Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Banned on the Mainland: "The Da Vinci Code" - Take Two
«
H E
»
News and Politics :: Sino-American :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: News and Perspectives ::
email
posted Saturday, 10 June 2006
After much speculation, Beijing has, this Friday issued a formal statement over the 'banning' of the controversial film "The Da Vinci Code", stating that it has not been 'banned', as initial reports indicated, but that it has merely been 'removed from public' view.
The film was ordered off of theatre screens earlier this week. At the time, no official explanation was given.
It is believed to be the first instance in which a foreign film had been removed from theatres after having been cleared from screening by Chinese censors.
Reasons?
According to the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film and Television -the politically controlled body which overseas audio and video censorship in China - "Da Vinci" was pulled form theatres in order to 'allow more screen time' to be allocated to domestic Chinese productions over the screening period 10 June - 10 July 2006.
The China Film Group Corporation owns the Chinese distribution rights to “Da Vinci”.
“Da Vinci's” removal apparently comes in response to requests, from some of China's most influential cinema groups, that they be given a higher screen priority over the summer.
Reports indicate that the main complainants were:
Despite Beijing's statement of reassurance over the reasons for the pulling of "Da Vinci", observers have questioned both Beijing's motives, and the integrity of its statement.
As such, China watchers drawing attention to the fact that the pulling of "Da Vinci" - in order to 'make way for domestic films' - comes despite the fact that Chinese theatres continue to screen two less popular wester films - “Ice Age 2”; a computer animated slapstick children adventure, and “The Poseidon Adventure”; an expensive, but insubstantial, remake of a 1972 oceanic disaster movie.
Owing to this apparent ambiguity of purpose, some sources have speculated that the film may have been withdrawn because it was in danger of becoming 'too successful'. Leading Chinese officials to fear that it could both overshadow domestic productions in popularity, and drain vital box-office revenue away from Chinese films.
Though not commenting directly on the issue, Chinese press releases would appear to confirm this supposition, at least in part..
Suspicion?
Beijing's assertions over the reasons for the films removal also come in contradiction to statements from within China's media industry, claiming that the order to remove "Da Vinci" from screens was also accompanied by an official banning order. A legally enforced notice that forbids media groups from independently reviewing, discussing, debating, publicizing or commenting on the film in any way, while, at the same time, compelling them to carry officially sanctioned press releases promoting the state line on the film.
Such tactics are common when Beijing wishes to
A) Remove a troublesome production from public view. Effectively erasing it from the media
B) Ensure that only the official account of the film is know
C) Prevent the issues behind a film, or the issues of film censorship, from being openly debated
Such statements were however contradicted by the Chinese press, which indicated that "Da Vinci" could be, but isn't, being screened.
Accounts in the Chinese state media gave no explanation as to why film reals were 'retrieved'. An action which effectively renders the film 'banned'.
Some commercial reasons for their collection do exist.
It has yet to be seen if "Da Vinci" will return to theatres in a limited form.
In addition to speculation that the film might have been removed form public viewing for commercial reasons, a number of sources have questioned whether Chinese officials pulled "Da Vinci" for religious reasons. Including anger from Chinese Christians over the films distortion of accepted religious history.
In response to Beijing's moves against the film, longstanding BBC China correspondent Quentin Sommerville went on record to voice the possibility that Chinese officials might have reacted out of the fear that “Da Vinci” might provoke a resurgence of interest in Christianity and Christian history.
Christianity is permitted in China, but only within the confines the two branches of the state approved Church. Members are, however, discouraged form independently exploring the roots of Christianity, or its place in the world.
Beijing commonly acts to discourage curiosity in a number of areas, including recent domestic history, domestic politics and perceived slights against the Chinese people by foreigners.
Sony Pictures?
Officials at Sony Pictures , the company behind the “Da Vinci's” global release, were notified of its removal from theatres on the day that the official order was issued. They were not notified as to the reasons why.
When questioned, they were not hopeful that the film would be reinstated in any meaningful way, and voiced that they would likely not be given the opportunity for official recourse.
The Numbers?
