|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Film was invented
at the end of the 19th century in a number of
Western capitalist countries as a result of certain
technological developments. Though China had a long history
of civilisation, it was comparatively underdeveloped in
economic and technological terms at that time: in fact,
Western civilisation was launching an all-out challenge to
Chinese civilisation when film was introduced into China. On
the one hand, the military, economic, political and cultural
expansions of the imperialist powers put China in a position
of great crisis. On the other hand, the coming of Western
civilisation marked an historical turn in Chinese people's
understanding of domestic China as well as the outside
world. Ultimately, it provided a strong stimulus to the
development of Chinese civilisation, which had long been at
a standstill. At the end of the 19th century,
then, the Chinese were changing their stance towards Western
civilisation, from total rejection to a more ambivalent
attitude. Film, as another achievement of Western
civilisation, happened to arrive in China at this very
moment. Like their attitude towards many other Western
things, historical conditions determined the mixed feelings
of the Chinese about film. Meanwhile, the unique social
conditions of China determined both their way of film
screening and the way Chinese philosophy responded to
film. Film was
introduced into China from the West on 11 August
1896.[1]
What is interesting about the arrival of cinema in China is
the manner in which the Chinese discussed and defined this
apparently new invention. The Chinese called film
dianguang yingxi (electric light shadow play) which
involved the use of the modifier "electric light" to
differentiate the new form from the traditional Chinese
shadow play. The term "electric light shadow play" even
appeared in the earliest film review in China which can be
traced today.[2]
This usage indicates that in China the cinema was regarded,
to a certain degree, as having a connection with a
traditional Chinese art form. [1]
See the advertisement for Xuyuan Garden in Shenbao,
10 August 1896. [2]
See anonymous, "Notes of viewing shadow play",
Recreation (Youxi bao) 74 (1897). This phenomenon,
to my understanding, revealed two aspects of the Chinese
attitude towards film. Firstly, the Chinese generally
underestimated the importance of science and technology and
therefore did not probe into the essence of film from the
perspective of science and technology. It does not mean that
the Chinese were so careless as to confuse film with the
traditional Chinese shadow play: it was pointed out that
"the similarity between film and shadow play is really so
little... We should never claim credit for
it."[3]
However, the general tendency of the Chinese to classify
film as shadow play meant that up to the 1940s people still
believed that there was a certain connection between the
traditional Chinese shadow play and film: [3]
Anonymous, "The teaching material of Changming corresponding
film school", Screen review (Yinmu pinglun) 1,
no. 1 (1926): n.p. [4]
Jing Yi, "Chinese shadow play five hundred years ago",
Popular film news (Dazhong ying xun) 2, no.
16 (1941): 542. In fact, this
Chinese attitude towards film as a technological mechanism
led to their indifferent attitude towards techniques of film
expression. Chinese cinema before the 1920s made very slow
progress and the most important reason was the lack of
talent in the fields of film technology and film
creation.[5]
Therefore, the Chinese, first of all, did not treat film as
a new art form which could develop its own techniques of
expression. On the contrary, they simply looked at it as a
tool to record another art form, similar to the traditional
Chinese shadow play which displayed stories from traditional
Chinese operas. In 1905, the Chinese started to make their
own films and all of the seven films which were made in that
year were opera films.[6]
For those films, opera was the essence while "film" was only
the means of recording it: "the interest of Lumières
was to film the boundless universe... while
Méliès was keen to create a dreamlike world
through trick effects... By comparison, the earliest Chinese
cinema only intended to be a means of record of another art
form".[7]
Here, "another art form" means Beijing opera. Since the
Chinese simply treated film as a recorder of a traditional
Chinese art form, they consequently paid little attention to
the techniques of film expression. [5]
See Luo Luo, "Production and personnel training",
Entertainment weekly (Kuaile zhoukan) 2, no.
