MCLC: Chinese Cinema Book interview

Denton, Kirk denton.2 at osu.edu
Fri Dec 9 09:18:15 EST 2011


MCLC LIST
From: kevin lee (kevin at dgeneratefilms.com)
Subject: Chinese Cinema Book interview
***********************************************************

Source: dGenerate Films:
http://dgeneratefilms.com/critical-essays/cinematalk-interview-with-julian-
ward-and-song-hwee-lim-editors-of-the-chinese-cinema-book/

CinemaTalk: Interview with Julian Ward and Song Hwee Lim, Editors of
The Chinese Cinema Book
By Maya E. Rudolph

Song Hwee Lim and Julian Ward are editors of the recently published
The Chinese Cinema Book (BFI and Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

Song Hwee Lim is Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at the University of
Exeter. He is the author of Celluloid Comrades: Representations of
Male Homosexuality in Contemporary Chinese Cinemas (University of
Hawaii Press, 2006), co-editor of Remapping World Cinema: Identity,
Culture and Politics in Film (Wallflower Press, 2006), and founding
editor of the Journal of Chinese Cinemas. His next monograph, Tsai
Ming-liang and a Cinema of Slowness, will appear in 2013.

Julian Ward is Senior Lecturer in Chinese Studies attached to the
Asian Studies department of the University of Edinburgh. He is
Associate Editor of the Journal of Chinese Cinemas and has written
articles on the representation in film in different eras of Communist
China of the Sino-Japanese War. He is the author of Xu Xiake
(1587­1641): The Art of Travel Writing (2000), a study of China¹s
foremost travel writer of the imperial period.

The Chinese Cinema Book, published earlier this year, provides a
crucial and  comprehensive guide to Chinese cinema history,
contemporary scholarship, and a range of discussions of Chinese cinema
in both national and trans-national contexts. Incorporating
contributions from many leading scholars in the field of Chinese
cinema studies, as well as writings from editors Lim and Ward, the
book is divided into five thematic sections: Territories,
Trajectories, Historiographies; Early Cinema to 1949; The Forgotten
Period: 1949­80; The New Waves; and Stars, Auteurs and Genres.

_ _

dGF: In the prologue to ³The Chinese Cinema Book,² you state that,
despite its rather authoritative title, ³this book does not pretend to
offer a comprehensive coverage of Chinese cinema throughout its long
and complicated history and multifarious manifestations,² but rather
aims to provide ³an overview of the Œstate of the field¹.² In
selecting works to represent the ³state of the field² and assembling
this most recent collection of scholarship, what was your approach to
comprehensively taking the temperature of today¹s climate for Chinese
cinema studies?

SL and JW:  First of all, we¹re fully aware that this is an
English-language publication designed to be a useful resource for
academics and students, and that it should also appeal to a general
readership. This means covering fairly familiar territories while
introducing some new areas, and bearing in mind the availability of
film materials on DVDs with English subtitles. In our other role as
editors of the Journal of Chinese Cinemas, we are keenly attuned to
the state of the field in terms of established and emerging
scholarship, and we therefore attempt to reflect that in this book as
well. Overall, we are pleased with the coverage of the book in terms
of the range of topics and scholars.

dGF:  In editing the book, did you discover any particular areas of
focus or recent trends that unexpectedly begged attention?

SL and JW: Following initial discussions with the publishers in
September 2008, we were aware that, given the available space, it was
impossible to do full justice to a variety of diverse topics,
including the Cultural Revolution and documentaries produced in the
People¹s Republic of China since the 1990s. Having commissioned
authors to write on specific topics, we were delightfully surprised by
the focus that some authors had chosen within the remit of their
chapters. For example, the exploration of previously neglected areas
such as Cantonese cinema of the 1950s and less famous martial arts
stars, as well as of recent phenomenon such as transmedia celebrity
have opened up the scope of the book in rather unexpected but
interesting ways.

dGF:  As you write, the field of Chinese Cinema Studies is rapidly
expanding and can no longer fit its entire scholarship population
working outside of Chinese societies comfortably ³in the average
living room.² With this influx of scholars, what new ideas and
approaches to material have you observed coming into play?

