Introduction by Chris Berry

Translated by Ted Wang, Chris Berry and Chen Mei [1] .

Uploaded 25 March 1998

Western film theory is generally subdivided into classical theory and contemporary theory. Contemporary theory consists of a theoretical system which employs structuralist semiotics, psychoanalysis, ideological critique and feminism to interpret cinematic forms. It originated in the mid-sixties and flourished in the 1970s. It was first introduced to China in the early 1980s and brought in as a complete theoretical system a few years later. Peaking in the late 1980s, it should have taken up an important position in the development of China’s film theory. This article offers a general account of how contemporary Western film theory came to China, along with brief comments on relevant theoretical issues. Space does not permit a full history of contemporary Western film theory and its main viewpoints and a basic understanding of these is assumed here. The viewpoints expressed here are purely my own, and I invite comments as some errors are unavoidable.

Making Up for Past Deficits

The first introduction of contemporary Western film theory to China should be attributed to Li Youzheng. In l980, Li published an article titled “Structuralism and film aesthetics” in Digest of Film Translations. [2]  Later renamed World Cinema, this specialist journal on foreign film theory had recently recommenced publication. Li’s article focused on structuralist semiotics, including its social background, philosophical basis, main viewpoints and directions. It also pointed to its chief shortcomings: “Serious dislocation from concrete social practice” and “extreme proneness to formalism.” Li called on Chinese film studies to “give due attention to foreign structuralist semiotic film theory”. This required strong academic conviction and considerable courage, for not long ago all theory had been linked to class struggle. The same issue of the magazine published an article entitled “An introduction to Metz’s film semiotics,” translated by Wu Hanqing. [3]  The author, the well-known cinema scholar Yampolsky from the then Soviet Union, described and castigated Metz’s main theories in terms similar to those used during China’s great criticism campaigns. In using articles of this type to introduce contemporary film theories, the Digest editors were throwing stones to test the water. Because Chinese film theory derived from the Soviet system, Western theories had been labelled “teachers by negative example,” then studied and condemned. This article both introduced and criticised contemporary Western theory, and could therefore meet the needs of different readers. Unfortunately, it failed to elicit any response, whether acclaim for the critic or demands for redress, as China’s cinema scholars were totally unqualified to conduct dialogues. In those days, when even the main classical film theories of the West had yet to be brought to China, contemporary theory was entirely incomprehensible to them. Therefore, the most pressing matter for the development of Chinese film production and theory at this juncture was catching up on classical theory.

Classical film theory had developed very slowly in China, and by the end of the 1970s it had acquired the following features:

* It was a theory about social politics, not about art or cinema, and frequently used as a tool in political struggle, directly serving the politics of the day.
* It was a unified theoretical system under a unified social, political and economic system based on the Soviet model, coexisting with film production, distribution and propaganda within a single system. Therefore it was necessarily devoted to upholding this system and had no independence.
* Its artistic theory was insipid, simple and ossified, consisting merely of theories about production transplanted from philosophical dogmas. China had been closed for a long time, and there had been little international exchange, borrowing or debate. Therefore, widespread assimilation of the scholarly achievements of foreign film theory had been impossible and numerous lacunae and defects existed.

Toward the end of the 1970s China chose reform and opening to the outside world. Major changes in film theory were inevitable in order to adapt to the needs of social reform and cinematic innovation and to enrich and improve theory itself. Importing foreign film theory and changing Chinese cinematic concepts were also inevitable. The adoption of any film theory by society is not random but socially and historically determined. A society invariably adopts theories suitable for social development independent of any individual’s will.

As contemporary film theory was being given a cold reception, making up for what had been missed in classical theory proceeded on a grand scale and along the following lines:

* Establishing cinematic concepts by exploring the specificity of the cinema, making cinema an art form independent from others, and distinguishing film theory from general art theory to turn it into an independent field.
* Introducing the concept of cinematic ontology, advocating the recording of actuality as the essence of cinema, and attempting to revise classical Chinese theory’s ideas on the relationship between cinema and reality.
* Putting forward the auteur theory, primarily to affirm the position of directors in film production. China’s specific circumstances have led to an emphasis on collective characteristics, hence the emergence of generational subdivisions. And making preliminary conclusions on artistic schools and personal styles.
* Beginning to focus on cinematic forms of expression and artistic techniques in an attempt to break away from outdated methods centred on the Soviet montage theory, and beginning to use original forms to express fresh contents and feelings.

Almost all these efforts to catch up on classical film theory provoked heated debates within the Chinese film world. There were both conflicts and compromises with the old theoretical system. Both sides attempted to devise an authoritative and socially accepted theory that would direct film production and criticism. In the absence of common ground, struggles both open and covert broke out between the “left” and right.

The gap between traditional Chinese film theory and classical foreign film theory was considerably narrowed as a result of these efforts to catch up. However, different social conditions mean that no Western theory can be brought in unchanged, and because of the speed of their introduction, the essence of many theories was not fully understood. Superficial understandings, out-of-context interpretations, misreadings and even misrepresentations were unavoidable. Practice had yet to show whether these theories suited Chinese circumstances, and whether they could become an integral part of a dominant theory. But as the pace of China’s reforms and opening to the world increased, classical Western theory found itself unable to satisfy the intellectual needs of China’s film theorists even before it had gained a firm footing. The film theorists were already casting their gaze toward the outside world again.