18 (1929): n.p. [6]
See Wang Yue's "The cradle of Chinese cinema", Film and
television culture (Ying shi wenhua) 1 (1988):
295-301. [7]
Ma Junxiang, "The oblique startling line of Chinese cinema",
Film art (Dianying yishu) 1 (1990):
6-21. When the Chinese
called film "shadow play", the emphasis was placed on "play"
rather than on "shadow". This, in fact, revealed a unique
Chinese conception about art. A contemporary Chinese film
critic, Luo Yijun, discusses the issue as
follows: [8]
Luo Yijun, "The cultural tradition and Chinese film theory",
Film art 4 (1992): 20-30. Luo's explanation
of this Chinese conception shows us, from another
perspective, how the Chinese ignored the differences between
different art forms, or how the Chinese regarded content as
more important than art form. This initial conception in
fact affected Chinese filmmaking for a long time. As Chen
Xihe points out: [9]
Chen Xihe, "Shadowplay: Chinese aesthetics and philosophical
and cultural fundamentals", in George S. Semsel, Xia Hong
and Hou Jianping, (eds), Chinese film theory: a
guide to the new era (Praeger, New York, 1990)
192-204. Therefore, when
the European filmmakers in the 1920s were busy exploring the
potentialities of film as a new medium, their Chinese
counterparts did not show much enthusiasm for developing a
"language" which specifically belonged to film. Secondly, naming
film as "shadow play" showed the ambivalent attitude of
Chinese as a nation towards Western civilisation and, at the
same time, indicated the attempt of the Chinese to convert
cinema into an indigenous Chinese art form. The evidence
which can support my argument is that the Chinese did not
start their filmmaking by modelling on foreign films; on the
contrary, they gained their inspiration, like the
traditional Chinese shadow play, from traditional Chinese
opera. In addition to this, the aim of many early Chinese
filmmakers was unanimously "to display the merits of the
Chinese nation" through film, though they were actually
quite hazy about the technological mechanism and techniques
of expression of film.[10]
To regard film, a foreign art form, as "shadow play", made
it relatively easy for the Chinese to treat their film
undertaking as a national cause. [10]
See anonymous, "The first signs of an improvement in Chinese
film undertaking", Shenbao, 11 August
1922. Partha Chatterjee
points out that what he calls "anticolonial nationalism"
consisted of: [11]
Partha Chatterjee, The nation and its fragments: colonial
and postcolonial histories (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1993) 5. The attitude of
the Chinese towards film was slightly different from
Chatterjee's theory. On the one hand, the Chinese, to a
certain degree, realised the superiority of film to the
traditional Chinese shadow play in technological terms,
though they did not openly admire this Western technological
invention. On the other hand, they attached great importance
to the spiritual domain: the expression of Chinese cultural
identity. It was on the spiritual level that the Chinese
attitude towards film conformed to Chatterjee's
theory. Film screening in
China first started in teahouses. According to one film
history, nearly all early film screenings in Shanghai took
place in teahouses,[12]
and in Beijing and Hong Kong screening conditions were
generally similar.[13]
I believe that there was one thing which accounted for this
phenomenon: because film was called shadow play, it was
situated in appropriate places for "play", that is, in
teahouses, which were one of the most important places of
recreation in Chinese society and had long been the sites
where traditional Chinese operas were
performed.[14] [12]
Cheng Jihua, Li Shaobai and Xing Zuwen, The history of
development of Chinese cinema, (Beijing: China Film
Press, 1981), 8-9. [13]
See Xiao "The development of the film enterprise in Beijing"
(Film weekly 1 [1921]: n.p.) and Yu Muyun
Anecdotes of Hong Kong cinema (Hong Kong:
Guangjiaojing Publishing House, 1985: 5). [14]
Wong Minhua, Chinese opera (Shanghai: Shanghai
ancient book publishing house, 1996), 18. However, this
situation in fact did not last long and teahouses did not
officially become movie theatres. Starting from the
beginning of the 20th century, movie theatres
were constructed in the coastal areas such as in Shanghai,
Hong Kong and Taiwan. Film screening then gradually
separated itself from teahouses and became an important
recreational and commercial activity.[15]
Besides some other reasons such as the development of
separate film exhibition venues, I think this separation
between film screening and teahouse was because of the
contradiction between the different natures of film and
opera. The traditional Chinese opera is a highly stylised
art and is "first of all based on a conception that opera is
artificial".[16]
This characteristic of opera was in sharp contrast to film,
which was thought to be highly "realistic" in its nature.
