33 billion CNY – higher than 2014’s total box office take of nearly ￥3.4 billion CNY. Of the￥33 billion CNY box office take, made-in-China movies accounted for ￥19.7 billion CNY, for a ratio of close to 60% and a year-on-year increase of 75%. It has truly become the driving force for the increases in the Chinese box office (Changxin and Shungshuang 2015). The summer box office favourite Monster Hunt surpassed the Hollywood blockbusters like The Fast and the Furious 7 and The Avengers 2 with a total box office of ￥2.4 billion CNY. In just seven days of the National Day break, the Chinese box office raked in an estimated￥1.87 billion CNY with the tandem of Lost in Hong Kong, Goodbye Mr. Loser, setting single-day box office, easily besting the previous record set by Monster Hunt. Box office receipts for, Saving Mr. Wu and Chronicles of the Ghostly Tower exceed that of over 90% of the National Day Chinese movies (Xi 2015). High box office films released after the summer season not only had great returns but also won the praise of the media and the audience alike, showing to a certain extent that made-in-China films are commercially and artistically viable, which is a tremendous breakthrough.

All accolades aside, compared with the nearly endless stream of highs and records created in the local market, the progress towards Chinese cinema’s internationalization goalmeets with great difficulties . Not only have Chinese films not performed the same abroad, but there have been the occasional downward trends, forming a hot-and-cold disparity that makes the performance in the two marketplaces just like night and day. Data shows that the outlook for international distribution of Chinese films is pretty bleak. In 2012, a total of 75 Chinese-made films by 31 studios (out of a total of 199) were distributed to 80 countries and regions overseas, with total overseas box office revenue of￥1.06 billion CNY, less than 10% of domestic box office totals, and 48% less than total overseas revenues from the previous year. In 2013, 45 homegrown films (out of 247) found distribution overseas for a total of ￥1.41 billion CNY, an increase of 33.02% over the previous year (2012), but this is still less than total domestic box office receipts. In 2014, the domestic box office take was ￥1.87 billion CNY, compared with 2013. Compared with the year-on-year total of ￥29.6 billion CNY, the overseas revenues account for only 6% of the Mainland box office (Chen 2015). Over the past two years, the box office totals for Chinese films did increase, yet the big is still wide when compared with the increases in film production and film revenues on the Mainland. On the other hand, some of the films that fared well in China are not ideally suited to the North American box office. For example, the North American box office totals for So Young, Lost in Thailand and Let the Bullets Fly were only $9,990, $57,000 and $63,000 respectively (Chen 2015). Of course, there have been many successful examples of recent Chinese films ‘crossing borders’, but careful analysis shows in no uncertain terms that the overseas box office for these films accounts for a large proportion of overall overseas distribution. For example, in 2010, the overseas box office returns for the Chinese-American co-production of The Karate Kid was ￥2.36 billion CNY. The overseas box office for this movie alone accounted for 67% of the total overseas sales of Chinese films (Ying and Jing 2011). Another example is the 2012 Mainland and Hong Kong co-production of The Grandmaster, which broke the box office record for a Chinese language film set three years prior, with a total North America box office take of $65.9 million USD. The revenue generated from this single film constituted 83% of the total box office revenue in the North American film market at the time (Sijian 2014). Moreover, these commercial Chinese martial arts epics are identical in content, structure and presentation, inevitably causing some viewer fatigue in the European and American markets, thus presenting further difficulties for the Chinese films to get out to the international audience.

Corresponds with the Chinese overseas box office, the embarrassment that is the Chinese ‘go global’ strategy, which has amounted to a big, fat cold shoulder given to Chinese films internationally. According to the survey data of the Silver Book: 2013 Annual China Film International Distribution Report compiled by the China Culture International Communications Research Institute of Beijing Normal University, ‘More than half of overseas visitors know little about Chinese movies. Recognition of Chinese directors and actors abroad is low. More than 57% of overseas respondents said they don’t know any international film festivals in China’ (Xiaoxi 2015). Foreign audience perceptions of China still linger at the age-old Oriental mysticism level; foreign audiences still identify with the legendary Chinese Kung Fu movie. They are still only familiar with Kung Fu stars such as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee (Huang Huilin, Feng Jiyao, Bai Xuejing, Yang Zhuofan 2013,). In recent years, especially after 2010, Chinese-language films tended to be deaf, dumb and blind on the international art scene, and there is also a lack of award-winning films that represent the current level of Chinese film development. For example, at the 66th Cannes International Film Festival in 2013, Jia Zhang Ke’s A Touch of Sin failed to take home the big prize; it did however take home the best screenplay award. At the 2014 Venice International Film Festival, Wang XiaoShuai’s hotly anticipated, Red Amnesia was given the big snub. Although some Chinese films have gained traction internationally, such as the 2014 Berlin International Film Festival where Yan YiNan’s Black Coal, Thin Ice took home the Golden Bear for best film and the Silver Bear for Best Actor (for actor Liao Fan), the sporadic winnings fall far below the bar set by the grandeur of Chinese cinema in the 1990s, when Chinese films were so often given the red-carpet treatment at international festivals such as Cannes, Venice and Berlin.