The Summer Sessions

In the summer of 1984, contemporary Western film theory entered China again, this time through the unusual method of inviting American film scholars to Beijing to run a summer session on film theory. Although unprecedented anywhere in the world, such a method of disseminating contemporary film theory suited the organization of the Chinese cinema studies world. The two Chinese scholars responsible for this event were Cheng Jihua and Chen Mei.

Cheng and Chen had been invited to give a course on Chinese films in 1983 by UCLA. It was well-received. In the course of extensive contacts with American scholars, they came to feel deeply that Chinese film theory was so narrow, ossified and monolithic that it precluded academic dialogue with foreign countries. A number of American film scholars also wished to see for themselves the enormous changes taking place in China. Thus a daring program for academic exchanges began to take shape. When Cheng Jihua and Chen Mei returned to China, they successfully applied to the Ministry of Culture, then in charge of film, for the China Film Association to run a summer session on film theory and invite American scholars to lecture. The two main criteria for the invitees were “academic expertise” and “friendliness toward the Chinese people.” Lecture topics were fixed through negotiations between the China Film Association and the American scholars.

The first summer sessions were held in Beijing from August 2 to 23, 1984. Three professors were invited:

* Professor Nick Browne of UCLA, whose topic was “Some questions concerning contemporary film theory and the history of Western film theory.” [4]
* Professor Robert Rosen, director of the UCLA film archives, whose topic was “The social reading of film texts: a methodology.” [5]
* Professor Beverly Houston of USC, whose topic was “Hollywood melodrama of the 1950s.”

About thirty directors, screenwriters, theorists, translators and magazine editors took part, attending over thirty hours of lectures, as well as watching films and videotapes and participating in discussions. This was the first time that the Chinese film world had dealt with contemporary film theory systematically, and although they were unfamiliar with most of the theories and concepts they manifested a thirst for knowledge that impressed the American scholars. [6]  Participants such as Cui Junyan and Hao Dazheng went on to pioneer the growth of contemporary film theory. On the other hand, a substantial number failed to accept contemporary theory in the end. But the significance of this summer session lay in the fact that it initiated widespread dissemination of contemporary film theory in China.

The summer sessions were retained as an important form of academic exchange, and were held over five consecutive summers from 1984 to 1988. Their purpose was not necessarily to achieve absolute acceptance on our part, but rather to give us an understanding of contemporary Western film theory. Film scholars, most of them well-known Americans, gave altogether nineteen series of lectures in China (see appendix). The major topics included genre criticism, textual analysis, interpretation, feminism, historiography and narrative.

Lectures totalling more than two hundred hours were delivered over the five years of the Summer Sessions. The two hundred or more participants displayed a conscientiousness that bordered on reverence, and the discussions were ever more enthusiastic and profound. Of course, due to the considerable disparity in scholastic levels between the two sides, no real dialogue was yet possible.

In October of 1986, Professor Nick Browne was invited to teach at the Beijing Film Academy. He gave a most deep and thorough introduction to the history of Western film theory, with an emphasis on contemporary film theory. [7]  More than a hundred scholars and postgraduate students attended. The success of Nick Browne’s course was also attributable to accurate and brilliant on-site interpreting by Esther Yau, a Hong Kong scholar who was then studying in the US. Both Professors Nick Browne and Robert Rosen taught in China three times, making them among the most enthusiastic propagators of contemporary film theory there.

In 1988, the well-known British film critic Tony Rayns came to the Beijing Film Academy to give a course entitled “Film analysis,” and Professor Dudley Andrew of the University of Iowa also gave a series of lectures on “Film theory and pedagogy.” Both were well-received.

Film research in mainland China had been isolated between the 1950s and 1970s. Whether thinking or actively researching, scholars worked behind closed doors. The sagacity of the decision to invite film professors from abroad to teach in China soon after the beginning of the era of reform and opening to the outside world lay not only in the dissemination of professional knowledge. More important still was the enormous encouragement given to Chinese film scholars by this broad-minded approach. The flourishing of China’s film theory within a few brief years was undeniably a result of these lectures and courses.

Translation

Chinese scholars faced two major obstacles to the study of foreign film theory. The first was their poor knowledge of foreign languages, and the second the difficulty of obtaining original books and essays. Therefore, they relied mainly on translations. Translating essays, especially essays on contemporary theory, is a hard and thankless task. Those who do so must possess a good knowledge of foreign language and theory as well as the self-sacrificing spirit of serving as a human ladder for others. Fortunately, there are a good number of people among China’s translators of all ages who are willing to gnaw at the tough bone of contemporary theory. And many of these see translating theory as an opportunity to learn and, beyond translating, to expound, so that they act as both translators and theorists.

The first to translate works of contemporary film theory was Li Youzheng. As far back as 1977-1979, he translated four articles on semiotics. However, these served only for internal reference at the Beijing Film Academy and were only incorporated into the book Structuralism and Film Aesthetics in 1987. [8]

The first published translation was “Current problems in film theory” by Christian Metz, translated by Cui Junyan and published in the fourth and fifth issues of World Cinema for 1983. The text, selected from Essais sur la signification au cinéma, was a criticism of Jean Mitry’s Esthetique et psychologie du cinéma. Although not Metz’s most important work, its publication in China had considerable significance, because it indicated that classical Western theory was beginning to be questioned and contemporary theory was getting more attention.

