From the Web

Danwei Picks: more foreign film shenanigans

Danwei Picks is a daily digest of the "From the Web" links found on the Danwei homepage. A feed for the links as they are posted throughout the day is available at Feedsky (in China) or Feedburner (outside China).

"Shanghai" can't shoot in Shanghai: Variety Asia Online reports that the WWII-era drama has been denied approval to film in China:

China's decision to block the shoot of the Weinstein Co.'s "Shanghai" has left some talking of a backlash within the country against foreign influence and wondering about damage to the Chinese industry's progress. Helmer Mikael Hafstrom, who has been in China since September working on pre-production of the Gong Li-John Cusack starrer, said he doesn't know why a shooting permit has been refused....

Sources close to "Shanghai" say that seven other co-productions may have been blocked, but that has not been confirmed. News was apparently communicated to TWC by China's Film Bureau, which regulates the industry. Sources close to the production say that following the controversy that surrounded "Lust, Caution," which raised the call for a ratings system once again, Chinese authorities are now increasingly concerned that other films may tarnish the image of the country, portray aggressive foreign powers or depict drug use. Set during 1941 upheavals, the "Shanghai" plotline includes drugs, sex and war with the Japanese.


The snow will fade, but responsibility won't: An editorial from The Economic Observer:

The Chinese have a long tradition of submitting to fate. Throughout China's thousands of years of civilization, with one disaster striking after another; the commoners fastened their hopes one phrases like "the bad will one day turn into the good" and "the struggle with forces of heaven brings endless pleasures". Disasters did not herald the unraveling of society because common Chinese became impassioned by working through them and maintaining obedience to their kings. After each catastrophe, their lives returned to normal until the next one came.

Modern society can not deal with disasters in this way. In face of disaster, the public needs not only remedies, but also explanations and the ability to criticize. And taking these storms as an example, even though the government has shown strong emergency response capabilities, everyone knows that the government's response has been far from perfect.


A French water company's cautionary tale: Chi-Chu Tschang writes in BusinessWeek about a French water company's efforts to turn a profit in Siping, Jilin Province:

But after the first year, in 2001, Siping Municipal Water failed to pay Suez's joint venture for water, claiming to be financially strapped. Without the money, Siping Sino French Water Supply, the joint venture, has been unable to pay taxes, repair equipment, or pay wages.

Suez is now having trouble figuring out who to pressure to get its money. Siping Municipal Water's management began privatizing the state-owned enterprise in 2001 and eventually transferred all of its assets to a newly restructured company called Siping Longyuan Water. The new entity actually competes head-to-head with Suez's joint venture in offering water treatment services. Without operating assets, Siping Municipal Water applied for bankruptcy in 2006, claiming it owes creditors, including the Suez joint venture, $2 million.


Secrets of the Bird's Nest: In the Guardian, Jonathan Glancey writes a paean to Beijing's Olympic architecture:

Most modern Chinese architecture is raced up as fast and as cheaply as possible, leaving precious little time for original thought or craftsmanship. Yet the three major Olympic buildings have been almost five years in the making.

And they are not just for the summer Games. Each has something to offer a new, specifically Chinese architecture that might yet emerge - against the political and economic odds - in the coming years. For this alone, each deserves a gold medal, though the spellbinding Bird's Nest deserves a special award of its own.


The Chinese have a lot of hells: The week after the Spring Festival is a traditional time for temple fairs. Imagethief visits a fair at a Taoist temple in Beijing that has life-size dioramas of 76 netherworld departments:

People of my age who are fond of schlocky movies may remember the John Carpenter/Kurt Russel classic, "Big Trouble in Little China". In that movie the Chinese sidekick tells our hero in a moment of peril, "the Chinese have a lot of hells". I always thought this was Hollywood color, but it turns out to be true. Almost. Technically it's more correct to say that the Taoists have a lot of hells. Or, to be perfectly accurate, that they have one hell with a lot of departments. There is no heaven, only hell. Some parts of hell are, well, hellish, while others are not so bad.

