Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
On 31 May 2021, the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party held a collective study session (PCSS) on strengthening and improving international communication. As a venue for policy signalling, the session suggested the Chinese state's continuing and increasing efforts to, as President Xi Jinping (2021) stated, ‘tell Chinese stories, disseminate Chinese voices, and present a real, multidimensional, and comprehensive China.’ Studies, including this Special Issue, have indicated that for around a decade, China has heavily invested in its ‘media going global’ strategy (Madrid-Morales and Wasserman, 2018; Madrid-Morales, 2021; Marsh, 2016, 2018; Thussu et al., 2018). Films are an important part of ‘media going global’, as noted, for example, by Voci and Hui (2017) in their volume on films’ role in China's bid for soft power. China's increasing influence on Hollywood has also raised interest in academia and beyond (Zhu, 2020; PEN, 2020). President Xi also stressed the role of films in improving international communication, remarking that they ‘create a positive public opinion environment for China's steady reform and development and contribute to building a community of shared future’ (Xi, 2021). Xi's remarks suggested that China's official discourse increasingly emphasizes films’ role in internal and external political communication.
Alongside the importation of the concept of ‘cultural and creative industries’ and under the pressure of joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), around 2000, the Chinese state started to commercialize and industrialize its previously state-owned film sector (Yao, 2005). By opening filmmaking, distribution, and screening to private companies and foreign investors, the Chinese film industry enjoyed rapid expansion. China's film sector experienced a golden period between 2000 and 2010 that led to economic benefits; however, around 2010 the state started to tighten its control over the sector again. In recent years, political importance has outweighed the economic value of film, as China claims ‘films should insist on taking the social benefit as a priority and reconciling the social benefit and economic benefit’ (PDCCP, 2021).
Although a ‘neo-liberal’ ideology underpins the original concept of creative and cultural industries, the role of films in China's internal and external communication shows that the analysis of film in this industry should consider the Chinese context. Following De Beukelaer and Spence’s (2018: 12) approach to studying the cultural economy, this article adopted a reflexive perspective, which ‘explores the contemporary conditions of cultural production and consumption, and the policy settings that shape them, through the cultural and creative industries.’ It offers an empirical exploration of the Chinese state's cultural policies and changing attitudes to its film sector. Specifically, it shows how China has increasingly made films a tool for boosting China's soft power and presents an example of how films are strategically supported by the state for one of China's most important foreign policies, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Named after the Silk Roads, the network of Eurasian trade routes that connected the Asian, European, and African continents, the BRI consists of the Silk Road Economic Belt (the belt) and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road (the road) that promote regional connectivity. In combination with close readings of films, this article also reveals how films are produced to promote a geopolitical plan.
The BRI and Silk Road memory
Although BRI is China's ‘all-dimensional’ foreign policy, it has seldom been examined from a cultural perspective. Since BRI was proposed in 2013, the English-language literature has extensively addressed it from the perspective of geopolitics and geoeconomics, due to the initiative's purpose to increase intracontinental connectivity via infrastructural investments (Callahan, 2017; Huang, 2016). Despite this proliferation of studies, few have touched upon BRI's cultural aspects and China's soft-power ambition.
Tim Winter was among the first scholars to devote attention to the initiative's cultural implications. Winter (2016) examined BRI's possible impact on Silk Road heritages such as UNESCO's initiative to identify and preserve sites and monuments along the Silk Roads. He conceptualized the Silk Road as a geo-cultural construct brought out on different occasions to advance the contemporary initiative's strategic goals (Winter, 2021). Following Winters’ call to look at the BRI through a cultural lens, this article looks at how the geopolitical plan facilitated the ‘media going global’ project. In terms of BRI-facilitated media representations, several studies have evidenced media content as an indispensable part of promoting understanding and building support for BRI (Chen and Lau, 2021; van Noort, 2020). Moreover, the state not only supported content production in external communication about the initiative but also supported the customization of content for export to BRI countries. According to
BRI's support of ‘Chinese cinema going global’ has gathered momentum as an area of inquiry in Chinese-language research. Since 2013, four out of six volumes of the annual report on the global impact of Chinese cinema have been dedicated to Chinese films in BRI regions (Huang et al., 2016, 2017, 2019, 2021). However, outside China, the initiative has not translated into a lens through which to study cinema as an aspect of Chinese media globalization. This article explores the possibility of employing BRI from a geographic perspective for studying the international spread of Chinese media via cinema. First, the author uses policy analysis to ask how, and whether, the promotion of ‘Chinese cinema going global’ in BRI countries has become a priority in enhancing China's soft power. Using policy research to establish the foundations of examining two co-production projects,
Official speeches, documents, and introductory videos have evidenced how the Silk Road was used in the BRI to symbolize the promise of a prosperous future (Benabdallah, 2021; Qian, 2022). The discourse has linked the latter to peace, inclusiveness, development, and win-win cooperation, and portrayed it as an alternative model of globalization (Callahan, 2016). I also examined how films were created as a geopolitical strategy for target countries by deploying the Silk Road narrative.