Therefore, it seemed quite incompatible for film and opera
to appear together in teahouses. Those opera fans who
enjoyed stylised performance of opera might watch films out
of curiosity for a short period of time, but film must move
out from teahouses if it wanted to attract a larger
audience. However, if we consider the fact that the first
Chinese films were opera films, we find that there was
indeed a complicated bond between film and opera. The
initial examples of opera films were meant to extend the
influence of Beijing opera and to let more people have an
opportunity to watch the wonderful performances of
well-known actors.[17]
But, after their initial attempt, the Chinese did not
produce many more opera films because they realised the
incompatibility of the two art forms.[18]
Therefore, the relationship between film and Chinese opera,
to a certain degree, determined the development of early
film screening in China. [15]
Li Suyuan and Hu Jubin, Chinese silent film history
(Beijing: China Film Press, 1996), 17-18. [16]
Wong Minhua, 98. [17]
Wang Yue, 299. [18]
There have been many writings in China relating to the
incompatibility between film and Chinese opera such as Mei
Lanfang's My life in the film world (Beijing: China
Film Press, 1962). It was especially
true in Beijing and other parts of northern China. In
Beijing, the supreme headquarters of Beijing opera, "the
only recreational places were opera theatres" at the
beginning of the 20th century.[19]
In another northern city, Tianjin, "there was only one movie
theatre up to 1915 while there were numerous opera theatres
by that time."[20]
It was pointed out that people there "loved Beijing opera
more than film. Therefore, film could not compete with
opera."[21]
This conflict between opera and film, to a certain extent,
reflected the conflict between traditional Chinese culture
and Western culture since the interior of northern China
received relatively less Western influence than did southern
China. However, this phenomenon gradually changed. Starting
from the early 1920s, "many opera theatres in Tianjin closed
down because the business was slack. On the contrary, film
exhibition was growing more and more prosperous... because
people in Tianjin had shifted their attention from
traditional opera to film."[22] [19]
Shen Ziyi, "Film in Beijing", Film monthly
(Dianying yuebao) 6 (1928): n.p. [20]
Ku Sheng, "The conditions of the recent film exhibition in
Tianjin", Film journal (Dianying zazhi) 3
(1924): n.p. [21]
Xiao, "The development of film enterprise in
Beijing". [22]
Ku Sheng, "The conditions of the recent film exhibition in
Tianjin". It can be
inferred that opera was so popular before the coming of film
simply because there was no other art form which could
challenge it. However, this supremacy of opera had gradually
been threatened by the introduction and spread of film. "The
disadvantage of opera is its repetition of performance... By
comparison, things in films are changeable and look
real."[23]
To examine other reasons for the popularity of film, Guan
Ji'an pointed out that: [23]
Wu Tiesheng, "The advantages of film", Film weekly 1
(1921): n.p. [24]
Guan Ji'an, "Changes after film is imported into China",
Shadow play journal (Yingxi zazhi) 1 (1922):
n.p. By comparison
with northern China, the conflict between film and opera in
southern China was not as intense as Northern China. Beijing
opera and other types of Chinese opera were also popular in
southern China, but film exhibition developed rapidly there
because of its geographic position and earlier opening to
the outside world. For example, Shanghai, one of the
earliest trading cities in China, was quite open to the West
and people there were ready to accept new things and ideas.
