Already heralded as one of China's new-gen visionaries, filmmaker Lu Chuan's latest opus is "Kekexili: Mountain Patrol," the stirring, harrowing account of the titanic struggle between Kekexili's patrolmen and poachers. In an exclusive sit-down with APA following UCLA's screening of Kekexili, Lu talks industry, piracy and journalistic responsibility.
Beijing director Lu Chuan is in the rare position of being both commercially successful at home and well-received abroad. His first film, The Missing Gun played at the Sundance Film Festival and his latest, Kekexili, became the first mainland Chinese film to win the best picture prize in Taiwan's Golden Horse Awards. An English major from People's Liberation Army International Relations University in Nanjing, Lu followed the footsteps of his writer father, Lu Tianming, and became a storyteller, graduating with a master's in directing from the prestigious Beijing Film Academy. Lu has since been one of the mainland's most well-known young directors. From his very first film, he has secured funding from Columbia Asia, and was able to bring major stars Jiang Wen and Ning Jing along for his first project, The Missing Gun. His follow-up, Kekexili, has brought a few more wreaths to Lu's resume: a special mention at the 2005 Berlin International Film Festival and a special jury prize at the 2004 Tokyo International Film Festival. --Brian Hu
Interview with Lu Chuan
April 17, 2005
Interviewed by Brian Hu, Chi Tung and Dong Huang-Cherney
Transcription by Brian Hu and Chi Tung
Translation by Brian Hu and Chi Tung
Video Edit by Florence Ip
Brian Hu: I'm curious about the Beijing Film Academy, and most of us know the academy as the training ground of the fifth generation filmmakers. I was wondering if you could say something about the changes that have occurred there since that generation.
Lu Chuan: Actually, the fifth generation had a huge influence on me. The first film that made a big impression on me was Zhang Yimou's Red Sorghum. But for this generation and the next, the changes are significant. Before, film students' education emphasized artistry and their instructors asked them to study French filmmakers, Russian, European art films. But beginning with us, some of the instructors began to study American films.
But with the next generation, there'll be a further emphasis on American films. Actually, everyone wants to know how American films have reached such universal popularity. This is something we have to seriously think about. Now students study the industry and practicalities whereas previously, the emphasis was on theory. Now, more film students graduate and enter the industry straightaway. Your question is complicated; since we're pressed for time, I can only answer it briefly.
BH: You're probably the most successful mainland director in negotiating the co-production environment. I think that co-production is a strange term for us, so I was wondering if you could clarify some of the misconceptions about it, and then discuss how you went about doing a film with Columbia Pictures.
LC: With China before, co-production was there very early on. There were two types of co-production: One, foreign companies, such as Columbia and French companies. The other kind is with Hong Kong. Co-production needed to go through China Film Co-production Corporation while here, even when using American funding, it still had to go through CFCC. In 2003, this law was revoked. Now, companies can independently operate through their own co-production company. Because of the loosening of regulations, this gave them the power to choose who to work with, which was a very big reform.
With regard to my own films, The Missing Gun was co-produced with Columbia, who bought the overseas rights. Afterwards, because of that, there was better collaboration with Columbia. As a result, Kekexili became a possibility. After writing the script, and translating it into English, we sent it to Columbia, who agreed to invest in it. The negotiation process took about a year or so.
BH: What was the relationship like between Columbia Pictures and the local producers? Did they communicate a lot, or was Columbia's contribution mostly financial?
LC: Actually, there was a lot of communication between us. Our relationship with them involved not only financial investment, but the entire process -- positioning, casting, story direction. Columbia brought a lot of management experience into China; this was their most important contribution.
BH: I understand if you don't want to answer this, but what are your thoughts on piracy in China, especially because Kekexili has a social message, and it would be beneficial to get that message to a large audience?Â
LC: I think I see piracy this way: Personally, I think it stirs up good and bad effects for people in China. Everyone knows what the bad effects are, so I'll just talk about the good effects. One, it has an educational value. Before piracy, many people in China don't see good films; now because of it, their tastes get refined. There are also very active effects; free P.R. -- like the Internet, you have to let people use it for free before you collect money. Secondly, for us filmmakers, we don't have the same kind of access to information; now, via piracy, we can see high quality classic films -- filmmakers need to be able to see films. So this is good. Another unique facet: young filmmakers can't get their films into cineplexes, but with piracy, there's wider circulation and reputations can be built. With Kekexili, last year in China, it was number one in DVD sales -- but a lot of this was accomplished through piracy, so production lost a lot of revenue. Still, I think piracy needs to gradually be abolished.
