In the Chinese-language film and television industry, someone has collapsed again.
This time it's a big director.
You may not remember her name, but you have probably seen her work.
She is Zhang Wanting (not the one in "Goodbye Lover").
Masterpieces "The Thief of Years", "Autumn Fairy Tale" and "City of Glass".
Zhang Wanting and Luo Qirui are filming "The Thief of Years"
Recently, Zhang Wanting had an incident.
Her new film "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me", which has been sharpened for ten years, has been fiercely resisted by the public.
Just 4 days after its release, it was forced to be released and became a banned film.
Douban poured in a large number of one-star bad reviews.
"Disgusting" "Liar" "Garbage"
The opening score is 9+, and now it is about to fall below 8 points.
The just-concluded Academy Awards were also bitterly criticized as "the most humiliating in history" because they awarded the best picture to this film.
Once a top director, now nailed to the pillar of shame.
Is it wrong?
What the hell is going on here?
Today, Uncle Yu will disassemble this controversy.
"To Nineteen-Year-Old Me" is a documentary.
It revolves around the Anglo-Chinese Girls' School.
It is a well-known secondary school with a history of 100 years.
Li Ka-shing's wife Zhuang Yueming, the eldest daughter of the late ship king Bao Yugang, Bao Lingqing, and the "Queen of Metaphysics" Mai Lingling, all studied here.
In 2011, Yinghua Girls' School ushered in a major event.
A new school building is to be rebuilt on the old site.
To this end, all teachers and students temporarily moved to the Sham Shui Po campus for three years, waiting for the new school building to be repaired before moving back.
The then principal decided to make a documentary about the school's historical moments.
Yinghua old alumnus Zhang Wanting became the best choice to direct this project.
The school and the filming team selected six subjects from the first-year students:
Ah Que, Ah Ling, Ah She, "Miss Hong Kong", Ma Dam, Ma Yanru.
In the original concept, the growth of students will serve as a clue to the changes of the old and new school buildings.
But the plans couldn't keep up, and the construction of the new school building was repeatedly delayed, and they did not return to the old site until they graduated.
Zhang Wanting's camera did not stop, and she filmed six girls after graduating from high school, and filmed for ten years one after another.
The main line is no longer a school building, but has expanded to the changes of the entire Hong Kong society in the past decade.
This is also a quote from the trailer:
"Witnessing Girls' Growth and Social Change Together"
In December 2021, the feature film premiered on campus.
Unexpectedly, a war without gunsmoke began.
Ah Ling said that after watching the movie for the first time, he felt terrified.
The school's psychologist also gave professional advice, "In her state, the film is not suitable for release".
It's not hard to understand why.
Their privacy, jokes they unintentionally tell in front of the camera, and even their immature political stance in adolescence are likely to affect their future with the film's hot release.
Especially in this environment of speech that is keen to generalize and take words out of context.
If their former immature remarks are infinitely amplified by some audiences, then "today's them" are bound to be swallowed up by "yesterday's them".
However, the film refused to delete Ah Ling's clip on the grounds that "it had passed the electrical inspection".
Despite her objections, the whole film was still allowed to participate in various screenings until it was finally released in Hong Kong.
Two days after the film's release, Ah Ling, who couldn't bear it, sent a "book of ten thousand words" to a magazine, accusing the filmmaker of bad behavior and the school's connivance.
In the letter, she mentioned that the film side said one thing and did another, and conspired with the school to infringe on the interests of students.
Although Zhang Wanting said that the subject can opt out at any time.
But in fact, for many years, only one student "cried from Secondary 1 to Secondary 5, crying until the whole class knew that she didn't want to shoot at all", and finally quit filming in Secondary 5.
Ah Ling stressed that the school did not mention that the film would be screened in public, but only for school screenings and DVD production to raise funds.
She never agreed to a public screening.
At this point, the dispute between students and the film and the school has officially entered the public eye.
One stone stirs up a thousand waves.
One by one, the subjects stood up to express their discomfort.
In an interview with "Ming Zhou", Ah She mentioned that some of the shots in the film were secretly filmed without consent.
and bluntly said that the director's narration "adds more subjective ideas".
For example, when shooting a childish and immature side of Ah Ling, the director will directly comment on his "brutal willfulness" in the narration, magnifying a small thing infinitely.
This naturally causes dissatisfaction among the subject.
To "dramatize" a documentary according to one's own wishes is obviously against documentary ethics, and at the same time it is a great disrespect for the person being filmed.
In addition, the "consent form" of this film has also caused great controversy.
At that time, because the protagonists were underage, their parents signed the first shooting consent form as guardians.
Before the film is released, they need to sign a second consent form to "agree to release".
One of the protagonists, "Miss Hong Kong", said that she was tricked by the film side into saying that "everyone else has already signed it", but in fact Ah Ling did not sign it.
Invading privacy, cheating and lying, knowing that mistakes are not corrected...
A series of operations stunned the majority of netizens.
The reputation of the film continued to decline like a roller coaster, and it was finally urgently withdrawn four days after its release.
Yinghua Girls' School unilaterally announced that it would withdraw from the competition for Best Film at the Academy Awards.
I thought this movie was so cold.
Who knows that there is a depth charge.
On April 16, this year's Academy Awards actually awarded the best film to this "banned film".
The controversy that was previously temporarily shelved directly ushered in a big outbreak, which instantly ignited the emotions of netizens.
The film's co-director Guo Weilun's arch fire speech also played a role in fueling the waves.
"Creators don't stop making documentaries because of this matter, we need to shoot first, cut first, and talk about it first."
and said that he would also strive for the film to rush to the whole universe and let more audiences see it.
For a while, the three words "don't face" flooded social networks.
This film, together with the Academy Awards, was nailed to the pillar of shame.
Looking back on the whole incident, Uncle Yu felt very sorry.
But not because the movie was banned.
It's because all the harm could have been avoided.
Things have deteriorated to the point where they are now, and the film, school, and the Academy Awards Organizing Committee are all to blame.
The first to bear the brunt is, of course, director Zhang Wanting.
The controversy over privacy invasion in "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me" actually has traces to follow.
In the interview, Zhang Wanting mentioned more than once that in order to achieve shooting, she sometimes uses some informal methods.
For example, in order to access the Asian Cycling Championships venue to do interviews, she lied to the staff that the documentary team was licensed journalists.
In the past, when filming in the United States, I also forged the mayor's signature...
This "adventure" shooting method has been exchanged for "wonderful" material again and again.
Even years later, it is still a show-off capital for her.
It can be said that Zhang Wanting does not have the string of a professional documentary worker in her heart.
She took it for granted that some boundaries could be crossed in order to shoot.
Therefore, he did not hesitate to use the method of secret photography to turn the girls' lives into a "Truman's world".
This is of course difficult for the subject to accept.
It is worth mentioning that in Zhang Wanting's career, there has always been an exploration of the boundaries of documentaries.
In 2003, she was invited by Jackie Chan to shoot the documentary "The Depths of the Dragon - The Lost Puzzle" about his father.
She later adapted it into the feature film "A Tale of Three Cities".
Coincidentally.
In 2013, during the filming of "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me", she also made a short feature film "Deep Blue".
Directly adapted from the life story of Ah Ling in the documentary, and starring Ah Ling and her younger brother.
Zhang Wanting's trick can be described as "one fish and two meals".
Documentaries, feature films, I want them all.
If in the past she would have deliberately separated the two films, then in "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me", she seems to no longer care about the dividing line between documentary and feature film.
Not only personally serve as the narrator, but also add a lot of subjective commentary on the basis of objective descriptions,
This makes the film directly become a "false documentary": using dramatic techniques to forge non-existent facts.
This practice itself violates documentary ethics.
Ironically, co-director Guo Weilun instead hit the rake, implying that the creator is the victim.
"This lesson has taught me how to protect creators, and I hope everyone can film openly in the future."
There is no reflection or remorse.
The atmosphere of the award ceremony makes it easy for creators to revel in self-touching.
As everyone knows, they who pick up the camera already have enough power.
The person photographed across from them is the weak party who has no right to speak.
Looking at the Anglo-Chinese Girls' School, it was also derelict in the whole thing.
On the one hand, they did not communicate well with the film crew, or deliberately concealed it, making the girls mistakenly think that the film was only for school screening.
On the other hand, when Ah Ling and others expressed their distress, the school did not play an active role in defending their rights.
On the contrary, after the film won the award, Lightspeed published a statement, "Sincerely apologize".
However, the apology was not to the girls, but to the Academy Awards organizing committee.
Because the school "did not send a representative to attend the award ceremony".
The ending once again states that there was no forced or candid filming during the shooting.
In short, it is the attitude of throwing the pot.
Finally, the problems of the Academy Awards are even greater.
Due to the setting of award rules, all films that meet the requirements of release time and number of performances will be automatically eligible.
Although the Anglo-Chinese Girls' School announced its withdrawal, the Academy Awards retained its qualifications.
Chairman Er Dongsheng said that the Academy Awards have no position and the awards should not be affected by external turmoil.
Sounds plausible.
But judging from the live video, because the copyright of "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me" belongs to Yinghua Girls' School, after the school announced its withdrawal, the big screen could not even play the film clips.
Then Uncle Yu had to question a mouthful:
How did the judges see the original film?
It should be noted that there are two rounds of voting for the Academy Awards, the first round of which is selected by the public voters and the first round of professional judges to select the list of nominees.
In the second round, the winners were selected by the second round of professional jury and members of 14 professional associations.
The withdrawal and withdrawal of "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me" took place after the end of the first round.