For instance, a Spaniard, A. Ramos came to Shanghai in 1903
to start his film exhibition "with dozens of reels of old
and incomplete films... Within about ten years, Ramos became
the owner of seven movie theatres and a
millionaire."[25]
From the experience of this Spaniard, we can imagine the
popularity of film screening in Shanghai. Film screening in
Kwangtung and Hong Kong also developed quickly because
"these areas were coastal areas which had received more
Western influences."[26] [25]
Zhou Jianyun, "The prospect of Chinese cinema", Film
monthly 5 (1928): n.p. [26]
Zheng Junli, "A brief history of modern Chinese cinema", in
China Film Archive, (ed), Chinese silent film
(Beijing: China Film Press, 1996) 1385-1432. It was
originally published in The history of development of
modern Chinese arts (Shanghai: Shanghai Liangyou
Publishing and Printing Company, 1936): n.p. In general, film
and Chinese opera clashed with each other when film was
first introduced into China. The result of this clash was
that the exhibition of film expanded while Chinese opera
managed to remain popular to a lesser degree. After that,
film exhibition and opera performance each developed along
its own way. In addition to this, there were a few
filmmakers (such as Fei Mu) who attempted to produce
cinematised operas and meanwhile to "graft" techniques of
expression of Chinese opera into the creation of feature
films.[27]
These later attempts and efforts made by the Chinese
filmmakers indicated that film and opera could finally
benefit from each other. [27]
For Fei Mu's film activities, see Huang Ailing (ed), Poet
director Fei Mu, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Film Critics
Society, 1998). Gunning calls the
conception of cinema before 1906 "the cinema of attraction"
which: [28]
Tom Gunning, "The cinema of attraction - early film, its
spectator and the avant-garde", Wide angle 8, nos.
3-4 (Fall, 1986): 63-70. Chinese viewers
of these films were not only attracted by this realistic
illusion, but were extremely astonished by the
"truthfulness" of film. "It is lifelike... Viewers have the
feeling of being in beautiful scenery without having enough
time to see everything."[29]
The exceptional astonishment of Chinese audience towards
film was the result of their acceptance of various
traditional Chinese art forms as aimed at being fictitious
rather than real in appearance - an aesthetic which
constituted a basic difference between Western and Chinese
conceptions of art. For example, "the traditional Chinese
opera never takes presenting true life as its
mission."[30]
Therefore, it can be inferred that Chinese film audiences
which had been used to these traditional Chinese art forms
might be surprised by the "lifelike" nature of
film. [29]
See the advertisement for Western films in Shenbao,
27 July 1897. [30]
Weng Minhua, 105. However, Chinese
viewers' understanding of film did not remain at the level
of the apparent similarity between film and reality. From
the earliest Chinese film review, we find the Chinese
audience trying to see through the appearance of film to get
at its essence: [31]
Anonymous, "Notes of viewing American shadow
plays". By commenting on
the changeable and incredible aspects of film, the author
expresses his views about human life and even the universe,
rather than his interest in the technological mechanism of
cinema and techniques of film expression. In this sense, it
seemed that the Chinese tried to find the identity of film
and the traditional Chinese art forms through their
"essential common aspect" by ignoring the mechanism and
techniques of film. It again shows that the Chinese did not
pay much attention to the objective knowledge of cinema.
Instead, they "paid more attention to the expression of
subjective feelings and social functions of
art."[32] [32]
Luo Yijun, "The cultural tradition and Chinese film
theory". Thus, we find
that Chinese conditions did not completely conform to
Gunning's "attraction" theory: the Chinese were not simply
attracted by the illusory power of early cinema, but tried
to rationally grasp the essence of cinema in ideological
terms. Moreover, as Luo Yijun points out: "this feature of
the earliest Chinese film review indicated the future
development of Chinese film theory."[33]
The authors of film reviews generally remained at the level
of commenting on films' ideologies and expressing their
purely subjective feelings about films. It was stated in the
1920s that "when we read film reviews in newspapers, we find
that there are a very few reviews which show authors'
knowledge about film; by contrast, most of them are simply
free talks."[34] [33]
Luo Yijun, "The cultural tradition and Chinese film
theory". [34]
Cao Yuankai, "The qualifications a film critic should have",
Film journal 2 (1924): n.p. For example, what
was expressed in the first Chinese film review was the
famous idea of "life is but a dream" which was held by an
ancient Chinese philosopher, Chuangtze [Zhuangzi].
