Tian burst onto the
new wave Chinese cinema scene in the politically-charged mid-1980s
with two difficult, experimental films set among minority communities—a
semi-documentary on Inner Mongolia’s nomadic hunters On
the Hunting Ground (1985), and a Tibetan mythical-religious paean
Horse Thief (1986). He went on to make a series of inconsequential
commercial pictures—a disco-craze dance musical Rock ‘n
Roll Kids and a stiff international costume epic Li Lianying:
the Imperial Eunuch.
Soon after the 1989 Tiananmen Incident
Tian Zhuangzhuang clashed with Mainland film authorities over
his semi-autobiographical The Blue Kite (Lanse Fengzheng), a daringly
bold tale of a family’s survival through the horrors of
Mao’s China. The Blue Kite was filmed and launched in 1991
at the Directors’ Fortnight in Cannes against the orders
of the Chinese Film Bureau. The film went on to win numerous awards
at many film festivals. The Blue Kite was voted one of the best
films of the year by Time magazine and Tian Zhuangzhuang was acclaimed
the best Chinese director ever. Although it became something of
an international art house hit, it was never authorized by Mainland
film authorities, and the director was banned from making films
for three years, a hiatus which stretched to six more years of
self-imposed creative silence, during which Tian worked as a producer
at the Beijing Film Studio.
Springtime in a Small Town picks
no quarrels with the Film Bureau. It is a remake of what might
be the greatest—certainly the most revered—Chinese
film of all time, Fei Mu’s 1948 masterpiece Spring in a
Small Town (also titled in Chinese Xiao cheng zhi chun). The stories
of the two films are almost identical. Set just after World War
II, a sickly young landlord, Liyan, lives in a decaying courtyard
house with his wife Yuwen, his sister, and their old servant.
Liyan receives an unexpected visit from former university buddy
Zhiwen, now a medical doctor. Zhiwen is surprised to encounter
Yuwen, with whom he was in love before the war. Zhiwen’s
short visit is marked by dangerous eruptions of barely concealed
passion as the situation rapidly becomes dangerously unstable.
As former passions rekindle, modern romance threatens traditional
bonds of loyalty.
Fei Mu’s original film activates
this melodramatic premise with a daringly modernist style, deploying
avant-garde techniques in a subtle and entirely original way.
The film’s most innovative feature is Yuwen’s strikingly
modernistic voiceover, a half-whispered, half-incanted stream-of-consciousness
that complicates and poeticizes the entire narrative. This narrator’s
voice, though clearly identified with Yuwen, is not fixed in any
particular time; sometimes it anticipates action about to occur,
sometimes it looks back omnisciently, sometimes it wonders, uncertainly,
what is about to happen. Moreover, the film presents a split perspective,
its text and its gaze often at odds. Though the voiceover is Yuwen’s,
the gaze seems to be Liyan’s. The camera generally observes
the action from a very low angle, identifying it with Liyan’s
(mostly bedridden) point of view. Fei’s editing also draws
attention to itself: he often prefers dissolves to cuts, going
so far as to dissolve between shots within scenes. These techniques
all destabilize what might otherwise be a theatrical, melodramatic
text: Fei’s use of actors from Shanghai theatre, rather
than cinema, underlines the literary feel of the screenplay. The
actors’ powerful, acutely nuanced performances (especially
Wei Wei’s portrayal of Yuwen, which weds incandescence to
quiet control, expressed through her minutely subtle changes of
expression and slow-motion gestures) both play up the fastidiously
controlled “stagedness” of the action, and probe deeply
enough into their characters to give the film an entirely unprecedented
feel of psychological realism.
remake preserves the long, carefully
designed takes, hauntingly dark atmosphere, and stealthily increasing
tension of the original, it rejects every element of Fei Mu’s
avant-garde style. No narrator, no dissolves, no fixed low camera.