All of this reminds us that for now we should face head-on the unchanging ‘West strong, China weak’ international cultural dynamic, and ‘go global’ dream for Chinese cinema demands the steely diligence to build an internationalization model that can effectively resolve this dilemma. One that is centred around strategic thinking. The construction of internationalization platform is undoubtedly based on the strategic dynamic of foreign cultural exchange under a comprehensive national strategy that promotes the establishment of a new international cultural order that is mutually respectful, inclusive, fair and logical. Undoubtedly, from a cultural perspective, it is impossible to alter the West-strong-China-weak dynamic in short order. We can only gradually expand and enhance our own voice. We should not go into this focused only on short-term gains, but on the long-term and the future. As an integral part of developing our overall core capacity to internationalize, Chinese cinema’s internationalization platform (international communication) must also seek out new thinking, ideas, methods and techniques accordingly.

Part 2: Structural Barriers and the Development of an Internationalization Strategy

Concerted efforts are being made to further the Chinese film ‘crossing borders’, and those efforts have yielded certain results. Though for now, Chinese film globalization is limited to the business dealings of a number of enterprises. The international investment trends of Chinese film and television companies such as WanDa, HuaYi and HuaCe and the export of commercial films remain largely strategic and have not been upgraded to a more open strategic level or the global level to form a new dynamic of Chinese film’s internationalization and create a new dimension for Chinese film’s internationalization.

What cannot be ignored are the structural obstacles and issues that have always existed in internationalization. Some experts believe that overseas demand for Chinese film, especially in the West, is nil. If we agree or acknowledge this viewpoint, we must admit that structural obstacles and contradictions do exist, which cannot be effectively overcome and broken through in a short period of time. At the same time, as the Chinese expert, Professor of the University of Southern California’s Department of Politics, Luo SiDian pointed out, the desire to enter the United States film market is not uniquely Chinese, but it is a desire that every country with a film industry shares in. Then there is the issue of the structural obstacle stemming from the fact that non-English language movies are just going to be regarded as ‘foreign films’ no matter what, forming a nearly impenetrable entry barrier to the mainstream theatres in North America (Shuguang 2011). Even Chinese films that do manage to make it into the mainstream cinemas are faced with a group of unsavvy, close-minded viewers in Europe and the United States who just ‘stroll in to the theatre one day’, and plunk down some cash for a ticket, treating the movie watching experience as a ‘mini vacation’. This is exacerbated by the fact that American movies account for 92% of the total of the current North American film market, while European films account for 6% of the market, leaving a miniscule 2% market share leftover for other countries such as India, Japan, South Korea and China to compete over like dogs fighting over a bone. So, regardless of whether a Chinese film is superior to that of other countries in terms of filmmaking quality, craftsmanship and competitiveness, the fact of the matter is that there is only a 2% share of the North American film market share left over. Even if it were given solely to China, it is still a very limited space for development in the market (Ifeng 2013). In terms of the share of the global film market, in 2014, the global movie box office was $37.5 billion USD, of which the US domestic and overseas film markets totalled $10.3 billion USD and $14.6 billion USD respectively, accounting for 66% of the world market share. China’s domestic box office totalled $2.6 billion US dollars (￥16.155 billion CNY), accounting for 7% of the global market share. Of the remaining 27% (less than $5 billion) of the world’s film market share, ‘internationalized’ Chinese cinema occupies$300 million USD (￥1.87 billion Yuan), with the leftover table scraps thrown to other countries like Japan, South Korea, India, Europe, France and Italy (Yang 2015). The film market shows us, in no uncertain terms, the invincibility of Hollywood’s dominance. With market, capitalization and technological advantages, films from other countries can be marginalized and excluded from the mainstream theatre chains. The difficulty of ‘going international’ is not only a problem faced by Chinese films, but also a common conundrum faced by other countries. Just as Zhou TieDong, a film expert and former general manager of China Film Overseas Promotion Company for many years, said that the internationalization of Chinese film is not just about going toe-to-toe with Hollywood, but it is about winning the battle with the filmed entertainment of nearly every country. And only after winning that battle is it possible to secure a small part of the film market. Therefore, perhaps being the lone resistance fighter against the ‘Hollywood empire’ is just a losing proposition and seeking partnerships and co-productions with Hollywood is ‘the force’ required to make Chinese cinema’s globalization efforts viable (Xiaobo 2015).