According to Xinhua, China's state controlled media Agency, "Da Vinci" was, at the time of its removal from theatres, the third highest grossing foreign film of all time on Mainland China.
Its removal from theatres would, hypothetically speaking, release a substantial amount of screen time for a number of Chinese films which, traditionally, tend to run in far fewer theatres.
Restrictions?
Under Current regulations, Chinese censors permit a maximum of 20 foreign films to be released per year, and restricts them 1/3 of screen time.
Controversially, most Hong Kong films are classified as being 'Foreign' despite them being produced within the bounds of Chinese territory, and must compete with western films, and films from sovereign Asian nations, for screen time.
The film was ordered off of theatre screens earlier this week. At the time, no official explanation was given.
| "This is such short notice from the film's distributor. They will stop showing it from tomorrow, I don't know the reason either. We just do what we are told to do" Wu Hehu, Spokesperson, United Cinema, Shanghai |
It is believed to be the first instance in which a foreign film had been removed from theatres after having been cleared from screening by Chinese censors.
Reasons?
According to the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film and Television -the politically controlled body which overseas audio and video censorship in China - "Da Vinci" was pulled form theatres in order to 'allow more screen time' to be allocated to domestic Chinese productions over the screening period 10 June - 10 July 2006.
| "We're making room for the next month when dozens of home-made films will show across the country." Weng Li, Deputy Manager, Exhibition and Distribution, China Film Group Corporation |
The China Film Group Corporation owns the Chinese distribution rights to “Da Vinci”.
“Da Vinci's” removal apparently comes in response to requests, from some of China's most influential cinema groups, that they be given a higher screen priority over the summer.
Reports indicate that the main complainants were:
- The Chinese Movie Distributors Association
- The Chinese Movie Producers Association
- The Chinese Urban Movie Theatres Association
Despite Beijing's statement of reassurance over the reasons for the pulling of "Da Vinci", observers have questioned both Beijing's motives, and the integrity of its statement.
As such, China watchers drawing attention to the fact that the pulling of "Da Vinci" - in order to 'make way for domestic films' - comes despite the fact that Chinese theatres continue to screen two less popular wester films - “Ice Age 2”; a computer animated slapstick children adventure, and “The Poseidon Adventure”; an expensive, but insubstantial, remake of a 1972 oceanic disaster movie.
Owing to this apparent ambiguity of purpose, some sources have speculated that the film may have been withdrawn because it was in danger of becoming 'too successful'. Leading Chinese officials to fear that it could both overshadow domestic productions in popularity, and drain vital box-office revenue away from Chinese films.
| "possible explanation is that officials do not want the film to do well in China" Min Lee, Correspondent, The Scotsman International (HK) |
Though not commenting directly on the issue, Chinese press releases would appear to confirm this supposition, at least in part..
| "We made a purely commercial decision. No single film could monopolize the market for one or two months, not even in the United States" Weng Li, China Film Group Corporation (distribution right owner) |
Suspicion?
Beijing's assertions over the reasons for the films removal also come in contradiction to statements from within China's media industry, claiming that the order to remove "Da Vinci" from screens was also accompanied by an official banning order. A legally enforced notice that forbids media groups from independently reviewing, discussing, debating, publicizing or commenting on the film in any way, while, at the same time, compelling them to carry officially sanctioned press releases promoting the state line on the film.
Such tactics are common when Beijing wishes to
A) Remove a troublesome production from public view. Effectively erasing it from the media
B) Ensure that only the official account of the film is know
C) Prevent the issues behind a film, or the issues of film censorship, from being openly debated
Such statements were however contradicted by the Chinese press, which indicated that "Da Vinci" could be, but isn't, being screened.
| "We are not against foreign films ...My company will continue to arrange their screenings in China according to market demand." Weng Li, China Film Group Corporation (distribution right owner) |
Accounts in the Chinese state media gave no explanation as to why film reals were 'retrieved'. An action which effectively renders the film 'banned'.
| "All copies [of the Da Vinci Code] have been retrieved. We have not been told of the reason" Official, Shanghai Film Art Center. |
Some commercial reasons for their collection do exist.