Tian replaces these with an almost continuously mobile, gently
gliding camera that tracks and pans laterally (the film’s
cinematographer, Mark Lee, used a similar but more flexible version
of this style in Flowers of Shanghai). This technique is derived
from the central party scene of the original, where Fei used carefully
planned camera movement to specifically isolate different pairings
of characters as the complex dynamics of the scene unfolded. But
Tian and Lee generalize the style to cover all of their interior
scenes, creating elegant surface effects rather than anything
specifically expressive. The new actors, too seem a bit constricted
by the classic outlines of their characters, and rarely dig as
alarmingly deeply into their roles as the cast of the original.
In purely stylistic terms, Tian replaces
the subversive modernity of 1948 with a traditional, almost classical
film language. The absence of a chronologically mobile narrator
and the suppression of the original’s multiple points of
view pushes the film’s genre from psychological drama to
romantic melodrama. Tian seems to be turning a radical commentary
on China’s breakdown into a nostalgic celebration of a lost
perfect past. The resulting jewel, though splendidly graceful,
is merely decorous and oddly lifeless, like an heirloom sealed
in amber.
But there is much more than simple
nostalgia behind the director’s invocation of this key classic
of Chinese cinema. I would suggest that Springtime deserves to
be read as an active, urgent intervention into a contemporary
Chinese political dilemma. It engages at a thematic and symbolical
level to try and heal a violent rupture in Chinese culture: the
chasm that Liberation (1949) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)
opened between contemporary Chinese culture and its traditional
past. The PRC’s double revolution was radically disruptive:
ideologically and in everyday life, it proposed a complete break
with the thoughts, culture, and practices of China’s traditional
past. Classical culture was to be sealed off, denounced, and made
inaccessible. Once Maoism collapsed, several generations of Chinese
found themselves in a social, cultural, and moral vacuum, without
any traditional foundation: newly forged values evaporated, and
old values remained inaccessible.
Springtime takes on the project of
reattaching the present to the past by bridging chasms, healing
wounds. Several kinds of painful ruptures mark the film’s
text: the gulf in the original story between pre- and post-war
China and the vast emotional space between the characters’
pre- and post-war selves. It is easy to read the original as a
lightly coded metaphor for China’s postwar situation: amidst
the ruins of the old (the ruined mansion, traditionally dressed
Liyan’s failing health) comes an opportunity to turn and
embrace the modern (Western-suited Zhiwen, trained in medicine).
At the same time, Yuwen is confronted with the challenge of bridging
the gulf between her married self and her earlier persona, still
in love with Zhiwen. The key question becomes one of lost access
to the past: is the present, cut off from its past, condemned
to wander, lost and aimless, in unrelieved pain? Or is the cost
of reattaching to the past even greater suffering?
Images of separation permeate the
new film’s symbolic structure. The massive ruined city wall
haunts the new film as a visual leitmotif. In Springtime’s
most strikingly beautiful image, a very low camera views Yuwen
and Zhiwen high above, silhouetted on top of the city wall, teetering
on the edge of a fearfully huge barrier, contemplating the courage
to cross it. At its dramatic peak, Yuwen, locked in a room, cuts
her hand while smashing through the glass panel of a door: a barrier
is violated, at great cost.
In autobiographical terms, Springtime
is Tian’s successful gesture of artistic renewal, by which
he forges a connection between a creative present and his past
interrupted career. On the first day of shooting, cast and crew
witnessed the director pause and embrace the tree built on the
set of the old house’s courtyard. As he burst into tears,
he cried out “I’ve come home, I’ve come home.”
In Springtime’s final scene, Liyan nurtures the same tree,
pruning away an old branch to prepare for the growth of the new,
nurtured from the same roots. Tian’s radical devotion to
the value of continuous tradition is precisely what leads him
to abjure the avant-garde stylistics of the original in favor
of a self-consciously classicizing style, one that asserts a continuity
with past Chinese film culture and, on a personal level, represents
a rhapsodic homecoming.
|