Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016) 181-191 Wu: Ang Lee
ACROSS BOUNDARIES: CULTURAL CLOCALITY IN ANG LEE’S FILM PRODUCTION
Chia-rong Wu Rhodes College
It might be hard to believe that an Asian filmmaker could bag the Academy Award for Best Director, but it has happened to Ang Lee … twice. Since the global success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), Ang Lee has started a cross-cultural phenomenon few could have anticipated decades ago. This Chinese martial-arts classic won four Academy Awards, including the Best Foreign Language Film. In 2009, Crouching Tiger was selected by Time Magazine as one of the Top Ten Movies of the 2000s. Besides, Lee has reached the significant milestones of his career by winning the Oscar Best Director with Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Life of Pi (2012) respectively. The Oscar aura makes this Taiwan-born director comparable to American titans for directing such as Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, and Clint Eastwood, all of whom also won two Oscar Best Director awards. One has to note that Lee’s Life of Pi surpasses his previous films in terms of visual sensation and international cooperation. Lee has expressed several times in public that filming Life of Pi was an extremely challenging but exalted undertaking. The result is fruitful because it has treated the global audiences to one of the most dazzling cinema experiences. This article aims to explore the cultural glocality in Lee’s film production with a focus on Life of Pi. The first part analyzes Lee’s cross-cultural position in filmmaking and recounts how he creates a visualized site of multiculturalism. The second part examines the global impacts of Life of Pi in relation to its translocal production, promotion, and distribution with a focus on Taiwan and India. The last section brings into focus Lee’s film language and universal messages that can be perceived and valued by audiences around the globe. In this case, the remarkable achievement by Lee’s latest movie helps us to reconsider the (trans-) national discourse of cinema in the global network.
Ang Lee and Cultural Glocality
To start with, it is important to define Ang Lee’s film production from the angle of cultural glocality, which refers to the blend of global networking and (multi-)local experiences in terms of film production and spectatorship. At this point, my definition of glocality in film production is inspired by scholar Joshua Meyrowitz. In his discussion of glocality, Meyrowitz underscores the new senses of place and identity in the global village. As Meyrowitz argues, “We are free to choose our own networks for membership and our own level of engagement in each network. We are free, as well, to shape our degrees of connection to local space. As a result, we can each create our own customized – and evolving – fusion of local and global identities.”[i] Despite that fact that Meyrowitz’s observation is not directly linked with filmmaking, I would like to extend the concept of glocality by bringing into focus the co-existence of the global and local consciousness in relation to Ang Lee’s film production.
In the era of globalization, the traditional production mode of national cinema has been gradually undermined. It is true that national cinema has not come to an end. For instance, India’s Bollywood and South Korean studios continue to polish their distinctive national brands in world cinema. However, more and more filmmakers and producers across the globe are seeking opportunities of cooperation in shooting films that cross national, regional, and cultural borders. Even though Hollywood still occupies the center of world cinema, it has been “outsourcing” and “remaking commercially successful foreign films” for many years.[ii] Recent cases are The Ring (2002), The Ring 2 (2005), The Departed (2006), The Grudge trilogy (2004, 2006 and 2009), My Sassy Girl (2008), The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009), and Oldboy (2013). These films represent Hollywood’s endeavor in remaking Hong Kong, Japanese, Swedish, and even South Korean blockbusters. In addition, Hollywood has a notable history of recruiting such foreign directors as Roman Polanski from Poland[1] (Rosemary’s Baby, 1968; Tess, 1979; The Pianist, 2002), John Woo from Hong Kong (Broken Arrow, 1996; Face/Off, 1997; Mission: Impossible II, 2000), and Alfonso Cuarón from Mexico (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, 2004; Children of Men, 2006; Gravity, 2013). Like the directors mentioned above, Ang Lee can be deemed as one of the most successful cases.
To better understand Lee’s film production from a transnational angle, it would be helpful to closely examine Lee as an auteur on three different levels: “technique,” “personal style,” and “interior meaning.”[iii] Lee’s technique of film directing has long been recognized since his Taiwanese family trilogy: Pushing Hands [Tui shou] (1992), The Wedding Banquet [Xi yan] (1993), and Eat Drink Man Woman [Yinshi nannu] (1994). Then he started his filmmaking career in Hollywood by directing Sense and Sensitivity (1995), which received international awards including the Golden Bear at the forty-sixth Berlin International Film Festival.