It has yet to be seen if "Da Vinci" will return to theatres in a limited form.
In addition to speculation that the film might have been removed form public viewing for commercial reasons, a number of sources have questioned whether Chinese officials pulled "Da Vinci" for religious reasons. Including anger from Chinese Christians over the films distortion of accepted religious history.
In response to Beijing's moves against the film, longstanding BBC China correspondent Quentin Sommerville went on record to voice the possibility that Chinese officials might have reacted out of the fear that “Da Vinci” might provoke a resurgence of interest in Christianity and Christian history.
| "there had been speculation that the film was proving too popular with Chinese Christians." Quentin Sommerville (attrib, "Chinese ban Da Vinci Code movie") |
Christianity is permitted in China, but only within the confines the two branches of the state approved Church. Members are, however, discouraged form independently exploring the roots of Christianity, or its place in the world.
Beijing commonly acts to discourage curiosity in a number of areas, including recent domestic history, domestic politics and perceived slights against the Chinese people by foreigners.
Sony Pictures?
Officials at Sony Pictures , the company behind the “Da Vinci's” global release, were notified of its removal from theatres on the day that the official order was issued. They were not notified as to the reasons why.
| "We're obviously disappointed by this decision ... [but we] were not informed as to why the film was pulled" Jeff Blake, Head, Worldwide Marketing and Distribution Division, Sony Pictures |
When questioned, they were not hopeful that the film would be reinstated in any meaningful way, and voiced that they would likely not be given the opportunity for official recourse.
| "We'll wait and see what happens, but we don't expect the opportunity to appeal to the government of China" Jeff Blake, Head, Worldwide Marketing and Distribution Division, Sony Pictures |
The Numbers?
According to Xinhua, China's state controlled media Agency, "Da Vinci" was, at the time of its removal from theatres, the third highest grossing foreign film of all time on Mainland China.
- Number 1: The Titanic (359 Million Yuan)
- Number 2: Peral Harbor (105 Million Yuan)
- Number 3: The Da Vinci Code (104 Million Yuan)
Its removal from theatres would, hypothetically speaking, release a substantial amount of screen time for a number of Chinese films which, traditionally, tend to run in far fewer theatres.
Restrictions?
Under Current regulations, Chinese censors permit a maximum of 20 foreign films to be released per year, and restricts them 1/3 of screen time.
| "[State] regulations require that foreign films occupy less than one third of the total screen time in cinemas. Even where foreign blockbusters are allowed into China under the film quota system, the screen quota then mandates that the distributor restrict the number of prints available to cinemas." SPECIAL 301, International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2006 |
Controversially, most Hong Kong films are classified as being 'Foreign' despite them being produced within the bounds of Chinese territory, and must compete with western films, and films from sovereign Asian nations, for screen time.
View Comments/Add a Comment (5)
1. Sarah left...
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 7:32 am
The issue is now as clear as mud. Obviously, someone high up in the power
structure got a bee in his bonnet (or someone put a word in his ear) and
the fiat was issued: no da Vinci. Who understands the arcane, byzantine
workings of the mind of the all-powerful? Not I, surely.
2. China Law Blog left...
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 10:16 am
Thanks for running this. I have been dutifully trying to figure out why
this happened out of a belief that it will somehow increase my insight into
the murky workings of the Chinese bureaucracy. Your explanations make some
sense, but I fear we will probably never fully understand what happened
here.
3. ACB left...
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 3:53 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
I'm not exactly new to China, but I'm still rather stunned at the secrecy
behind this move.
4. zhonghuarising left...
Friday, 16 June 2006 6:09 am :: http://www.zhonghuarising.com
I agree with ACB that this move is highly questionable. I just can't
understand why the movie was allowed a short run before pulling the plug on
it. But I too can do no more than speculate based on the "information" that
is coming out.
5. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...
Saturday, 24 June 2006 4:12 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
From the looks of things, Beijing either underestimated the impact of this
film, or the cnsors didn't fully understand what they were seeing when they
saw it and so let something through that they wouldn't have otherwise done.