This article uses ‘memory’ as a metaphor to understand how the Silk Road is utilized in
An equally important question of what is remembered is how this past is remembered; in other words, the modes of memories (Erll, 2008). To understand China's BRI co-production films’ preference for biographical films which present the past through personal experiences, this article references arguments that mediated memories can be adopted by their viewers through empathy. As early as the 1920s, Aby Warburg experimented with empathy as a way of actualizing materialized memories in his exhibition
While memory is useful to understand how the Silk Road past is utilized in the BRI, it should also be noted that memory's allusion to the existence of an ‘authentic past’ might be problematic for understanding how the Silk Road is constructed in co-production films. Do co-production films really build on the authentic Silk Road past? This article will show that Baudrillard's concept of ‘hyperreality’ became an important strategy for the state to make its films more influential. The state wove its Silk Road narrative into films about the past as well as into popular symbols that are already familiar to audiences. While Baudrillard believed the importance of films lay in ‘retrac[ing], through the image the insignificance of the world – that is to say, ultimately, its innocence – and to contribute to that insignificance with their images’ (Baudrillard, 1998: 110), what he might have denounced as cinema's ‘effort toward an absolute correspondence with the real, [in which] cinema also approaches an absolute correspondence with itself’ (Baudrillard, 1994: 47) works as a narration strategy for state-facilitated co-production films.
At this point, it is important to state the research questions. This article looks into China's cultural policies for its film sector and asks how the state's attitude to its film sector has changed. What is films’ role in boosting China's ‘soft power’? How do films strategically support the BRI? How is the Silk Road past remembered in co-production films that promote the BRI? Is this remembrance built on the ‘original past’ or on existing popular cultural symbols? What are the constraints of deploying the BRI's historical perspective?
Methods
This article adopts a two-layer analytical approach. It starts with policy analysis to show that China stresses the role of films in domestic and international political communication, and strategically supports film-related cooperation with BRI countries. I collected 97 regulatory documents and laws published since 2001 from the China Film Administration's website to investigate the official discourse around film. As Chinese policy documents are considerably vague and unwieldy, I took the hermeneutic approach to understand Chinese official policies by including official news reports, city-level film industries plans and academic works in my analysis. A qualitative inductive approach was adopted to identify and discuss the dominant salient themes (Terry et al., 2017). After becoming familiar with those documents, I coded the expressions emphasizing ‘marketization (
After presenting the official discourse, this article narrows to
Insisting on taking the social benefit as a priority
The Film Industry Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China was enacted in 2016.
1
The law illustrates cinema's increasing significance as a propaganda medium rather than only a cultural product. It ‘is enacted to promote the sound and thriving development of the film industry, advocating for core socialist values, regulating the film market order, and enriching the spiritual and cultural life of the people’ (NPC, 2016). In 2018, the jurisdiction of film regulation moved from the former State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) to that of its supervising body, the Publicity Department of the CCP (PDCCP), confirming films’ growing role as the voice of the Party. The 14th Five-Year Plan of Making Shanghai the High-Tech Film Industry Hub commented on this new arrangement as follows: ‘the central committee led by comrade Xi Jinping attaches great importance and loving care to film, which will bring prosperity. At the same time, [it] levelled up the requirements for film creation, required [the dominance of] mainstream themes in content making and screening, and enhanced ideological guidance’ (Songjiang Gov, 2022).
The early 2000s saw the industrialization and marketization of China's state-controlled film sector, and the enactment of the law and the jurisdiction change in recent years further emphasized films’ role in political communication. In the early 2000s, the state announced its recognition of films’ economic importance as cultural products (Yao, 2005; Yin, 2001) and the most commonly mentioned themes vitalizing film's economic value in public debates were marketization and industrialization. For instance, in 2001, Yin (2001) began publishing an annual report on the Chinese film industry. Furthermore, among the 26 official documents from 2001 to 2006, 18 focus on marketization and industrialization by opening up the previously state-owned film sector. While films’ role in political communication is always important in China, emphasizing film's economic impact was the focus of the state policy in those years.