Therefore, though this earliest film review was only
fragmentary thoughts about films, it did contain a
philosophic response to film. Instead of expressing surprise
and curiosity about techniques of film expression, what the
author poured out was his thoughts about the relationship
between film and human life, and even the relationship
between film and dream. Considering the fact that early
films were merely the record of daily scenes, the author's
perception of film was quite prescient. It was on this
ideological basis, then, that early Chinese film theory was
established. As Hu Ke pointed out: "early Chinese film
theory was generally simple compared with the Western
theory. However, its exposition of the relationship between
film and society was not inferior and was quite unique in
its portrayal of film theory."[35]
Chen Xihe and Zhong Dafeng also suggest that Chinese film
theory laid its stress on "the relationships between film
and the times, film and society, film and the people and
film and politics. It is a kind of function-aesthetics,
taking the ethical and political spirit as its
core."[36]
Therefore, early Chinese perception of cinema in film
reviews conformed to the Chinese definition of film as
shadow play, that is, the Chinese regarded content as more
important than aesthetics. [35] Hu Ke,
"Theory about the relationship between film and society in
China in the 1920s", Film art 1 (1996):
14-19. [36] Chen Xihe
and Zhong Dafeng, "Chinese film theory", Film and
television culture 1 (1988): 302-308. The introduction
of film into China had close links to the background of the
economic expansion of the Western capitalist powers at the
end of 19th century. It was also the result of
the Western cultural influence. Since China had long cut off
itself from the outside world, the Chinese people's attitude
towards film, the most foreign art form, was complicated and
was determined by historical conditions. The Chinese did not
greatly admire this Western invention, but they accepted it,
tried to understand it and to use it according to their own
social and aesthetic conceptions. What is more important is
that, as Zheng Junli pointed out in 1936, "the import of
film gave the Chinese people, who generally received little
education, an impression of the outside world which was in
progress."[37] [37]
Zheng Junli, "A brief history of Chinese cinema"
3137 words
Abstract
| Printer
version
1. Naming film
"yingxi"
Shadow
play is a very special kind of play. Though it is
different from today's shadow play [film], they
are really similar if we consider the fact that they both
use the principle of light projection. What we should
keep in mind is that five hundred years earlier before
the invention of film in the West, this kind of motion
shadow play, which used light to project images on
screen, already existed in China.[4]
According
to the Chinese cultural conception, all art forms
using figures, shapes and continuous action belong to
the category of play. As for issues concerning
essential distinctions among various art forms, such
as whether a figure is an entity or an image, and
whether an image is a lifelike representation of
physical reality or an assumed imitation, this
conception only pays a little attention to
them.[8]
according
to Chinese filmmakers before and during the 1920s,
film was neither the direct recording of reality, nor
a game of shooting and editing, but a drama. 'When
film initially came to China, it was called a
shadowplay. People simply spoke of going to see
shadowplay. This tells us that film is derived from
drama'[9]
dividing
the world of social institutions and practices into
two domains - the material and the spiritual. The
material is the domain of the "outside", of the
economy and... of science and technology, a domain
where the West had proved its superiority and the East
had succumbed... The spiritual, on the other hand, is
an "inner" domain bearing the "essential" marks of
cultural identity.[11]
2.The
relationship between film and traditional Chinese
opera
film
exhibition has recently become more and more
prosperous and the number of film viewers have been
increased four or five times. There are several
factors which have brought about the change: films are
more understandable than they used to be, ...admission
fees are cheaper and more people know English. In
addition to these, boys and girls who are in love like
the darkness in movie theatres.[24]
3. The Chinese
philosophical response to film
sees
cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way
of presenting a series of views to an audience,
fascinating because of their illusory power (whether
the realistic illusion of motion offered to the first
audiences by Lumière, or the magical illusion
concocted by Méliès), and
exoticism.[28]
After
seeing these shadow plays [films], I thereupon
sighed with the feeling that every change in the world
is just like a mirage. There is no difference between
life and shadow play... Suddenly hidden from the view,
suddenly reappearing. Life is really like dreams and
bubbles, and all lives can be seen this
way.[31]
Conclusion:
