How Did Hollywood Play the Chinese Element Card?

Published in Oriental Morning Post
(China) on 7 June 2011
by Nan Qiao (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Liangzi He. Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Recently, “Kung Fu Panda 2” has been screening on every cinema in the U.S.; lots of parents brought their children to watch it. When I went to the movie, I found out that even in a small city where I live there are many screenings of the movie. The film was also released simultaneously in China, and many Chinese elements in it aroused great interest among Chinese audiences.

The Chinese elements in the film caused lots of controversy among Chinese audiences. Some audience members spoke highly of the Chinese ethnic music, martial arts and Sichuan dan dan noodle in the film, but other people called to boycott the film. No matter good or bad comments, most people are thinking: from Hua Mu Lan to Kung Fu Panda, why must these elements of Chinese culture be “cooked” into “delicacies” and sold back to us?

The term “cultural might” may be a bit fuzzy, but the key is in the American confidence in their value system. Compared to China’s value confusion during the transition period, the U.S. has a clear and relatively confident value system, which contributes to the success of these movies. Hollywood is good at using value elements that sink deep into people’s hearts, especially when producing movies that appeal to families.

A majority of Americans have definite family values and values growing up; there is a relatively higher level of cohesion in terms of social identity. For example, in the parent-child relationship, the Chinese value the blood relationship more, while Americans value the later nurturing of family more; for instance, how much time they spend together (the film portrays Po and his father cooking together), and the quality of the time spent together, etc. Those scenes look very Chinese but are very American in essence. The director was making a U.S. concept apply to China, which means that there are much more American elements than Chinese ones in the film. For other details, the director tried to keep them as close to life in the U.S. as possible; for example, the bike ridden by the panda on the street is very similar to the bicycles children in the U.S. ride; the former is just an ancient version of the latter one, which makes it more clumsy and hilarious.

The main reason why the movie is so popular is its good combination of entertaining elements and not-necessarily-attributed-to-the-Chinese elements. It’s unnecessary for Chinese to feel happy about it or boycott it blindly. If the director used the Australian kangaroo instead of Kung Fu Panda, the effect will probably turn out to be the same; it’s just that the Chinese market is bigger than Australia, so the panda became the choice. After watching the movie, I went to the U.S. film review website Rotten Tomatoes and read some reviews by famous film critics like Roger Ebert and found that they seldom mentioned the Chinese elements; they mostly analyzed the gains and losses of the movie as an entertainment film.

The lack of commentary on the Chinese elements indicates that those elements are seamlessly fused into the film and not strange at all; those elements became the film’s own texture and grain. For instance, Chinese audiences complimented the use of Chinese ethnic music, which was fused into fighting scenes and slapstick humor. Americans know it is Chinese music, and it doesn’t prevent them from appreciating the film even if they don't know the name of the music, but Chinese audiences can recognize the music; thus, the film appealed to the specific needs of different markets, which is really smart. However, when we Chinese tried to propagate Chinese culture to other countries, we are usually too impatient. In other words, hoping audiences learn about the culture immediately will make the product too moralistic: sometimes it’s boring, and sometimes it feels like cultural aggression.

Hollywood broadened our knowledge of the connotation of Chinese elements. Having observed for many years, I found that, from Chinese arts groups performing in the U.S. occasionally to the systematic cultural output in the Confucian academic style, Chinese elements were mostly restricted to clay sculpture, woodcarving, martial arts, traditional Chinese painting, etc. Such a way of cultural communication is too narrow-minded and rigid. We need to activate our culture, widen our minds. There is an abundant range of elements in culture in a big country like China; we should not just focus on several points.

This issue has already been picked up by some scholars in China. Several years ago, a cultural scholar named Dr. Zhou from Huazhong Normal University in China visited the small city where I live in Virginia. She told me that when she was collecting folk songs in China’s countryside, some countryside cultural cadres frowned upon what she did and tried to show her some officially gathered resources. However, Dr. Zhou is more interested in collecting original and unfiltered cultural products. She said that those cultural cadres could only produce cultural products that are defined by some so-called “culturati,” which may not necessarily contain original folk elements, or feel as fresh and rich. The so-called “canon” culture may not be canonical in other contexts.

People who produce cultural output may not realize this distinction. Not long ago, I got a chance to communicate with a company in China that attempted to hold a large-scale exhibition of Chinese cultural heritage through paper-cuttings, calligraphy, traditional paintings and embroidery. However, the liaison in the U.S. preferred to conduct the exhibition through inter-school exchange between American and Chinese schools, hoping to depict each culture through artwork by primary and secondary school students. Through this, we can see that the two parties have a very different understanding of cultural connotations and ways of cultural communication.

Since Hollywood has no stereotyped thinking with regards to culture in the vein of the Chinese “culturati,” they are more open and innovative in exploring fresh and lively elements and in injecting new meanings into Chinese elements. For example, in the movie “2012” Chinese migrant workers, who are overlooked in China, were brought into scenes. In “Kung Fu Panda 2,” we saw dan dan noodles on the street and in hawker stalls. I even saw that while the understrappers of Lord Shen were policing laws on the street, they carried some flavor of China’s urban managers.

Since China has a big market, there will be more Chinese elements used in Hollywood after “Kung Fu Panda 2,” which is a trend that is unstoppable and unnecessary to stop. We should regard Hollywood as the trainer of Chinese cultural output. Apart from that, looking at how others depict Chinese elements — in watching movies like “Kung Fu Panda 2” and reading books like “Country Driving” — is helpful in widening our minds in terms of cultural communication and strengthening our own culture.

(The author is a scholar living in the U.S.)


南桥:看好莱坞如何打“中国元素”牌

2011年06月07日09:03 东方早报

南桥

  近日,《功夫熊猫2》在美国各大影院上映,很多家长带孩子一起去看。我去看的时候发觉,即便是我们这个小城,上演的场次都很多。该片也在中国同步上映,其中诸多“中国元素”也引起了中国观众极大的兴趣。

  片中的“中国元素”,在中国观众和观察者中打翻了五味瓶。有观众为影片中的中国民乐、功夫、四川担担面之类元素叫好,但也有一些人呼吁抵制该片。捧也好,棒打也好,我想大家可能都在反思:从花木兰到熊猫,为什么这些中国的材料,被别人烧成了美味佳肴,反过来又卖给我们赚钱呢?

  关键一点,说“文化强势”可能有点模糊,我觉得美国人在价值观上的自信才是秘诀。相对于转型期价值观混乱的中国来说,美国有一个清晰且相对自信的价值观体系支撑,这有助于这类影片的成功。好莱坞擅长利用深入人心的一些价值要素,在拍摄给家庭观看的影片时,这一点表现得更明显。

  大部分美国人的家庭观、成长观都比较明确,相关观念的社会认同度比较高。例如,在亲子关系上,中国人更看重血缘关系,美国人看重后天培养的亲情,比如有没有花时间在一起(片中展示了阿宝和爸爸一起下厨),这个时间的质量如何等。片中这些场景看上去很中国,骨子里却很美国,导演是在做“美国为体,中国为用”的事,该片其实美国元素更多。其他一些细节处,导演也尽量贴近美国现实,比如熊猫在街上踩着跑的车,颇似美国儿童玩的踏板车,只不过是古装版,更显笨拙滑稽。

  此片能走红,主要是娱乐要素组合得好,未必就是中国元素的功劳,中国人没有必要为此沾沾自喜,也没有必要因此盲目抵制。如果导演用澳大利亚袋鼠,而不是功夫熊猫,也一样能拍出这种效果,只不过中国市场更大,所以就选了熊猫而已。看完此片,我上网去看了美国影评网站“烂番茄”和著名影评人Roger Ebert等人的评论,发觉评论者很少提到“中国元素”,而是说此片作为一部娱乐影片的得失。

  不谈中国元素,说明这些元素被天衣无缝地放到影片里了,不再突兀,并成了电影本身的质地与纹路。比如被中国观众称赞的“中国民乐”,融合到了打斗场面和无厘头的幽默中,美国人能听出来是中国音乐,不知道是什么也不影响其欣赏,但是中国人能听出曲名,这样做适合不同市场之需,确实精明。而我们在对外传播中国文化时,往往太性急,一下子希望对方认识到我这是要讲什么文化,对方反倒会觉得说教意味太浓,有时候会觉得枯燥乏味,有时候觉得是文化侵略。

  好莱坞帮我们拓展了我们对于“中国元素”内涵的认知。这些年我观察到,从中国文艺团体到美国的偶尔演出,到孔子学院式的系统文化输出,所要展现的“中国元素”,在取材上,局限于泥塑、木雕、武术、国画等被认定为 “文化”的元素,往往思路狭窄,方式呆板。要把文化做活,思路应该开阔,中国这么大的一个国家,“中国元素”太多了,不能只看到几点。

  这个问题,国内已有学者注意到。几年前去我所在的西弗吉尼亚小城访学的一位来自华师大的文化学者周博士向我说到,她去国内乡下采风时,一些县市的文化干部会跟她说,那个有什么看头,你看看我们整理的这些。而周博士作为学者,更感兴趣的是去采集那种原生态的,没被过滤的“文化”产品。周老师说,这些文化干部只会整理出他们心目中“文化人”的文化,而这样的文化未必就有民间的原汁原味和新鲜丰富。这种被我们视作“正典”的文化,换了一种语境,未必能继续正点。

  具体负责文化输出的人,也未必认识到这个道理。不久前,我有机会和国内一单位沟通,对方试图发起一个大型展览,展出剪纸、书法、国画、刺绣等中国优秀文化遗产。而美国的对口合作单位,则更希望促成该文化单位牵头的校际合作,希望通过中美中小学生的口,去描述各自所处的文化。在这里,我们看到,双方对于文化的内涵和文化交流的方式,在认识上都有很大差异。

  由于好莱坞没有中国“文化人”对文化理解的思维定势,反而放得开,能发掘一些新鲜活泼的要素,出奇制胜,给“中国元素”灌注新的内涵。比如《2012》中,在中国面目模糊的民工群体入戏了。《功夫熊猫2》中,我们看到了街头的担担面和小摊小贩。我甚至看到,沈王爷的手下在街头执法时有中国城管的味道。

  由于中国市场很大,在《功夫熊猫》系列之后,还会有更多的中国元素被好莱坞使用,这个势头挡不住,也没必要抵挡,就把好莱坞当个中国文化输出的培训师好了。另外,从别人的眼里看何为“中国元素”,比如说看看《功夫熊猫2》这类电影,《寻路中国》这类图书,有助于拓宽中国文化自强和文化交流的思路。

  (作者系旅美学者)

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: Taiwan’s Leverage in US Trade Talks

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Topics

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: “Trump Guitars” Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle