No matter how nostalgic, no matter how reluctant, that "Hong Kong movie" in the usual sense will never come back. This is for sure.
The heyday of Hong Kong cinema roughly began with the civil war between Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest. In the end, Shaw Brothers' large-scale studio system lost to Golden Harvest's satellite company model and independent production system, so that the film kingdom that had been painstakingly managed for many years ended up being forced to stop production and ended sadly. This is a well-known thing. On the surface, the fall of Shaw Brothers is the projection of the disintegration of the Hollywood studio system, and the inevitable result of the so-called new model overcoming the old model. In fact, the so-called "new" model that borrows from Hollywood, represented by Golden Harvest, is quite different in essence from the transformation of the Hollywood production model at roughly the same time. Spielberg's "Jaws" is considered an epoch-making film, which marked a fundamental change in the concept of the film industry. From it, the film's marketing planning (that is, various calculations aimed at the market) was Raised to unprecedented heights. Under the guidance of this industrial concept, Hollywood movies have since become more detailed, more precise, and more rigorous. However, the way of Golden Harvest (the representative labels of Hong Kong films at the same time include Art City, Debao, etc.) is not the case. As far as the production level of the film industry is concerned, they may not be qualitatively improved compared to Shaw Brothers, who were defeated by them. What really works is the creative freedom that has been greatly released along with the widespread implementation of satellite companies and independent production models. Spend. The face of Hong Kong movies that we are most familiar with is based on the combination of this "little and fast" production mode and great creative freedom.
In other words, the same reform, Hollywood and Hong Kong are actually going in two completely different directions. Based on the experience of a large number of successful and failed cases, the former has become more and more regular, and the combination of art and industry has become more and more handy, and it is more and more accurate like an instrument. "Type" began to be given a new meaning at this time. It evolved from the original film label, a simple contract between filmmakers and audiences, to the coordinates and reference values of various commercial calculations. It provides a relatively safe environment for its self-positioning, self-regulation, self-improvement, duplication, expansion, grafting, reproduction... In the end, it is an exhaustive, global take-all. Not so with Hong Kong movies. It is based on the local area, with grass roots and mixed styles as its own characteristics. It never values (or even disdains) type. Its core is fun, and the audience comes in to watch "Yah! Jin!", and doesn't care much about whether the shootout is kung fu or comedy (and in most cases, there are various colors in the movie). To say that Hong Kong movies are all overdone and crazy is not only a compliment of its vitality, but also its shortcomings: that is, the lack of a mature, self-restraining norm and system.
Make an inappropriate analogy. In its heyday, Hong Kong movies were like a 100-meter race against the American marathon. Although the limelight was out of the limelight, the profit would not last long. When the momentum passed, it would definitely lose.
It's finally the 90's. The decline in creativity of Hong Kong cinema itself is one reason. But another important reason is that the influence of Hollywood films has finally developed to the point where it can assimilate markets outside of its homeland. Take Hong Kong as an example. On the surface, Hong Kong audiences are conquered by the thunderous American blockbusters, but secretly, under the leadership of Hollywood movies, the Hong Kong market has been quietly and rapidly approached the United States. The process of reclassification and integration of ideas. Hong Kong audiences accepted the system one step ahead of local creators. For Hong Kong's film production model that has lasted for nearly 20 years, it is tantamount to drawing wages from the bottom of the pot. And this is the real internal cause of the collapse of Hong Kong movies in the mid-to-late 1990s. In that rout, the most prestigious labels in Hong Kong films were almost wiped out. Those names that are talked about by Hong Kong film fans, in terms of their film industry concepts and their ability to grasp the film market (rather than film creativity), have actually been eliminated since that time.
Not without self-help. As long as you compare the Hong Kong films that started in the late 1990s with the works in their heyday, you can clearly see the difference in temperament. Of course, there are various reasons for this difference, but one of them comes from the passive "consciousness of genre films". This "self-consciousness" is painful and cruel. Self-discipline has always run counter to the core character of Hong Kong films. Painting a tiger is not an anti-dog, and it is a pain to lose one's vitality; and after being typed, it has to use Hollywood movies as a reference, so that under the huge shadow of others Following the same steps, Gu Ying felt sorry for herself, and even lost her way again is another.
It is in this environment that the emergence of two new film companies, UFO and Galaxy, may make more sense than we thought. They have limited financial resources, limited resources, and the heavy pressure of Hollywood movies on their heads. They are facing a completely different and increasingly integrated film market from the last two decades. How they participate in the competition, how to make use of their strengths and circumvent weaknesses, identify market gaps and their own positioning, and establish their own brands, are the experiences that should be paid attention to, learn from and summarize for today's filmmakers, rather than the eliminated Golden Harvest and New Art City.
Only Chen Kexin is mentioned here.
Chen Kexin's success may largely lie in the fact that he is not a director. Yes, not "not just a director". From the first "Two Cities Story" in 1991 to the present, every film he has directed has always maintained a very high level; but he has produced twice as many films as he has directed; more importantly, the relative Compared with people like Tsui Hark and To Qifeng who have multiple jobs, they can't change the traces of their creators. Chen Kexin's film image is much blurred. He's more of a movie trader who is difficult to pinpoint.
Chen Kexin is very rational. very awake. I once saw him say in an interview that films can be idealistic, feelings can be idealistic, but filmmaking cannot be idealistic; he also said that directors can be greedy, but not self-willed, no matter how important the ideal you want to express, you There is no right to claim that a movie loses its commerciality to accommodate your ideals. Ordinary people don't say that. When he said this, he was in a compromise and jump between several identities and several positions. For him, a movie is not only about being shot and produced, but also about the distribution, promotion, and sale of the film after it is finished. It is not only art, but also more than a commodity... This concept is much bigger. I often wonder, if he can get the status he has today without being a director, would he still be a director? I suspect not. Chen Kexin may be more concerned about the desire to express himself than the average filmmaker is to be a successful director who can help him accomplish many, many things. event.
This may be the reason why many people don't like Chen Kexin's films. His films have a strong sense of middle age, are very calculating, very logical, too restrained, not free and easy and happy. An artist's film shouldn't be like this.
So Chen Kexin is not an artist. So he succeeded.
The pattern he found was for "genre" and "author" to coexist.
Yes, the genre has been done by Hollywood (even if it is not done, it is someone else's, not yours), and the market has let the genre lead and assimilated. If you want to survive, you have to be rooted in the genre, or you won't even have a chance to survive. But if it's just genre, you can't beat Hollywood.
The type must have a personality. Be sure to borrow genres and talk about things that others have not talked about. This is how you survive.
But it's not new either. The revolt against Hollywood is not unique to Hong Kong films. Where there is Hollywood, there will be anti-Hollywood. Just say two. Is Tim Burton "type" and "author" coexisting? Nate Shyamalan or maybe? To be honest, To Qifeng is one, of course, so is Tsui Hark.
But there is a big difference between Chen Kexin and them.
You watch a Galaxy movie, you watch a movie studio movie—you must think they're too similar at their core. No matter what the credits say, you'll often have trouble figuring out who's the director. Therefore, people often ask To Qifeng whether the director of "The Dark Flower" is you or You Dazhi; ask Tsui Hark, should "A Chinese Ghost Story" be your work or Cheng Xiaodong's? ...not surprising, because even though they also grasp both the "genre" and "author" ends, the latter is undoubtedly far more important than the former, and whichever position they nominally hold, the executor is more like It is an extension of his author's will.
But no one will ask Chen Kexin: Is "Damn" your work? "Golden Rooster" isn't it? What about Dumplings? What about Disciples? ...
Between the symbiosis of "type" and "author", Chen Kexin focuses more on "type". He is not like Tsui Hark or To Qifeng. Artists naturally take a posture of fighting against the shackles. He is not. He has a heavy and moderate color. For example, he is actually a very pessimistic person, but he is not very lustful. To sell his pessimism, he lives in the shackles calmly and explores space. He is more of a trader who calculates its commercial prospects for a film project, and builds suitable investments and actors for it. , promotion, distribution... and when everything was in order, he let the director (he thought right) put in the rest of the "author" part.
That's the difference.
It is in this sense that the same "type" and "author" coexist model, the films led by Tsui Hark and To Qifeng have an extremely strong personal brand, so it is difficult to copy; but Chen Kexin can.
This is why Kexin Chen is important. Especially in a movie market like the mainland today.
For the mainland market, Chen Kexin came with great ambitions. He understands movies. He has strong but realistic ambitions for the market. He has clear judgment and plenty of action. He cares not only about projects, but also about planning. It is said that in his film blueprint, he plans to spend 3 years investing in 15 films, 4 large-scale investment of over 100 million yuan, 4 or 5 medium-sized productions of 30-50 million yuan, plus a few small-budget films; he What he is thinking about is how to make these films of high quality; he plans to spend four or five years to adjust the industrial structure and cultivate new directors... He is very cautious. He does not jump into the mainland market all at once, but waits and sees first. For a long time, until I thought I was sure.
He has no reason to fail.
- But he just didn't succeed.
No matter how long he waits and sees, he still finds that the market is different from what he thought after he came in.
The watershed is in the "Vote for the Name". This commercial blockbuster should have been the work of Chen Kexin's "one shot set the country". As a result, in the Lunar New Year file that year, I met Feng Xiaogang's "Assembly" head-on. Later, the two met at an event. At that time, the box office of the two films had not yet been settled, but Chen Kexin said that no matter whether the box office of "Vote for the Name" was higher than that of "Assembly", or how much higher, he would lose. . He must be very unhappy when he said this. But he was telling the truth.
Then came "October Siege". The same is the most culturally textured commercial blockbuster of the year. Same as expected.
Chen Kexin said: "A good movie should have a good story, good characters and relationships, a moving plot, and preferably a little deep thinking." This is the film he wants to make. "Famous Name" is, and so is "October Siege". Whether you like it or not, it is an anomaly in a commercial blockbuster that lacks a sense of mainland culture. And his model is looser, more flexible, and able to accommodate different author faces in a relatively safer environment. If he succeeds, perhaps his method can really bring a qualitative improvement to mainland commercial films. Too bad he didn't. The extremely low returns of "The Name" and "October Siege" made him miss his best chance to reach the top.
And then there's The Fantastic Row. In terms of production level, both "Laughing Rivers and Lakes" and "Wulin Biography" of the same period cannot be compared. But in terms of visibility, "Fantastic Heroes" is a mess. fiasco.
And then, "Wu Xia"...
"Famous Name" and "October Siege" (if you insist on "Founding of the People's Republic of China") are undoubtedly the most high-profile and number one commercial blockbusters of the year. Share with me who's grabbing popularity. But when it comes to this year, many people will say "Dragon Gate Flying Armor", "The Thirteen Hairpins of Jinling", and "The Grand Master"... At least "Martial Arts", in the minds of many people, it is no longer. .
No matter what the final box office of "Wu Xia" is, Chen Kexin did not get it in "Vote for Name" and "October Siege", and he will not get it this time.
View more about Dragon reviews
