Box-office bullies
Before the premiere of the Curse of the Golden Flower last year, the film's producer signed an exclusive contract with a digital cinema chain to ensure Zhang Yimou's epic would be the only film screened for a month. Producers of other blockbusters sign similar contracts, however the period of exclusive screening usually lasted a week or two.
The decision triggered a war of words between the big names of Chinese cinema.
Poly Bona Films, distributor of Hong Kong-Chinese mainland joint venture Confession of Pain (Shang Cheng), an obvious rival to the Curse were outraged. In an open letter to media, Yu Dong, president of Poly Bona Films said the Curse "bullied others in the trade and forcibly occupied the market"
Jia Zhangke was in the center of controversy over his art house movie Still Life. File photos |
He said China's digital cinema chain was subordinate to the China Film Group Corporation, one of the distributors of the Curse. But at the time Curse signed the contract, Confession had not yet fixed its premiere date.
As Yu explained, the Chinese Government set up the digital cinema chain to protect domestic films. A digital copy costs about 100 yuan ($13), while a film copy cost 10,000 yuan ($1,282). So the establishment of the digital cinema chain makes it much easier for small budget films to make their way to audiences.
Yu said the chain, which is supposed to promote all Chinese films, was now serving only one and called it an "tyrannical contract".
Staff from New Picture hit back, saying Yu was cooking up a story to deliberately invoke hostility toward the Curse. The production company said the contract was a facet of free marketing, which every cinema employed. Cinemas had the right to choose any film they wished, in the effort to attract the biggest audiences.
The digital cinema chain supported the claim.
The dispute ended on December 29 two weeks after the Curse's screening both in the regular and digital cinema chains Confession entered the digital cinema chain.
Yu was pleased, but still insisted "the Curse was bullying others in the trade and forcibly occupies the market."
"I am uttering a voice for this industry," he said.
According to Zhang Hongsen from the Administration of Film, cinemas had the right to choose the films they think will make more money.
"While Confession's promotion wasn't making enough headway, the Curse had already successfully made itself widely known," he said. "So it is totally a facet of market behavior."
He denied the administration played any role in the arrangement of the two films' screening times. "We never pave the way for blockbusters, and we never block the roads for medium and small budget films," he said.
Hope for art house
Filmmakers of medium and small budget films aren't the only ones with something to say about the big movies. When Jia Zhangke, signature figure of China's art film directors, declared he would put his Golden Lion winner Still Life (San Xia Hao Ren) an art house film with an 8 million yuan ($1 million) investment head to head with the Curse, which cost $44 million, people know something eye-catching will happen.
As many predicted, cinemas gave most of their screens to the Curse, leaving only a few halls and morning and dawn time for the art house.
Box-office sales for Still Life, reached 2 million yuan ($250,000) by December 29, 2006, while the Curse had raked in 240 million yuan ($30 million) before January 1.
The wrangling between the two flicks began with Jia's comment about China's blockbusters.
He said the Chinese film industry "was fortressed by the fanfare of mega commercial films".
"We are bombarded by too many films in the name of gold," he said. "China's screen is lacking the ability to think, which is very pathetic, because this will only make people's spiritual life duller and make them unable to form judgments about films."
Zhang Weiping, producer of the Curse, fired back saying that Jia's Golden Lion was rigged.
He said the Venice Film Festival director Marco Muller invested in Jia's award winner, and the two manipulated the awarding process in Venice last year.
In an open letter to the media, Jia urged Zhang to provide evidence to prove Marco Muller had invested in Still Life. He said there was no scandal behind his victory in Venice, and Marco Muller was not an investor of his film. Muller was shocked by the allegations and said he had an agreement with the festival not to invest in any film before his term concluded in 2008. The skirmish fizzled out without suit. There were reports that the Administration of Film intervened to resolve the matter, however the administration's president Tong Gang denied this.
Co-vice-president Zhang Hongsen said the quarrel was unnecessary. He said the Chinese film market was still not large enough to accommodate various styles of film.
"The two directors are just too eager to win in the box office," he said.
He suggested academic discussions, which could be a more appropriate forum for dialogue about films.
Zhang Pimin, co-vice-president of the administration, believes the establishment of an art film cinema chain was a priority.
He said this has been on the administration's agenda, but it still needs time to find investors, management talent and enough films.
"We need to provide more space for more kinds of Chinese films," he said.
(China Daily 01/11/2007 page18)