In fact, Taoist hell really looks like a mirror of earthly government. It's mostly bureaucracies, some of which happen to be in charge of things like "implementing fifteen kinds of violent death" (十五种恶死司). Others are in charge of anodyne things like "signing documents".


Lessons from two celebrity tales: At Asia Sentinel, Alice Poon looks at the implications of the Edison Chen sex scandal and the David Li insider trading complaint:

With the celebrity sex photo saga devouring media headlines for days on end and the insider share trading settlement story involving a banking celebrity paling in comparison yet still catching several bloggers’ attention, one might wonder if the rattling repercussion is intense enough to rouse deeper contemplation in society. Is Hong Kong’s social fabric about to undergo some profound positive change? There is always hope.

For a run-down of the Edison Chen scandal, see ESWN.

 
There are currently 6 Comments for Danwei Picks: more foreign film shenanigans.

Comments on Danwei Picks: more foreign film shenanigans

First of all...shoot it anyway!!!!!!!
Use a smaller run-and-gun style crew and scale it down. If that don't work come to North Philly and shoot where it looks like a war-torn area.

"Chinese authorities are now increasingly concerned that other films may tarnish the image of the country"

Inhibiting progress, not-generating revenue, and eliminating in anyway shape or form the legitimate and honest way of making money in the arts won't damage the country by way of the number one item of importance: the economy!?


"portray aggressive foreign powers"

That would be bad because that might be true to history. Everyone knows that there is a large country in the Eastern hemisphere that is very creative with their story-telling of the past. We aggressive foreigners don't want to set the record straight.

"or depict drug use."

Because NOT since the British forced opium on the locals in exchange for tea has there been any drug use until the Weinstein's introduced it in their movie.

I feel bad for Helmer Mikael Hafstrom who probably left his family, a stable income, a comfortable home and a community with descent pizza to live in a land without adequate coverage of the NFL...All for what? What a disappointment that place is...what a hoax the "development" may be.

I'm not sure that a movie starring Gong Li could shoot run-and-gun anywhere. And if they end up getting Chow Yun-fat on board, it'll be mayhem wherever they film it.

"I'm not sure that a movie starring Gong Li could shoot run-and-gun anywhere."---JOEL

Joel I was being a sarcastic Yank.
The star power of Bill Murray is easily equatable to that of Gong Li or Chow Yun-Fat's. They guerilla shot him in Tokyo in "Lost in Translation"...yes, i'm kidding.

It's quite obvious the Chinese want to get back at the Hollywood-Jewish establishment after Spielberg pulled out of his Olympics participation.

Expect to see the grand Shanghai synagogue start experiencing "licensing troubles" soon too...

Hunxuer makes two errors typical of China observers:

1. Viewing the Chinese government as some monolith that moves together on issues or co-ordinates its responses in any meaningful way (in fact nothing could be further from the truth)

2. Thinking that some Spielberg's involvement (or, indeed, any foreigner's involvement) with big projects in China is widely publicized in China (in fact, most locals didn't even know Spielberg was involved in the first place)

Far more likely is that the Film Bureau is practicing the time-honored "killing the *animal* to scare the *other animal*".

There are dozens of foreign productions lining up to get approval to film in China. What better way to make them toe the line than to make a couple of high-profile temporary "denials"?

Hey Shan...ever hear of "facetious"??

Anyway, thanks for the dubious honor of clumping me in as a "China Observer"...

Post a comment

All comments are moderated and subject to review by Danwei contributors and editors, but well-grounded and articulate comments will be published regardless of which way they lean. Because comments published on any website ultimately contribute to the character of that website, we may decline to publish comments that are irrelevant, redundant, or that do not adhere to generally accepted standards of courtesy; if you are looking for a fight, there are plenty of other venues available online.


Some useful html: <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>,
<a href="http://www.danwei.org">link</a>

Corruption
Sichuan Earthquake Report