Many works of contemporary film theory were published between 1983 and 1993, primarily in such journals as World Cinema, Contemporary Cinema (Dangdai dianying), Film Art, World Art and Aesthetics (Shijie yishu yu meixue), Film and TV Culture (Yingshi wenhua)and Journal of the Beijing Film Academy (Beijing dianying xueyuan xuebao). In addition, a number of important anthologies were published, including Structuralism and Semiotics: A Collection of Translated Film theory, Selected Essays on Film Theory, and Cinema and New Methods. [9] Among the more important theoretical monographs published were Concepts in Film Theory by Dudley Andrew, Pictorial Signs and the Language of Film by Jan M. Peters, and On the History of Film Theory by Nick Browne. [10]

The effect of these translated works of contemporary Western film theory on academic film studies in China is beyond the scope of this article, but I believe the works which had the greatest influence are as follows: in structuralist semiotics, “Some points on the semiotics of the cinema” by Christian Metz; [11]  in psychoanalytic criticism, “Psychoanalysis and cinema: the imaginary discourse” by Charles Altman; [12]  in ideological criticism, “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses” by Louis Althusser; [13]  in textual analysis, “John Ford’s Young Mr Lincoln” by the Editors of Cahiers du cinéma; [14]  in feminist criticism, “Visual pleasure and narrative cinema” by Laura Mulvey; [15]  and in genre criticism, “Toward a theory of genre film” by Charles Altman. [16]

Reference to the history of contemporary Western film theory shows that Chinese scholars were more apt to accept earlier works of contemporary Western theory.

Introductions

Since Chinese academic conditions compelled most scholars to rely on reading of original and translated works, they were unable to acquire an overall grasp of contemporary theory and sought assistance from reports and introductions written by others.

One of the earliest and most comprehensive introductions was collated from the lectures presented by Nick Browne during the first summer session and published in Film Art. [17]  The section on contemporary theory was somewhat too profound for average readers.

Contemporary Cinema reprinted Chi Lungzin’s “Development and evolution of cinematic semiotic theory from 1964 to 1985” from the Taiwanese journal Film Appreciation. [18]  At once erudite and to the point, the article demonstrated the Taiwanese scholar’s virtuosity and stimulated the research efforts of mainland Chinese scholars. The pure academic nature of Film Appreciation attracted mainland Chinese scholars and it became an important source for their understanding of contemporary theory.

However, introductory articles by mainland Chinese scholars seem to have been more important, not only on account of their accessible language, but also because they provided clues to mainland Chinese scholars’ attitudes to and understanding of contemporary theory. Broadly speaking, there were two schools, the adherents and the doubters. Li Youzheng and Yao Xiaomeng are representative of the former and Shao Mujun the latter.

Li Youzheng’s representative work, Contemporary Western Cinematic Aesthetics, takes inspiration from the French school of thought and some American works. Its emphasis is on introducing the “first semiotics” in contemporary film theory, but it also contains discussions of classical theory and avant-garde cinema. Serious and scholarly, it focuses on works by major film theorists and is the fruit of many years of assiduous research. Li is highly circumspect, avoiding any mention of contemporary mainland affairs. This work was the most important for Chinese scholars who wished to understand contemporary theory. [19]

Yao Xiaomeng, a most devout adherent of contemporary theory, was an editor of Contemporary Cinema. He published a series of highly successful articles on contemporary theory in that journal. They were later put together under the title Cinema Aesthetics, although in fact they did not expound a general theory of cinematic aesthetics. Examination of sources indicates that the volume applies the theoretical model presented in Nick Browne’s lectures at the Beijing Film Academy and adds to it a number of sections, for example “The study of narrative,” as well as some of Yao’s own views on Chinese cinema. Taken altogether, the book might well be said to follow the “American school.” Most of the essays were written in a hurry and their exposition is somewhat sketchy. Premises are boldly put forward but references are relatively scarce. The focus is on ideology and frequent but sometimes indirect mention is made of China’s current realities. Having done much work to spread contemporary Western theory and being a typical young Chinese scholar who has accepted contemporary theory, Yao’s work carries its own special significance. [20]

Shao Mujun is an accomplished and recognized expert on foreign film theory. A prolific translator, he is China’s leading authority on classic Western films and film theory. He started to read contemporary theory quite early and was relatively well versed, but the burden of his own expertise made him reluctant to turn to this new subject. Even in the West one does not find scholars who straddle both classical and contemporary theory. A nimble-minded debater, he is also an ardent polemicist and a trenchant and redoubtable speaker. But his arguments often veer off course during heated debates and even smack of extremism. Personality, however, is not the reason for his skepticism about contemporary theory. His doubts arise from the desire for film theory based on “pure” not “impure theory” and beneficial to production. He maintains:

“Those who know very well that contemporary theory serves no good purpose or who cannot understand it themselves still put great effort into translating it. That would be alright if this was to help others understand or intended as a negative example. But to tout it as a directional model, and even to imitate it or pursue so-called ‘theorization independent from production’ will inevitably lead our theoretical work astray.” [21]

His concern for the nation and people is so forcefully expressed it fairly scorches through the paper on which it is written.

There are other introductions to contemporary Western film theory, but they follow the examples cited above and therefore are not described here.

In conclusion, the purpose of these introductions to contemporary Western theory was to disseminate knowledge. But from another angle, they can also be seen as dialogues about film theory and its relation to society. No introduction can be an exact reflection of its subject matter, but the processes of selection, omission, description and evaluation are not necessarily individual acts. Perhaps they may all be seen as reflecting different social attitudes to contemporary Western theory. And whatever their attitude, the question they focus on is fundamentally the same: “Is contemporary film theory useful to China, and if so what is its use?” Only practice can answer that question.