Lee’s personal style is not limited to any specific genre. Actually, what makes Lee unique is that he is eager to explore various topics as a versatile storyteller. What remains unwavering as the interior meaning is Lee’s cinematic representation of humanist concern with sensitivity and depth. After the success of Sense and Sensibility, Lee continued to touch upon American life, history, and even Marvel heroism with The Ice Storm (1997), Ride with the Devil (1999) and The Hulk (2003) respectively. On his way to stardom as a director, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain represent Lee’s unforgettable achievements in film history. On the matter of transnational film production, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has been recognized as the most influential example extending beyond the scope of Chinese national cinema. According to Yingjin Zhang, “[T]he phenomenal global success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, […] a multinational co-production featuring a multinational cast and crew reminds us that a new age of transnational Chinese cinema has arrived.”[iv]
It is important to consider that Life of Pi not only reconfirms Lee’s status as a film master but also paves a new way to glocal cooperation in terms of film production and spectatorship as observed in the case of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. On the one hand, Life of Pi was nominated for eleven Academy Awards and won four in the end. On the other, this transnational film raked in more than US$ 600 million worldwide. As a film of survival and spectacle, Life of Pi leads its audiences to observe how the young Indian boy Pi (Suraji Sharma) goes through his physical ordeal and spiritual quest.
In Life of Pi, Ang Lee transforms the extreme brutality of human nature and presents a series of visual sensations. Thanks to the aid the latest 3D technology, its film language is accessible to the audience of all ages. It thus makes the film a unique art piece valued around the world. The ambiguous ending of the film further points to profound philosophical and psychological issues about humanity and survival on a universal level. That said, Life of Pi crosses the boundaries between nations, races, and religions. Celebrating the “aristocratic nature of [film] art,” the great Russian filmmaker Andrey Tarkovsky argues that an artist shows “special awareness of his time and of the world” and delivers “the voice of those who cannot formulate or express their view of reality.”[v] If we follow Tarkovsky’s argument, the “voice” of Life of Pi represents a collective “view of reality” that engages the issue of how the individual’s faith can be challenged in critical conditions. In the age of globalization, such artistic values can be greatly appreciated. Furthermore, it is worth considering the importance of glocality embedded in the film, which highlights global impacts and transnational experiences in specific locales. Whereas the term globalization usually involves a hegemonic view in response to the dynamic between the center and the other, glocality, as I emphasize in my analysis of Life of Pi, sheds light on a co-existing state for plural cultural entities and creates more opportunities for negotiation and understanding in-between.
It would be interesting to observe Ang Lee’s transition from local filmmaking to transnational film production because he has become a cross-cultural icon with a series of global success. For instance, Lee really impressed the global audiences with a broad worldview in his acceptance speech of the Best Director Award at the 2013 Oscars. After thanking Yann Martel, the Canadian writer of the original novel, and the significant crew from the Twentieth Century Fox Studios, Lee continues with a long list thanking Taiwan and his international crew:
I cannot make this movie without the help of Taiwan. We shot there. I want to thank everybody there helped us. Especially the city of Taichung. My Indian crew, I love you. My Canadian crew, I love you. My family in Taiwan. My wife, Jane Lin. We’ll be married 30 years this summer. I love you. My boys, Han and Mason, thank you for your support. Finally, my agent, Carin Sage and lawyer, Ira Schreck, and Joe Dapello, I have to do that. Especially for this movie, it’s great to have your support. Thank you, Academy. Xie xie, Namaste.
Such a short speech of Ang Lee’s covers people from different countries as well as three different language: English, Mandarin Chinese, and Hindi. At this point, Taiwan and India are also highlighted within the framework of glocality. Born in Taiwan, Ang Lee always receives enthusiastic support and conspicuous success in the local market. Over two decades, Lee has been a national pride of Taiwan. His name is usually linked with other Taiwanese heroes such as Jason Wu (Taiwanese-American fashion designer favored by Michelle Obama, the First Lady of the United States), Yani Tseng (former World No.1 Female Golfer), Chien-ming Wang (former Yankees Ace pitcher), and Jeremy Lin (Taiwanese-American player of Houston Rockets). Lee’s influence even spreads across the Taiwanese Strait and reaches mainland China. However, some Chinese filmmakers and commoners might hold ambivalent attitude towards Lee’s achievements in the western world due to his Taiwanese background. On one level, they always highlight Lee’s Chinese blood and celebrate his international recognition. On another, Lee’s rise has given mainland directors considerable pressure since no mainland-based director can reach his height in the western world.
Undoubtedly, Ang Lee’s constant success has caused collective cultural and political anxieties in mainland China. Interestingly but not surprisingly, major Chinese media deleted Lee’s statement about Taiwan in his acceptance speech and acclaimed Lee as a “quintessential Chinese director.”[vi] Chinese critic Chen Peng also points out the gap between Ang Lee and the fifth generation Chinese directors led by Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige. Whereas Lee’s films embody the East-West cultural dynamic with sincerity, the fifth-generation directors, as Chen argues, suffer the “collective syndrome [of desiring and loathing Ang Lee]”[vii] and lose “the depth of humanity and thoughts.”[viii]
Chinese writer Ma Boyong makes an even harsher criticism of mainland directors by labeling Ang Lee as “a sinner condemned by the Chinese film industry.”[ix] Ma’s real intention is not to debase Lee but to criticize the mainland directors who are severely affected by Ang Lee Complex—that is, a psychological state of love/hate ambivalence. As a matter of fact, the fifth-generation directors in China already set significant milestones in the history of Chinese cinema. Directors like Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige also won prestigious awards in international film festivals in the 1980s and 1990s. It is the coveted but unattainable Oscar recognition that keeps haunting these Chinese directors. Unlike Chinese directors, Lee straddles the border between the east and the west because of his Chinese/Taiwanese legacy and American education background. In this regard, Lee has reached a different level by projecting a new worldview of cultural glocality.
From Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to Life of Pi
Ang Lee has demonstrated cross-cultural aspects of human life since his early family trilogy (1992-1994). The East-West communication and negotiation have long been an essential narrative foundation in Lee’s film production. The most striking example is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, in which fundamental Chinese values are repackaged. According to Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh and Darrell William Davis, Lee’s film art stimulates a cultural process of “Confucianizing Hollywood”—that is, “reintroducing Hollywood to virtues of discipline, diligence, and old-fashioned economy” and “renew[ing] a culture of courtesy, fairness, and sincerity.”[x]
The topic of East-West link in Lee’s films before Life of Pi is usually centered around family values under the guidance of Confucianism. In Confucius’ view, a harmonious world is based on the smallest units of society—the individual and family combined. Western viewers might have a hard time understanding the core of Confucianism. However, they can easily understand emotional attachments and struggle within families on screen, especially when Lee’s films are connected with the negotiation between individual realization and family responsibilities.
In the case of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee’s strategy receives mixed comments. On the one hand, this martial-arts drama suffers from charges of “inauthenticity” in response to the “cultural representation” of “Chineseness,” as pointed out by Kenneth Chan.[xi] On the other, this film formulates the “concept of globalization,” embodies “the synthesis and transcendence of opposites,” and represents “geographic localities.”[xii]
Actually, it might be too harsh to view Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an inauthentic representation of Chineseness. Such accusations were also made on Chinese-American writers like Maxine Hong Kingston and Amy Tan. Nevertheless, no one can dispute the fact that Kingston and Tan skillfully combine their Chinese fantasies and American experiences, thus making their works celebrated as literary canons of minority discourse in North America. Lee’s case is similar. Who can rightfully represent Chineseness? How do we define Chineseness? How do we approach it? These questions require further discussion in the multicultural world.
Beyond Chineseness, the cross-cultural elements and messages delivered in Ang Lee’s film production have been proven valuable and prophetic. According to Chris Berry and Mary Farquhar, “In this era of global capital flows, multiculturalism, increasing migration, and the World Wide Web, it is clear that the national cinemas approach with its premise of distinct and separate national cultures would be fraught anywhere”[xiii]. Whereas most Chinese films are still limited within the framework of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Lee’s filmmaking has transcended East Asia and started building connections with global consciousness.
Besides, the success of Life of Pi has raised a number of critical questions about the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT), which is widely regarded as a notorious system of political surveillance and censorship in mainland China. Two days before Ang Lee won the Academy Award for Best Director with Life of Pi, the Chinese government introduced new regulations to further supervise the documentary film production in China. As Ananth Krishnan claims,
The two unrelated events [, Ang Lee’s Oscar win and China’s new media policy,] have been seized upon by filmgoers and media commentators, fanning the flames of a long-running debate about whether censorship is stifling talent in China even as directors in Taiwan and Hong Kong win global acclaim.[xiv]
As we know, local documentary films have long been an important source for both domestic and international viewers to examine China from a non-official perspective. The new policies will surely limit the freedom and creativity of independent filmmakers in China. Were Lee born in mainland China, he would have had to deal with the political supervision of the government. It could have been more challenging for him to go beyond the national discourse of China Proper.
Through the success of Life of Pi, Ang Lee presents a new worldview that involves global economy and cross-cultural understanding. Beyond the Orientalist discourse, Life of Pi has turned out to be a global product loaded with multiculturalism. The market success of Life of Pi has generated a lot of interests in its original story and film production. There are two issues worthy of notice here: the visual effects and the transnational production of the film. First, this movie uses the latest 3D technology and CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) to depict the story of a Hindu teenage boy who survives a shipwreck and spends 227 days on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. It has been proven by the international box office record that visual sensations of wonder can serve effectively to impress global audiences. This trend is well reflected by international blockbusters like Avatar (2009) and The Avengers (2012). In fact, visual effects also help to carry the movie and cross cultural barriers. Likewise, spectators can be moved by the vivid shots of Richard Parker, jellyfish, and giant whales in Life of Pi. This film is not Ang Lee’s first attempt to embrace visual effects to facilitate cinematic narrative. Through Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Lee has opened the audiences’ imagination to marvelous gravity-defying jumping and breathtaking martial-arts performance.