The turning point was in 2010 when Guiding Opinions Concerning Stimulating Flourishing and Development of the Film Industry (DNC, 2010) was published. The document stressed that the film industry should ‘insist on taking the social benefit as a priority and reconciling the social benefit and economic benefit’. In 2021, the 14th Five-Year Plan for the Film Industry (PDCCP, 2021), which guides the country's film industry over a five-year period repeated the same statement. Furthermore, it bluntly identified films as an ‘important front of propaganda and ideological work, an art form loved by the people, a sign of the country's soft power.’ The plan shows that Chinese officials believed films were not only important for internal ideological education but also for external communication.
Promotion of ‘Chinese cinema going global’ in BRI countries
The 14th Five-Year Plan also pledged that by 2025, ‘in service of external communication, film exchange and cooperation should be deepened, and film's role as a “national name card” should be stressed’ (PDCCP, 2021). The importance of film in China's external communication has also been written into the local 14th Five-Year Plans for the film industry. Beijing and Shanghai both issued special notes on films’ central role in serving China's international policies and communications (Beijing Film Administration, 2022; Songjiang Gov, 2022). Similarly, according to the deputy director-general of the PDCCP, the emphasis of film's role in international policy was a response to Xi's request for ‘servicing the important strategic decision of rejuvenating glorious Chinese culture, and for the great mission of rejuvenating the great China dream of the Chinese nation’ (Wang, 2018).
Consequently, the BRI, an important Chinese foreign policy, acquired even greater importance amid its support of Chinese cinema going global. For instance, Beijing made the BRI's ‘international film culture exchange’ its major funding project
Since then, a series of projects have been launched with state support. To promote film exchange, the Silk Road International Film Festival was established as China's third official international film festival. To boost infrastructural development, at the Fourth Forum on China–Africa Media Cooperation, the BRI theatre alliance was launched ‘to share the expertise in movie-theatre-building, including providing design and equipment to developing countries and [including] Africa [-n countries], in exchange for shares in theatres and for screening time slots [for Chinese films]’ (Sohu, 2018).
In terms of content-making, China has signed 22 bilateral film co-production agreements in the past two decades, 19 of which were signed with BRI countries after 2013. Furthermore, while China has become the largest film market and a major film production country, the role of co-productions in facilitating the development of its film sector (see Zhan, 2013) has changed. The turning point was in 2014, when SAPPRFT disqualified several co-produced films for their insufficient presentation of Chinese elements. The administrative body restated its requirements for official co-produced films: first, Chinese investment must exceed one-third of the total budget; second, a co-production must include leading Chinese characters; third, such a film must involve shots presenting China. Re-emphasizing those three requirements made it clear that the Chinese film administration's attitudes to Chinese-foreign co-productions have also leaned more towards increasing China's cultural impact rather than facilitating the film industry's development.
However, it is difficult to identify how the state encourages and supports specific productions. For the film
Experiencing the past to promise a future
Named after the ancient trading routes, the BRI alludes to the idea of the past Silk Road. Previous studies have shown that the Silk Road has been incorporated into media content to promote Chinese promises of peaceful, inclusive, win-win cooperation through BRI (Benabdallah, 2021; Qian, 2022).
How was the image of the past Silk Road utilized for a film brought to life by the BRI? The concept of ‘memory’ may be helpful in understanding the revival of the Silk Road in films such as
With this opening,
The monk's memories of peace, inclusiveness, development, and win-win cooperation along the Silk Road serve as confirmation of a comparable future. Presenting this past through Xuanzang's lived past, embodied by the Silk Road, has been emphasized as ‘proof’ of the promise of a future. The film is designed to help audiences grasp the benefits connectivity brought to the countries involved. In contrast to other depictions of Xuanzang's journey, this film eliminates almost all villains. While the essence of other stories, including Xuanzang's own
While memory is so far a useful concept for our understanding of
‘Hyperreality’, according to Baudrillard (1994), pertains to describing mediated experiences and reality based on their simulation. Baudrillard (1994: 2) claimed that ‘the era of simulation is inaugurated by a liquidation of all referential’ in which reality is lost. Some film reviews compared the film to a fantasy work, suggesting that the original past was liquidated in
Thus, deploying stories familiar to the target audiences represents a strategic move by the state to increase the impact of propaganda; in choosing a story to embody the past, what matters to the state is the popularity of that story in the target countries. Other examples include the famous Japanese media franchise
Silk Road: Over-coded or plastic?