Trials and Errors

All manner of differences between Chinese and Western societies are quite obvious, making it easy for people to find countless reasons to reject the bases of contemporary Western theory. But its wide translation and deployment by Chinese scholars over a certain period clearly indicates that, under specific socio-historical conditions, China needed such theory. Even though arguments against it may have outnumbered those for it and at times even seemed more convincing, in the end history has its own logic, arguments for it did exist, and they proved decisive. It is not the aim of this article to delve into society, politics, economics, culture or social psychology to explain why contemporary theory has struck root in China, although this subject should not be neglected. To keep it concise, I will move directly to the ways in which contemporary theory has been used by Chinese scholars.

By the mid-1980s, there were clear signs in both production and theory that a new type of theory was needed.

Starting in 1984, works by the Fifth Generation of film directors took the world by storm. They used both visual and narrative distanciation techniques in films such as One and Eight, Yellow Earth, On the Hunting Ground, and later Black Cannon Incident. They were already furnishing society with fragmented texts, which seemingly unified and complete classical theory was unable to account for. At the beginning of 1986, Zhong Dafeng and Chen Xihe advanced the term “shadowplay” to epitomize the aesthetic characteristics of Chinese cinema. The idea was innovative, but clearly lacked theoretical preparation. Indeed, there was such a shortage of suitable theoretical tools at the time that Chen Xihe had to borrow a number of current theoretical frameworks from other fields, including the “super-stable structure,” but the effect was unconvincing. [22]

In the summer of 1986, Zhu Dake criticized “the Xie Jin model of film making” and called for a profound reassessment of the socio-cultural foundations of Chinese mainstream cinema. His reasoning was marked by sharp insight and bold argument. In both theory and method, he was already drawing close to contemporary film theory. [23]

Contemporary film theory was imminent now, but it could not possibly emerge spontaneously from traditional Chinese theory, nor could it evolve naturally. The only feasible option was import. The original aim in bringing it in had been understanding, but when society needs the expression of opinions even more than knowledge, theory becomes social discourse. Although produced in the West, contemporary film theory has provided some scholars in China with the theories, perspectives and methods to express their own ideas. Hence, “understanding” became “application,” and itself reached greater depths in the process.

The application of contemporary theory by Chinese scholars was characterized mainly by the reading of films and the understanding of society. They made Chinese cinema and society the objects of study, used contemporary film theory as the tool, integrated film theory and criticism, and combined film criticism with social criticism. The comprehensive import of contemporary theory into China saved us the time needed to construct a unified theoretical system and minimised pointless debate and deliberation. Perhaps it is because Chinese scholars pay closer attention to social realities that China’s system of contemporary theory is centred around ideology instead of around linguistics, as it is in the West.

As far as application is concerned, after the emergence of a system of theory, the need arose for model essays. Esther Yau’s article “Yellow Earth: western analysis and a non-western text” is not well-known internationally. But it possessed extremely great significance for mainland Chinese scholars, for it indicated that not only Western scholars can use modern theory. The Chinese can also use it to analyse their own films. This undoubtedly enhanced the self-confidence of mainland Chinese scholars and the article became a model of textual analysis. [24]

Explorations

Attempts by Chinese scholars to use contemporary theory to explain Chinese films marked the real birth of contemporary Chinese film theory. Four main phases occurred between 1985 and 1994: Exploration, development, maturation, and transformation.

The first phase was one of exploration between 1985 and 1987. It was mainly characterized by probings into contemporary methods through a limited range of theoretical applications. From this can be seen the difficulty of the transition from classical to contemporary film theory.

Chen Xihe was first to attempt semiotic concepts to explain the specificity of cinema. This attempt was particularly admirable, since it took place when reference materials were still in very short supply. But this lack also made it impossible to get a real grasp on semiotics and set up a complete semiotic system. Social isolation necessarily impedes the advance of academics, as lone endeavours cannot gain abundant results. [25]

Xu Zengmin was first to establish a complete system of Chinese semiotics. He based himself chiefly upon Saussure’s linguistics, but the system was immature since he hardly touched upon Metz or combined semiotics with structuralism, as many scholars in the West do. His views distilled the hopes of certain Chinese scholars in the early days of drawing upon Western contemporary theory, when they sought their own theoretical system without borrowing wholesale from abroad. [26]

Somewhat similar was Yao Xiaomeng’s arbitrary linkage of ancient Chinese literary theory such as the “twenty-four categories of poetry” with the second semiotics of contemporary Western film theory in his concept of “image aesthetics.” This manifests the rather naive attempts of Chinese scholars to set up a new theoretical system by completely fusing ancient Chinese with contemporary Western theory. [27]

Zhong Li was first to make an evident attempt to use psychoanalysis to analyse Chinese film directors. His understanding of psychoanalysis was superficial, however, and he relied chiefly upon a mechanical application of Freud’s theories, with certain revisions. But he did not touch upon Lacan or move beyond auteurism. It is evident from this that Chinese theoretical circles (and not merely film circles) were much more enamoured of Freud than of Lacan, clearly differing in this respect from Western scholars. [28]

Dai Jinhua was first to use contemporary theoretical methods to reflect upon classical Chinese theory. She employed structural conversion to redescribe dominant theory. Her critical contemplations were extremely sensitive but also extremely cautious. This determined the basic tactics of contemporary Chinese theory when reflecting upon classical theory. [29]