At the same time, the fairness and equity of cultural products cannot be fully guaranteed by market behaviour or even by the market itself (Ifeng 2013). In fact, as early as the 1920s, the US government had incorporated Hollywood cinema into its national strategy. In 1927, the powerful Nanking Nationalist regime with countless ties to the United States enabled the United States to put on a display of its strategic design of the Chinese film market. The United States had just launched a market investigation on the makeup of the Chinese film market, especially with respect to the distribution of movie theatres in Shanghai. The report provided a detailed analysis of the viewing habits and aesthetic tastes of Chinese film audiences. In fact, at the US government level, the global promotion of Hollywood movies and the American mainstream values and ideologies contained therein was an important part of American diplomacy. Meaning essentially that the government was and is actively pursuing global cultural hegemony in line with its ‘ascension to power’. These government actions are not carried out in an overt way, but rather covertly hidden behind film market behaviour. Therefore, Hollywood has established a global distribution network with which it shapes audience tastes in Hollywood movies. It is not the result of spontaneous market behaviour (Ifeng 2013).

Unprecedented change in the global dynamic is under way. In the competition between Chinese and American cinema, the two are not only economically competitive, but culturally competitive and even confrontational. Therefore, even if Chinese films found a way to ‘go global’ – by effectively enhancing film’s intercultural expressiveness and fully developing a global commercial distribution pipeline, making it impossible for the United States to exclude Chinese films by market mechanisms – the US government also has other means at its disposal, including political measures, with which to prevent the entry of Chinese films. Moreover, the strategic game between the two major powers, China and the United States, has gradually moved from ‘guerrilla warfare’ to ‘all-out war’. This overall strategic game dynamic determines how the American film market will almost never allow Chinese films a smooth path into the film market, especially those that highlight Chinese memes and Chinese values. We must be clear on this, and we must not be blindly optimistic.

From a long-term strategic perspective, this author has repeatedly called for the transformation of the ‘Chinese Film Cross-Borders Project’ into the ‘Chinese Film International Distribution Strategy’ and promoted it as a national strategy. In the same vein, a strategic, inclusive and diversified evaluation standard and evaluation system for the internationalization of Chinese films should also be established. We must go beyond simple box office numbers, economic interests and other economic indicators. Meaning that we cannot just look at the total box office and sales revenue figures that Chinese movies have generated in overseas markets. We should also consider the overall cultural significance and evaluate whether Chinese films are impactful. Whether overseas distribution expands the influence of Chinese culture on the international level and whether it enhances China’s national image and cultural soft power (Shuguang 2014b). For the internationalization of Chinese films, the soft power in the cultural sense is more important than the box office, and it is more strategic and valuable. Only by thinking about problems from a strategic perspective can we effectively create a new ethic, and a new norm that allows for the internationalization of Chinese films and can cope with the new challenges of globalization.

From the perspective of industrial structure, the book Competitive Strategy published by Michael E. Porter in 1980 suggests that companies need to choose one of three strategies – lower cost, differentiated or focus to gain a competitive advantage. These three strategic models provide an excellent reference for the Chinese film industry to utilize in the development its international distribution strategy. Therefore, before determining the global distribution strategy and international exhibition strategy of Chinese cinematic productions, we should also carefully study Hollywood’s globalization strategies, learn from the successful experience of the United States, identify our market space and target demographics and us...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Section I: Industry
• Section II: Culture and Aesthetics
• Section III: History
• Section IV: Interviews
• Notes on Contributors