BH: How conscious were you while filming that you were presenting a social commentary? I noticed in both this film and The Missing Gun that there are characters caught up in corrupt business -- in The Missing Gun there is the character involved in a corrupt liquor business and in this film there is poaching. Is this a theme you're particularly interested in when you make your films?
LC: I didn't intend it to have any particular social message, but maybe for me, there are two things to consider: first, give audiences something to think about; secondly, when I was at film school learning to write screenplays, I was heavily influenced by Hollywood, which is "event-oriented." They use an event as a launching pad; The Missing Gun just so happened to coincide with an actual event at the time. But that might not be the direction I want to take with my third film.
BH: Could you say something about your new film?
LC: It's something like "Once Upon a Time in Xingjiang Province," about a group of kids who grow up during the Cultural Revolution.
Chi Tung: What do you think the role of the journalist is -- how far does he need to go to get the story?
LC: I needed a journalist to use as a mirror, to reflect the events. But his observations are from an outsider's perspective; I wished for him to express my own reactions. When I went to Kekexili, it was a very affecting experience -- seeing all the antelope carcasses, vultures circling around -- but we're mostly viewing the situation from an outsider's perspective.
Dong Huang-Cherney: In China, Kekexili got such a good reception because there's a Han reporter observing; without him, there's a barrier, or perhaps we react differently?
LC: Actually, at the time, I did have the idea to use a stranger to bring the audience into that environment. Later though, many people thought he was unnecessary.
Chi Tung: You mention that the journalist is a witness or a mirror, but at the same time his role changes when he shifts from an outsider to an insider; when he begins to empathize with the characters. Do you think that changes his role in the end?
LC: That's right. He shifts from an outsider to a participant. But during this event, he doesn't have direct involvement -- until his report. His report is told from the point of view of an outsider returning to the Mainland, and reflecting upon his experiences. I think he's involved -- he's sucked into it -- but not as a truly active participant.
Dong: However, being an outsider, do you think he can really be an insider, since there is a conflict between Han and Tibetan people? Do you think that makes it too easy?
LC: Actually, my personal experience with the Tibetans weren't like everyone said they would be; they're alert, but they're actually very open -- if they felt your sympathy. when I directed them, they accepted me and cooperated with me. They're that kind of people, like Native Americans and Eskimos; as minorities, they're able to preserve their purity, their nature. Many times, for those afforded less opportunities, their inherent nature is more compassionate.
Dong: Isn't that a form of cultural superiority?
LC: Yes, but it's unavoidable. But in coming into contact with them, I don't feel like I'm superior; we gain strength from them. But with certain things, you just have them and they don't. You know that in our society, they constitute the underprivileged minority, but when you meet them, you realize their innate nature contains a vigor for life. I really wanted to express this in the film; with big-city people, our vigor for life isn't as powerful. In this way, it's different from other Chinese films; its prevailing attitude is life-affirming -- even though it's a tragedy. This is what's different, this is Tibetan.
BH: Toward the end of the film, the captain tells the reporter, "Reporters cannot solve our problems," but clearly you don't believe this, since you show the reporter to be the force that solved their problem. To me it seemed like the captain was resisting the influence of the reporter. Can you explain this?
LC: Actually, to me, this is a problem with the translation. The captain says: "Kekexili: is it for you journalists to protect?" It's a rhetorical question. Because throughout, the journalist is interrogating him, he keeps second guessing him -- Tibetans are very reticent; their men don't like to experience different things. The journalist asks this question from a society that has law, has rules, but in Kekexili, these things don't exist -- it's all about survival. These people aren't real cops, but they have to own guns -- without guns, they can't survive.
So in actuality, the captain's response to the journalist -- he doesn't want to provide an explanation. Only our methods to protect Kekexili can make it possible, he seems to be saying; your methods may have logic, but they can't protect Kekexili. That's why his question is rhetorical; it's almost mocking him. They exist in two separate worlds: the journalist, once he returns to civilized society, he uses civilized means to help them. I think this is interesting; in China, ultimately, it was the reporter's article that caused a big commotion, and which resulted in the poachers getting arrested. So through the journalist's appeal, civilized society has its own solution. But this is actually a very complicated question.