Hao Dazheng, Chen Xihe and Yao Xiaomeng were first to use contemporary theory to analyse cinema as entertainment. Their perspective was different from that of Western scholars. The latter take a patently critical stand against the exploitation of audience appeal by commercial films. On the contrary, Chinese scholars saw satisfying audience desire as reasonable and used this as the theoretical basis for the existence of entertainment films. For a considerable period of time, this was a major justification for entertainment. [3]

Zhang Wei was first to use textual analysis to read a film. Working on the Hong Kong film The Butterfly Murders, he managed to expose the underlying ideologies completely by making comprehensive use of various theories. His performance was superior to any before him. Western scholars often favour a single theoretical framework when undertaking textual analysis. But Chinese scholars are adept at blending various types of theories and methods to suit their purpose. This characteristic was already emerging at this time. [31]

There are of course other essays which cannot be detailed here. Those above are representative not only because they were early, but also because they used theories widespread among Chinese scholars, displaying certain characteristics in the early development of contemporary Chinese theory.

Development

The second phase was one of overall development in 1988 and 1989. Its chief characteristics were expanded scope, connection to film production, attention to society, the establishment of a theoretical system, and the attendant expansion of the ranks of researchers.

In this period, two major cinema journals, Contemporary Cinema and Film Art, became the focus for participation in research into and the application of contemporary film theory by the film community, scholars and freelance theorists from the Academy of Social Sciences, universities, journals and film studios. They set forth their views, compared notes, competed with and stimulated one another, creating an excellent academic environment. Most were young but some were older, including, of course, stalwarts like Hao Dazheng. This procedure showed the proclivity of Chinese scholars for group action, whereas in the West individual research predominates. Perhaps this is dictated by Chinese circumstances. The intense political atmosphere and outmoded ways of thinking make it difficult to create anything original in academia and no new ground can be broken by any other means. At the time, there was a large gap between film scholars and those of others. The former had already basically accepted a unified system of contemporary theory while the latter had their own concepts and systems, which were not lacking in perspicacity but were hard to bring together.

China’s system of contemporary theory had basically taken shape by early 1988. Ni Zhen named it “film cultural studies” and Li Yiming summed it up as a “critical theory.” [32]  Each had insights and preliminary conclusions, but divergences also existed on the appropriate direction of development. Should contemporary theory be turned into a humanities study akin to basic theory? Or should it be made to exercise its critical function and engage in social practice with the object of deepening people’s understanding of Chinese society and cinema? This was a dilemma confronting Chinese scholars.

At the time, both tendencies were advancing side by side, as evidenced by the first 1988 issue of Contemporary Cinema.

On the side of basic theory, Li Xun published an article entitled “On narrative grammar,” which constituted the first in-depth exposition of narrative theory in cinema theory. [33]  As such, it had its own academic value. But more important was its symbolic significance. The article was published in the form of “thoughts after translation.” This signified that Chinese scholars had given up the idea of taking Western theory as a reference point only for setting up an independent theoretical system, and had instead decided to join contemporary Western theory and strive for innovation and development in the course of expounding Western theory. This would require high theoretical accomplishment as well as the ability to endure standing alone.

On the side of cinematic textual analysis, Li Yiming published “Loving Couples: a story of people and the city.” [34] This was the first analysis of a Chinese film. It displayed a feature of Chinese readings, attempting to distance itself from the filmmakers and maintain independence, yet unable to cut all ties. But the article also indicated that contemporary film theory could be used for Chinese film criticism and thus opened up many avenues. This and not pure theoretical research has therefore become the choice of the majority of Chinese scholars, and in most cases theory is used as a tool for textual analysis.

Since the mainstream of contemporary Chinese film theory became socio-cultural criticism, it was only natural that a theoretical system with ideological criticism at its core should take shape. This was the main stimulus for the development of structuralist semiotics, psychoanalysis, feminism, deconstruction and narrative analysis, and led to the formation of a relatively set theory and method. This would seem to differ somewhat from contemporary Western theory, which has linguistics at its core. Further research is needed on this point.

The choice of ideological criticism as the theoretical core was in fact a historical inevitability and not determined by individual preference. Chinese scholars themselves are most unwilling to mention “ideology,” since the indiscriminate use of this concept during the days when class struggle was regarded as the dominant factor politicised all social activity and licensed political interference everywhere. To eliminate such interference, downplaying ideology had been prevalent since the end of the 1970s. This, of course, is understandable. But a theory for socio-cultural criticism cannot be pure language. It can only be a social discourse, for only then can it address society and be understood and accepted by society. In this sense, a speaker’s theory inevitably bears ideological characteristics, whether or not he or she is willing to admit it. In 1988, Chinese scholars were compelled to face this reality and returned to ideology in an article entitled “Cinema: myths with hidden ideology.” [35] But the ideology here differs greatly from classic ideology in both the basic concept and its theoretical system. In “The Last Emperor: power structures and the individual,” Wu Xiaoming introduced Foucault’s theory on power into film criticism. [36] The theories of Althusser, Lacan and Foucault became mainstays of ideological theory.

The development of contemporary Chinese theory took up the uniquely Chinese custom of holding roundtable discussions on various films, which were turned into important opportunities to apply contemporary theory and train people in textual reading. Some were transcribed and published, for instance the readings of With Sugar, Obsession, and This is My Year. [37]  Others only appeared as summaries, such as the one held on Evening Bell, while many went unrecorded. [38]  Their main purpose was not to direct production but to develop analytical methods, and the basic mode they employed was “you devise your codes while I interpret mine.” Among the more important were the discussions on the films such as Red Sorghum and The Last Frenzy. Although the film directors attending the seminars may not have accepted a good many of the viewpoints, the atmosphere of mental emancipation and free expression of opinions was highly beneficial to the development of theory.