SL and JW:  This is an exciting time to be working in the field of
Chinese Cinema Studies. The first ten to fifteen years since 1991
(taking Chris Berry¹s edited book, Perspectives on Chinese Cinema, as
the marker) can be described as a phase of emergence and consolidation
during which important work was done on key issues, periods, genres,
and directors. Since the new millennium, I believe we are witnessing a
pluralization of the field both in terms of topics covered (for
example, gender and sexuality, time and space,  ecocriticism) and
background of scholars (film studies, art history, and media and
communications in addition to the more conventional area studies,
comparative literature, and history). More importantly, with
transnational cinemas becoming a more common phenomenon in film
production, Chinese Cinema Studies is increasingly breaking away from
a national cinema model and staging dialogue with world cinema
cultures, whether in its consideration of films, directors, stars or
genres.

dGF: The first essay in the book is Chris Berry¹s ³Transnational
Chinese Cinema Studies.² The discussion of ³transnational² and
³translocal² has long been the locus of much discourse in Chinese
Cinema studies. In beginning the collection with Berry¹s essay, a
rather frank appraisal of ³transnational² and how the term may be most
effectively used, did you hope to offer a point of clarification,
preserve this buzzword, or simply offer Berry¹s view as a jumping-off
point?

SL and JW: As Chris Berry argues in his piece and elsewhere, the 1997
book edited by Sheldon Lu, Transnational Chinese Cinemas, has now come
to name the field that we study. By foregrounding the ³transnational²
our book rightly acknowledges this state of the field. More
importantly, Chinese cinemas, for a variety of reasons, are
particularly productive for interrogating the concept of
³transnational cinema², which in itself is gaining foothold in the
discipline of film studies. Given the still pervasive Anglo- and
Euro-centrism within film studies in western academia, Chinese Cinema
Studies has a lot more to offer to the discipline beyond a national
cinema model through which westerners can understand ³the region².
Rather, it has potential in taking centre stage in the rethinking of
certain conceptual models in film studies, the ³transnational² being a
prime example.

dGF: In terms of contemporary mainland film, the articles in the book
tend to reflect a tendency towards more ³mainstream² or strictly
³independent² filmmaking in China. Yet, as filmmakers like Jia Zhangke
have drifted away from the margins of filmmaking and into
international limelight, how do you see this gap being bridged in
Chinese cinema? What is the current you see forming, if any, in terms
of a ³median² film culture between extreme mainstream and extreme
underground?

SL and JW: Over the past few years, it has become increasingly
apparent, as the templates of historical rural allegories for the
Fifth Generation and edgy urban dramas for the Sixth Generation played
themselves out, that the old categorisations of Chinese film are no
longer sustainable. Feng Xiaogang, who rose to fame as the master of
the New Year comedy, has made big budget epics about the Chinese Civil
War and the Tangshan earthquake of 1976, while Huang Jianxin, one of
the most interesting and subversive of the Fifth Generation directors,
now makes state approved ŒMain Melody¹ productions, such as Beginning
of the Great Revival, marking the ninetieth anniversary of the
founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Jia Zhangke, on the other
hand, can now be seen as an international auteur whose ³national
label²‹whether in terms of sixth- or seventh-generation (a label many
filmmakers categorized as such actually reject), or mainstream or
independent‹has become less relevant.

dGF: What impact do you hope this book will have on the Chinese cinema
studies community? There is a fair amount of cross-reference between
scholars evident here, so I was wondering if you could comment on
that.

SL and JW: The Chinese cinema studies community is a very visible
presence, not just in print but also at international academic
conferences. Cross-referencing between authors, while incidental in
this book, is a healthy sign of a substantial body of work having been
established in the field and receiving recognition from peer scholars
working within it. Of course it remains important for the field to
continue to discover new areas of research interests and to push
theoretical frameworks, but it is heartening to witness a palpable
sense of confidence in the quality of scholarship in the field within
the chapters of the book.





More information about the MCLC mailing list