A close look at the new cinema development in these developing countries illustrates the dominating force of the capitalist business system, because "audience films" or so-called "business movies" that are produced with an orientation toward entertainment and consumers still dominate the market. In comparison, the "new cinema," or so-termed "auteur films" that are more concerned with displaying the directors' style and insights have found it difficult indeed to survive.
Movie critics themselves are also caught up in the difficulties of distinguishing the two general categories of films and, frankly speaking, local critics often have problems trying to be as effective as they should in the critical evaluations of either sort. The 1980s have witnessed a major shift in the content of film criticism itself.
Taiwan's film critics, most of whom are known through their columns in newspapers and magazines, have especially in the past few years fallen into two contending groups. The cause of the contention is their different definitions of "auteur" and "audience" films, and the sort of critical standards that should be applied to each or to both.
The experience of other countries with flourishing movie industries in the 1960s is instructive. Those "auteur films" directed by Godard and Resnais in France; by Passolini, Antonioni and Fellini in Italy, and Bergman in Sweden enjoyed a de facto existence of their own, and they often had different audiences from other "audience movies" in the market. Their critics also moved toward other orientations, essentially separating audiences into two bodies of consumers.
In Taiwan, "film critique" is an all-encompassing word, and is generally used to include all criticism of a film's producer, director, characters, actors, plot, camera arrangement, photography, editing, lighting, costume, and setting. Since the 1950s, Taiwan has undeniably had movie critiques that function like "audience critiques." The "auteur critique" approach emerged only in January 1965 when the magazine Theatre first hit the newsstands.
Theatre devoted itself to introducing film figures such as Antonioni, Fellini, Resnais, Godard, Kurosawa, and other directors of auteur films. It even published a special edition on film auteur. However, most of the staff of Theatre magazine was interested more in the creation of plays and experimental films; they did not concentrate much on the development of auteur film criticism itself.
Only with the appearance of Influence magazine in December 1971 did criticism with an emphasis on the director finally emerge. Influence published introductions to famous western directors like Bunuel, Arthur Penn, Costa Gavras, Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Visconti. It also published special editions on Chinese films by directors from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and ran a "Column on Films" in each issue. The articles in this column followed the auteur film critique approach, and they set local the standards for this category of review.
"Auteur film" critique focuses on the creative success of the director himself: What is he trying to say, and does he succeed? Its main function is to elaborate on the director's ideology, style, and techniques—a process that exposes critics themselves to criticism based upon evaluations by readers of their own knowledge. This approach followed the criteria championed by American movie critic Andrew Sarris in his book Auteurism.
Several critics embraced this new form. For example, Wu Cheng-ming wrote an article, "Director and Direction, Comment on 68 Contemporary Chinese Directors," for an Influence Special Edition of Chinese Films in July 1974, wherein he used Sarris's auteur approach to classify Chinese directors into four general groups to facilitate his critical analysis of their types of film.
A sample of Wu's criticism indicates the style and concerns of the auteur approach frequently used during this period; he critiqued one of Li Hsing's films, saying: "In a slow tone of 'purity' and 'attenuation,' director Li Hsing has unveiled to us a typical puzzlement in Confucius' philosophy: human value lies in the perfection of human character. In his productions, the real accomplishment of a personality and virtue usually was realized through a process of seeking understanding between the two generations of conflict. In other words, precision and succinctness are his technique. Li's camera arrangements are never lacking in viewpoints, no matter if the shooting is outdoor or indoor, or if the object is an individual or a group. Even in a riotous street shooting, he can clearly and orderly outline the character he wants to project."
A familiar scene—long lines wait to see popular "audience films" rather than more challenging fare.
In contrast, the "audience review" adopts a more popular, general public orientation to film criticism. It emphasizes a film's story line, plot, actors, photography, editing, and costuming, while giving little attention to the director's style and the idea the film wants to convey. The "audience review" serves as an entertainment guide for the masses. The reviews by Lao Sha, Lu Chih-tze, Liu Yi, and those in the special space devoted to "Let's talk about this film" carried by the entertainment page in the China Times belong to this category of criticism.
Only with the emergence of critics Chiao Hsiung-ping, Edwin Huang, and Chen Kuo-fu did the development of auteur film critique undergo fundamental changes. Their reviews can no longer be considered pure auteur film critique because they blend the approaches used in "genre film" and "ideology film." They use "types" to determine the sort of film at hand, and they use "ideology" to judge the film's message. They frequently assess the cultural and social dimensions of the films under review. This expanded technique derives basically from a belief that the director is the auteur but the critics have to put their work into multidimensional perspective. Their approach also indicates a search for new measurements by which films can be evaluated.
The auteur- and audience-focused film critiques did not grow in entirely healthy coordination with each other, nor have their contrasting styles been without controversy. One particularly hot controversy was triggered in 1978 by the decision of Influence to choose the year's "10 Worst Movies." Another uproar followed the cancellation of the "Movie Forum" printed by the United Daily News. But these two cases were not influential enough to lead to a complete split of the two critical approaches. This came later, after Taiwan's new cinema had attempted to produce auteur films but failed in marketing them.
For a brief time it seemed as though the appeal of Taiwan's new cinema might save the day for the faltering local movie industries. But in the eyes of movie businessmen, there is not much difference between the new cinema and the earlier fads of "love story films" or "violence films." The businessmen wanted "audience films" that would be hits at the box offices, and they of course welcomed new cinema when it was embraced by a public eager to buy tickets. But when the new movies lost their market appeal, businessmen dropped them like hot pot stickers and looked for other types of movies to replace them. The method of searching for successful formulas that would attract big audiences created another fad, the "pattern movie," a copying of previous hits by other directors.
Those audiences who used to support the new cinemas gradually lost interest, especially after a rush of shabby movie adaptations of novels hit the screens. Another reason was social. After a local bank scandal touched many people's pocketbooks and other equally disturbing social events occurred locally, audiences sought escape from reflections on social pressures in films; they did not want even more realism than they saw on the streets.
At this time, the Hong Kong productions which were full of fantasy, heroism, and violence made giant inroads in the local market, for they provided the most direct sort of stimulation and an outlet for people's dissatisfactions. They took over audiences from the new cinema, and Taiwan's movie critiques followed the fad until another major change occurred in the industry.
The appearance of "A Summer at Grandpa's" by Hou Hsiao-hsien and "Taipei Story" by Edward Yang forced critics to deal with a new kind of film. The contending criticisms and interpretations of these films in the market turned fierce at the time of Golden Horse Awards in 1985, when everyone was arguing about the merits of artistic and commercial films. Both "new" and "old" critics entered the foray. The heated contention indicated not only that Taiwan film critics had never clarified their own roles and functions, but also that there was never a healthy system of film criticism in the first place.
This state of affairs at least in part prompted critic and scholar Cho Poh-tang to write what became a landmark article in Influence. In "The Illness of Chinese Movies," printed in a Special Edition on Chinese Films in July 1974, he argued that any critic of value should have the ability to analyze the key issues in a film and be able to bridge the gap between the auteur and audience. Most importantly, critics should have keen eyes capable of perceiving the director's purpose, the relation of the film to culture and society, and the impact of the film on the audience. He also said that a critic should of course give the audience some idea of what to expect from films, so that they could judge for themselves whether or not they wanted to see them, but certainly they should be more than a mere guidebook for entertainment and the arts. He argued that the critic is "much more than a tourist guide."
Critic Huang Jen was another voice calling for more professionalism among critics in his article "Movies: A Sketchy Review on Chinese Movie Development for the Past Sixty Years." He complains: "It seems that the movie critique can deal with anything. Its quality varies. Advertising is confused with film critiques, and critics usually bear the responsibility of such confusion. It is inevitable that some critics tend to speak only about the good points and neglect the bad ones. The critique can be written from any angle or approach, it can be subjective, reflective, or purely from one's own preferences. As long as critics do not hold on to some principles they will not take too much responsibility."
From these comments, it is clear that Taiwan's film critics are themselves rightly subject to criticism.
Film critique master Andre Bazin, in Réflexion sur la Critique in 1958, set up guidelines on the two kinds of film critique: those with no market orientation and those for audiences that want a marketing approach. He keeps a healthy skepticism about the whole enterprise, however, by saying film critiques are "an essentially useless but necessary service."
Taiwan's film critics, despite their continuing polarization between "auteur film" and "audience film" approaches, have a social function to play. Beyond conveying basic facts about films, they have a responsibility to put all films in context to the best of their own analytic abilities. While writing "audience pleasing" reviews that are essentially advertisements no doubt will continue, there is great need for more professionalism in the craft. Film criticism should not be treated just as an advertising tool; it should be based on knowledge, honest assessment, and a selection of the proper critical approach. By performing their roles and functions correctly, Taiwan's film critics will not only help audiences, they will also assist the growth of professionalism and international acclaim in the whole cinema industry.—(Chi Lung-zin is the editor-in-chief of Long Take Film-video Magazine and a film critic in Taiwan.)