In addition, the “Seminar on new films” sponsored by Film Art and the “Seminar on contemporary Chinese entertainment films” organized by Contemporary Cinema became major forums for the application of contemporary theory and produced a number of important papers. [39]

Maturation

The third phase, in 1990-1991, was one of maturation. Its main features were a general improvement in the standard of research, a concentration on certain issues, and greater profundity. An important sign of maturity was the fact that the contemporary Chinese theory was now better adapted to the changes in Chinese society, and that any Chinese scholar who still had the desire to speak could find a suitable issue and method to do so.
The major change in this period was that contemporary theory shifted its focus from current realities to the past. This was done in three main ways.

The first was by re-reading classic texts, such as Youth Among The Flames of War, Serfs, Girl from Shanghai, Red Flag Chronicle, Red Sorghum, and Hibiscus Town, by Li Yiming, Ying Xiong, Ma Junxiang, Dai Jinhua, Wang Yichuan, and Yin Hong respectively. [40]

By and large, these authors derived their approach from the ideological analysis created for “John Ford’s Young Mr Lincoln” by the editors of Cahiers du cinema combined, of course, with a comprehensive range of additional methods and approaches as the occasion demanded. One point they stressed was: “What is important is the years in which the myth is narrated, rather than then years narrated in the myth” [41] The main point of this celebrated dictum by Brian Henderson is that, irrespective of the content of a film, it is an expression of the times in which it was produced and distributed. According to this principle, one may claim that what is important to a theorist is neither the era depicted in a film nor the years when it was most popular, but rather the times in which the re-reading is done. This is because the process of re-reading itself and the new meanings thus brought to light may all be regarded as an indirect commentary by the writer upon the times and society he or she is re-reading.

The second approach consisted of re-examining film auteurs, primarily from the Third, Fourth and Fifth generations of film directors.

Discussions in the second 1990 issue of Film Art were focused upon Xie Jin and his films, and, in the third issue, on the Fourth Generation. The latter issue also included a powerful article on the Fifth Generation by Dai Jinhua, entitled “The broken bridge: art of the junior generation.”

The theoretical basis for referring to film directors by generation in the mid-1980s was auteurism, which attributed all achievements to auteurs and inevitably deified them. But when auteurs were re-examined in the early 1990s, contemporary theory had become the frame of reference. A fundamental difference was that cinema was seen as a social discourse within a specific context and its origins lay in society rather than the auteur. Film texts were social inscriptions expressed through auteurs. Hence, re-examining auteurs was not to re-evaluate their merits. Rather, it was to seek new perspectives for viewing the relationships among cinema, society and auteurs in the hope of acquiring deeper comprehension.

The third approach consisted of rewriting film history.

Chief among such efforts were two articles by Yao Xiaomeng entitled “The history, narration and ideological discourse of the ‘the proletarian cultural revolution'” and “Early socialist culture and Chinese cinema (1949-1976),” and Yuan Ying’s “Feminism and Chinese women’s cinema.” [42]

The more familiar the history, the less well it is understood. This is because people tend not to ponder history when they believe they know it well. If one wants to understand a familiar period in history, one must break established mindsets. Using contemporary theory to retell history helps one understand history. People are in the habit of familiarizing themselves with historical background before examining the characteristics of the films that were determined by it. Retelling the history of cinema is to reverse this process; to regard the film text as a symptom of social history, to find in it elements that were concealed in the inner workings of the social structure and therefore overlooked, and in so doing to understand history from a new perspective.

Transformation

With the accelerated social transition from a planned economy to a market economy since 1992, it was inevitable that film theory as a social discourse should change, too. Ideological critique and theory, which has always served as the nucleus of contemporary Chinese theory, is undergoing transformation. Its critical function is weakening, or maybe transforming, and work on ideology has been suspended.

A premise for the emergence of a post-colonialist theory was the global existence of a post-colonial context. This theory is similar to contemporary theory in its distinctly critical function. The difference lies in its shift of focus from national issues to issues beyond any one country, and the spearhead of this criticism is directed against Eurocentrism. Does this broaden the scope of research? Or is it a ploy to avoid addressing national issues? [43]

Postmodernist theory has been put forward on the premise that mainland China now exists in a postmodernist discursive environment. In methodology, postmodernist theory appears to have its origins in contemporary theory, but the latter system itself has become its target of deconstruction. Does this mean that contemporary theory is bringing about its own destruction? [44]
Contemporary Chinese film theory has, over the past fifteen years, come into existence, grown, matured and gradually improved itself, yet now it has all at once begun to decline and recede into silence. Does this mean that it is withering away, or that it is changing into another type of theory? It is hard to draw any conclusions yet. The present article is intended only as a broad outline, and in-depth research will have to wait for the time being.