In other words, the film side cannot provide the opportunity to watch the film specifically for the second round of judging like other participating films.
Unless the second round of judges has already seen it at the screening and short release, there is no way to see the original film.
However, in this case, the film still won the first prize.
It is not ruled out that some judges are "blind casting", or, the film side has one set behind the surface, and secretly showed the film to the judges after announcing his withdrawal.
This is also obviously unfair to the other shortlisted films.
Not to mention, praising a film that violates professional ethics will cause secondary harm to the parties and is equivalent to encouraging such behavior.
The most ironic thing is.
The Academy Awards awarded Best Picture to a film that could no longer be broadcast publicly and could not be seen by the public.
It can be called a joke at the level of film history.
It is not difficult to find that throughout the incident, the attitude of the two sides was very different.
The girls were angry, aggrieved, and constantly spoke out for their rights.
And the director, the school, and the Academy Awards are just repeating a set of painless public relations rhetoric
Do so many professionals really think that there is no problem with the filming and production of movies?
Not necessarily.
Perhaps, it is out of a recognition of the supremacy of art:
In order to make a great work, there are some things that are not so important and can be sacrificed.
Whether Zhang Wanting spent ten years of mental effort, or the Academy Awards were flooded with saliva, they also had to maintain this film.
Their ambition and determination to achieve a masterpiece can be seen.
Whether the quality of a work should come at the expense of exploiting "people" has always been an unavoidable question.
Xu Tong's "Wheat Harvest" was boycotted because it did not have the permission of the filmmaker.
At that time, there were also many fans and professionals who spoke for it.
It is believed that this documentary can let everyone see the reality of sex workers in the mainland and should not be banned.
Both sides seem to have a point.
In the face of art, we tend to overlook the cost behind art.
In the face of abstract human nature, we are also prone to overlook concrete people.
When it comes to feature films, this conflict is even stronger.
Hitchcock once said, "Actors are cattle."
Many of the film history classics that you and I love are actually at the cost of exploiting actors.
Speaking of the famous "The Shining", fans can smile or not.
It has long become a benchmark work for subcultures.
But for the heroines involved, the filming of this film is a nightmare.
In order to shoot the despair and fear of the heroine in a claustrophobic environment
Director Kubrick directly asked the whole crew to isolate her, and would abuse and degrade her from time to time.
Even repeated dozens of shots of the same shot to wear down her spirits to release what the director wants, mixed with exhaustion, fear, hysterical madness.
The classic scene where she watched Jack smash the door with an axe was really acted out with life.
Another film history case is more famous.
On the set of "Last Tango in Paris", starring Marlon Brando and director Bertolucci "conspired".
Under the premise of not knowing the heroine in advance, the details of using butter as a lubricant were added to the scene of sexual assault.
All the panic reactions of the heroine in the feature film are real.
She later recalled:
"Marlon didn't really rape me, but I did cry."
Of course, the injuries taken by the two actresses are more intuitive and cruel.
But fundamentally, it is the same as the girls at the Anglo-Chinese Girls' School.
In order to achieve a masterpiece, they were forced to sacrifice their individual interests and cede their bodies and privacy to the creator.
But is this really the only solution?
Uncle Fish gives two positive examples.
One is "Boyhood" directed by Linklater.
The film lasts 12 years from 2002 to 2013 and records the growth of a young boy from the age of 6 to 18.
The setting has many similarities with "To Nineteen-Year-Old Me", but it is a solid drama.
As Ah Ling mentioned, Zhang Wanting asked her to star in a short film, and she did not feel that her privacy was violated.
Because at the end of the day, it's a feature film.
The same structure, the same shooting method, fiction respects the subject more than reality.
And the fiction of the storyline and character relationships does not hinder the touching degree of the film.
Because the director and actors really shot for 12 years.
When the audience sees the ending, the longer and taller the child, and the skin on the parents' faces becomes more and more loose, they can still feel the power of time to destroy decay.
What is the higher or lower of a "real drama" or a "false documentary"?
The answer is self-explanatory.
Another example is the "Seven Years of Life" series.
Every seven years, the program team invites the subjects to have a conversation to record their life changes.
In the form of dialogue, what is presented is not the one-way output of the creator to the audience, but the two-way interaction between the creator and the subject.
So we can see that when the subject answers some questions, he will raise his own questions:
You ask me this, is there an inducing idea that will guide the audience?
This is also a way to avoid unilateral manipulation by creators.
So.
When creators are faced with a dilemma, they will still think of ways to highlight the siege.
And selfish creators will only shout "shoot first, cut first, and talk later", completely reckless of the consequences.
We should certainly applaud the artistic value of film.
But "art" and "people" are not inherently contradictory.
Uncle Yu believes that a talented creator can find a stopgap solution.
Gone are the days when "actors were cattle" were gone.
The fig leaf in the name of art should also be removed.