In creating remembrance narratives of inclusiveness, peace, and win-win cooperation, memory generates particularity and unity (Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995), and is equally excluding. Those not deemed ‘peaceful’ in Xuanzang's journey are purposely forgotten by the film. Borrowing from Deleuze and Guattari's (1987: 41) concept of ‘over-coding’ as the ‘phenomena of centring, unification, totalisation, integration, hierarchisation, and finalization,’ De Kloet (2022) observed generalization in the Chinese film
While the Silk Road in the official narrative celebrates collaboration, friendships, and connectivity, a dilemma for the state is that it generalizes and excludes ‘the others’ at the same time. Central Asia was not united by Buddhism as the film presented. Ji (1985: 67–87) remarked on Buddhism's declining influence at the time Xuanzang travelled across the region. Ji noted that in some places other religions were more influential, which made Xuanzang's journey quite challenging. The ‘new Silk Road’ is not as peaceful as the film portrayed, either. Scholars have noted the challenges of the post-Soviet central region that connects the West with the East: it is endowed with oil and gas but faces complex transitional ethnic ties and religious histories (Haghayeghi, 1995; Walsh, 1993). The region's complexity makes it difficult to promote an overall Silk Road narrative to all countries. Nevertheless, this film focuses on a Buddhist India and intentionally leaves out the religious complexities Xuanzang encountered in central Asia (Ji, 1985: 67–87). This could be problematic for an initiative aiming to connect Asia, Europe, and Africa and inviting the participation of all countries.
Despite the official discourse on the past Silk Road in cinema, the state has never officially published a map to outline the geographic scope of BRI. Furthermore, none of the existing maps (unofficial illustrations) of BRI are recognized by China. The official website yidaiyilu.gov.cn stated the publishing of this sort of map inappropriate: ‘BRI is an important international cooperation platform and the international public good; all countries recognizing BRI's vision are welcomed; there is no geographic scope for BRI. The core is to use the “Silk Road” culture to build an open, inclusive international economic cooperation platform; the Chinese government never limited the geographic scope of BRI. Making lists and maps is improper.’ (yidaiyilu.gov.cn, n.d.)
In 2017, the ‘One Belt and One Road’ initiative, carrying the historical burden of ‘Silk Roads’ in Eurasia and Africa, was rebranded as the ‘Belt and Road Initiative.’ Various responses made by the government show official attempts at minimizing the impacts of the initiative's historical aspect.
In co-producing with Kazakhstan, a country neighbouring China's Xinjiang region, with large Islamic and Christian communities and a country through which the monk travelled but did not feature in ‘Xian's music bonds them together.
While the past Silk Road is important for the BRI, it is insufficient for building an inclusive geopolitical project for a region of such complex histories and societies. Therefore, the grand Silk Road narrative becomes ‘plastic’, which describes the ‘ways it shifts shape to accommodate diverse human and nonhuman vitalities’ (Ren, 2021). While the Silk Road narrative is designed by the state as a geological plan, it must be deformed and reformed. Making silk roads a metaphor for a so-called ‘silk road culture’ therefore opens space for disorientated and customized remembering. Like
Conclusion
Films are undoubtedly important in China's media going global strategy, helping it to build soft power. BRI has encouraged content-making for and in cooperation with BRI countries. The policy analysis shows that the state has increasingly exploited cinema as a tool for internal and external communications. Consequently, BRI, as China's most important foreign policy, has become a key part of international cooperation projects that promote China's cinema going global.
However, the term soft power seems inappropriate for a foreign policy aiming for inclusiveness. As ‘the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments’ (Nye, 2005: 11), soft power pertains to one's cultural influence over others. The co-produced films discussed in this article demonstrate that cultural influence is not merely gained by the promotion of a country's culture, political values, and foreign policies to others, but also of ‘our’ shared past (in this case, by the symbol of the Silk Road). The film
Moreover, remembering the Silk Road past is as inclusive as it is exclusive; the ‘peaceful’ narrative was unable to include all countries in the region. Officials have had to reshape the Silk Road as a plastic metaphor only including ‘friendly’ histories, as in the film
Is the state the only actor that deformed the Silk Road past and showed the plasticity of its narratives? How do various actors such as investors and creators negotiate their economic goals and artistic expression with the demands of the state? What are the possibilities and challenges for Chinese and foreign filmmakers? The plasticity makes ‘“a sculpture of futurity” [which] allows us “to see [what is] coming,” both to anticipate and to be surprised by the unexpected’ (Ren, 2021). With a modest goal to reveal how the Chinese government's attitude to films has changed and to call for scholarly attention of China's media going global to the film sector, this question is yet to be answered.