Footnotes:

[1] This article first appeared in Dangdai Dianying (1995:2), 65-73
[2] Li Youzheng, “Jiegouzhuyi yu dianying meixue” (“Structuralism and film aesthetics”), Dianying yishu yicong (Digest of film translations) 1980:3, 170-177
[3] Wu Hanqing (trans.), “Meici dianying fuhaoxue shuping” (“An introduction to Metz’s film semiotics”), Dianying yishu yicong(Digest of Film Translations) 1980:3, 178-188.
[4] For Nick Browne’s lectures, see Dianying yishu (Film Art), 1987:5, 61-4; 1987:9, 60-64; 1987:11, 60-64; 1988:1, 53-57; and 1988:3, 60-64.
[5] Cui Junyan compiled and edited a three-part article on the lecture series by Robert Rosen, etc. entitled “Xiandai dianying lilun xinxi” (“Information about contemporary film theory”) in Shijie dianying (World Cinema), 1985:2, 85-111; 1985:3, 59-81; and 1984:4, 58-92.
[6] Nike Bulang (Nick Browne, etc.), “Zhongguo jinzai zhichi (“China close-up”), Shijie dianying (World Cinema), 1986:1, 232-241.
[7] The text was published as Nike Bulang (Nick Browne), Dianying lilun shiping (On the History of Film Theory), trans. Xu Jiansheng, (Beijing: Zhongguo Dianying Chubanshe [China Film Press], 1994).
[8]  Jiegouzhuyi yu dianying meixue, (Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1987).
[9] Ed. and trans. Li Youzheng,Jiegouzhuyi he fuhaoxue: dianying lilun yiwenji (Structuralism and Semiotics: A Collection of Translated Film Theory), (Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1987); Shao Mujun (ed.), Dianying lilun wenxuan (Selected Essays on Film Theory), (Beijing: Zhongguo Dianying Chubanshe [China Film Press], 1990), and Zhang Hongjun (ed.),Dianying yu xin fangfa (Cinema and New methods), (Beijing: China Radio and Television Press).
[10] Dadeli Andelu (Dudley Andrew), Dianying lilun gainian(Concepts in Film Theory), trans. Hao Dazheng and Chen Mei, (Shanghai: Shanghai Art & Culture Publishing House); Yang Pedesi (Jan M. Peters), Tuxiang fuhao he dianying yuyan (Pictorial Signs and the Language of Film), trans. Yi Kuang, (Beijing: China Film Press); and Nike Bulang (Nick Browne), 1994. (See note number 6)
[11] In Li Youzheng,
[12] Chaersi F. Aherteman (Charles Altman), “Jingshen fenxi yu dianying: xiangxiang de biaoshu,” trans. Dai Jinhua, Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema) no.28 (1989:1), 16-26.
[13] Aherdusai (Althusser), “Yishixingtai he yishixingtai de guojia jiqi,” trans. Li Xun, Dangdai dianying (Contemporary cinema) no.18 (1987:3), 98-110; and no.19 (1987:4), 31-43.
[14]  Dianying shouce bianjibu(editors, Cahiers du cinéma), “Yuehan Fute de Shaonian Linken,” Shijie yishu yu meixue, trans. Chen Xihe, (World Art and Aesthetics), no.6, (Beijing: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe [Culture and Art Press], 1985), 239-300.
[15] Laola Muerwei (Laura Mulvey), “Shijue kuaigan yu xushixing dianying,” Yingshi wenhua (Film and TV Culture), trans. Zhou Chuanji, no.1,(Beijing: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe [Culture and Art Press], 1985),
[16] Chaersi Aherteman (Charles Altman), “Mixingpian chuyi,”Shijie dianying (World Cinema), trans. Gong Zhufeng, 1985:6,
[17] Browne 1987, 1988.
[18] Qi Longren Chi Lungzin), “1964-1985 Dianying fuhaoxue lilun de fazhan yu yange,”Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.24 (1988:3), 17-20.
[19]  Dangdai xifang dianying meixue sixiang (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe [China Social Sciences Press], 1986).
[20] Dianying meixue (Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe [People’s Press], 1991).
[21] Shao Mujun, Dianying lilun wenxuan (Selected Essays on Film Theory), (Beijing: Zhongguo Dianying Chubanshe [China Film Press], 1990).
[22] Chen Xihe, “Zhongguo dianying meixue de zai renshi,” (“Reexamining Chinese film aesthetics”), in Luo Yijun (Chief Ed.), Zhongguo dianying lilun wenxuan (Anthology of Chinese Film Theory), (Beijing: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe [Culture and Art Press], 1992), vol.2,.289-306, translated as “Shadowplay: Chinese Film Aesthetics and their Philosophical and Cultural Fundamentals” in George S. Semsel, Xia Hong, and Hou Jianping (eds.), Chinese Film Theory: A Guide to the New Era, trans. Hou Jianping, Li Xiaohong, and Fan Yuan, (New York: Praeger, 1990,) 192-204.
[23] Zhu Dake, “Xie Jin dianying moshi de quexian,” in Luo Yijun, vol.2, 491-2, translated as “The drawback of Xie Jin’s model” in Semsel et.al.,144-6
[24] Qiu Jingmei, “Huang Tudi: yixie yiyi de chansheng,” Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema) no.16 (1987:1),.68-79, published in English as Esther C.M. Yau, “Yellow Earth: Western Analysis and a Non-Western Text,” in Chris Berry (ed.), Perspectives on Chinese Cinema (London: British Film Institute: 1992), 62-79.
[25] Chen Xihe, “Lun dianying de texing” (“On the specificity of cinema”), Beijing dianying xueyuan xuebao (Journal of the Beijing Film Academy), no.2 (1985:2), 9-33.
[26] Xu Zengmin “Dianying fuhaoxue yu fuhaoxue” (“Film semiotics and semiotics”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.13 (1986:4).
[27] Yao Xiaomeng, “Dui yizhong xin de meixue xingtai de sikao” (“Thoughts towards a new aesthetics”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.15 (1986:6), 42-49.
[28] Zhong Li, “Menglong de xiandai nüxing yishi” (“Misty modern women’s thought”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.14 (1986:5),
