From Monday's People's Daily:

Today, several people who came to Shanghai's Nextage Film Art Center specifically to see Nanking were very disappointed when they were informed that the schedule had been changed: Nanking was no longer showing, and it had been replaced with Transformers. Reportedly, the cinema had more than 30 showings of Transformers today, with only one morning slot reserved for a showing of Nanking. A manager explained: "We had already done the calculations and saved one spot for Nanking. Other theaters had basically stopped showing it. We can't ignore economic interests!"

Despite previous statements from Xu Xiaoping, general manager of Shanghai United Cinema Line Corporation, that the company's eight prints of Nanking would continue to be shown in Shanghai after the onslaught of Transformers — "Audiences who want to watch will definitely be able to!" — Shanghai's major theaters decided separately to give most of their weekend time to Transformers. One theater's promise to "increase the number of screenings of Nanking next week" was thought by fans to be empty rhetoric.

According to PD, audience response was quite good in Beijing and Shanghai, where the film was in limited release. But it wasn't available many other places — there wasn't even a print in Nanjing itself. Why?

One critic pointedly said that many theaters "put too much emphasis on ticket sales, and will play whatever brings in the money. But they've ignored one thing — theaters aren't purely entertainment venues; they have the vital mission to provide the populace with cultural products." And a netizen said, "Nanking is the most appropriate sort of 'patriotic education,' but we gave up too easily."

In an accompanying opinion piece, reporter Li Hongbing speculated about the larger meaning of Nanking's box office failure:

Nanking was "forced out" by Transformers; perhaps, in today's climate where works of art are moving toward the market, we can't criticize the theaters for their decision. But it is interesting that all of the theaters happened to have the same worry: serious movies equal poor ticket sales. How is it that so many industry professionals are trapped in such a fixed mentality?

To China's theaters and to more than a few people in the audience, Nanking was seen as a serious film. But this movie did not enjoy the traditional "glory" of having work units organize viewings, and as a result, it was just a feint that did not create the reaction it should have in its "hometown" of Nanjing.

I can't help but think of the similarly WWII-themed tragedy, Schindler's List. In its subject matter and its educational meaning, Schindler's List was also a serious film, but with its extraordinary artistic inspiration it not only won seven Oscar statues but set box office records as well.

Of course, Nanking is a documentary, and the American director's first concern was not artistry. However, China itself reportedly has several international-level directors, and has had several blockbusters that have raked in buckets of cash, so why haven't they picked up on such soul-stirring, native subject matter as the Nanjing Massacre? The world's awareness and contemplation of the Nanjing Massacre trails far behind that of the concentration camps for Jews at Auschwitz. One major reason is that we do not have great, internationally-influential works of art that exhibit that period of national tribulation.

Films with serious themes can too attract people to theaters. No wonder so many of our countrymen ask, when will we truly have a Chinese version of Schindler's List?

Yes, when?

Perhaps next year: Hong Kong's Yim Ho and the mainland's Lu Chuan are both working on their own versions for the big screen.

Note: The original version of this piece mistakenly called the documentary Nanjing throughout.