[29] Dai Jinhua, “Du Xia Yan tongzhi xie dianying juben de jige wenti” (“Reading comrade Xia Yan’s questions on the writing of film scripts”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.16 (1987:1), 138-143.
[30] Li Tuo, Chen Xihe et.al., “Duihua: yulepian” (“Dialogue: entertainment films”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.16 (1987:1), 55-67.
[31] Zhang Wei, “Die Bian dujie” (“Reading The Butterfly Murders“) Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.20 (1987:5), 48-54.
[32]  Ni Zhen, “Dianying lilun yanjiu: fenqing xueke, gede qisuo,” (“Film theory research: distinguishing disciplines, each with their own role to play”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.22 (1988:1), 61-3; Li Yiming, “Pipingxing lilun zai Zhongguo” (“Critical theory in China”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.22 (1988:1), 64-66.
[33] Li Xun, “Guanyu xushi yufa” (“On narrative grammar”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary cinema), no.22 (1988:1), 106-109.
[34] Li Yiming, “Yuanyang Lou: ren he chengshi de gushi” (“Loving Couples: a story of people and the city”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.22 (1988:1), 73-81.
[35] Yao Xiaomeng and Hu Ke, “Dianying qiancangzhe yishixingtai de shenhua” (“Cinema: myths with hidden ideology”), Dianying yishu (Film Art) no.193 (1988:8), 3-14.
[36] Wu Xiaoming, “Modai Huangdi: quanli jiegou yu geren” (“The Last Emperor: power structures and the individual”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.26 (1988:5), 42-5.
[37] “Gei Kafei Jia Dian Tang mantan” (“Discussion on With Sugar”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary cinema), no.23 (1988:2), 57-71; “Fengkuang de Daijia bitan” (“Notes on Obsession”). Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.29 (1989:2), 85-94; “Taolun Benmingnian” (“On this is my year”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.33 (1989:6), 90-97.
[38] “Zhanzheng yu renxing: Wanzhong zuotan jiyao” (“War and humanity: a summary of the roundtable discussion on Evening bell”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.27 (1988:6), 115-6.
[39] See the special features on “New Chinese film research” (“Zhongguo xin dianying yanjiu“) in issues 1 and 2 of Film Art (Dianying yishu) in 1989; Zhang Wei, “Zhongguo dangdai yulepian yanjiu huishuping” (“Introduction to the seminar on contemporary Chinese entertainment films”),Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.28 (1989:1), 4-7.
[40] The first four works can be found in the special section, “Chongdu jingdian benwen” (“Rereading classic texts”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.36 (1990:3), 4-35. See also, Wang Yichuan “Mangran shicuozhong de shengcun jingzheng” (“The fight for survival in the midst of confusion”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.34 (1990:1), 41-9; Yin Hong, “Chongdu Furongzhen” (“Rereading Hibiscus Town“), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.35 (1990:2), 33-9.
[41] Cited by Dai Jinhua in “Hongqi pu: yizuo yishixingtai de fuqiao” (“Red Flag Chronicle: an ideological bridge”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.36 (1990:3), 26-34.
[42] Yao Xiaomeng (under the pseudonym Wang Tugen), “‘Wuchanjieji wenhua dageming’ shi/xushi/yishixingtai huayu” (“The history, narration and ideological discourse of the ‘the proletarian cultural revolution'”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.36 (1990:3), 34-45; Yao Xiaomeng, “Chuji shehuizhuyi wenhua ji zhongguo dianying” (“Early socialist culture and Chinese cinema,”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.41 (1991:2), 39-47; Yuan Ying, “Nüquanzhuyi yu Zhongguo nüxing dianying” (“Feminism and Chinese women’s cinema”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.36 (1990:3), 46-53.
[43] See Zhang Yiwu, “Quanqiu houzhimin huajingzhong de Zhang Yimou,” (“Zhang Yimou in the global postcolonial discursive environment”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.54 (1993:3), 18-25.
[44] See Yin Hong, “Gaobiele Puloumixiusi zhihou” (“After saying goodbye to Prometheus”), Dangdai dianying (Contemporary Cinema), no.59 (1994:2), 60-7.

Appendix 1: Participants in the summer sessions and their topics:
* David Bordwell, “Film interpretation: theory and practice” (1988)
* Nick Browne, “Some questions concerning contemporary film theory and the history of western film theory” (1984), “On ideology” (1985).
* Brian Henderson, “On narration” (1987)
* Beverly Houston, “Hollywood melodrama of the 1950s” (1984)
* E. Ann Kaplan, “Psychoanalytic studies and women in film” (1987).
* Jonathan Kuntz, “History of US television and programming” (1988)
* Janet Neipris, “Fifty questions on screenplay writing” (1987), (with Don Wille) “Comedy in American film” (1987)
* Bill Nichols, “Hitchcock: problems of interpretation” (1986)
* Robert Rosen, “The social reading of film texts: a methodology” (1984), “Modernism, modernity and modernization” (1985), “The aesthetics of sound” (1986).
* George Schaefer, “Directing American TV, film and theatre” (1986). Robert Sklar, “New film historiography” (1988).
* Vivian Sobchak, “The Hollywood myth, ritual and ideology” (1986).
* Janet Staiger, “Contemporary quality cinema: film form and style”
* (1985)
* Kristin Thompson, “Contemporary American film” (1988)
* Richard Walter, “Screenwriting: the whole picture” (1987).