The Chinese animated film "Ne Zha 2" has continued its record-breaking run, grossing over $2 billion worldwide and remaining on China’s top-five box-office list over 110 days after its release. But the film’s success has belied its curated image and masked a broader chill for the Chinese box office. Many Chinese companies and schools have organised patriotic outings and repeat viewings to boost box-office figures. Articles and comments critical of "Ne Zha 2" have been deleted from social media platforms, and Chinese bloggers and reviewers have reported being criticized or attacked online for expressing dissenting views about the film. Now, news that screenings of the animated blockbuster will be extended to June 30—the fourth extension thus far—has drawn mockery from netizens who wonder whether there will ever be an end to official efforts at promoting the film:
专踢周宁海那条好腿: Wouldn’t it be nice if they could bring things full circle by extending its release to next Lunar New Year?
waldeinsamkeit: This is turning into a joke. Why not extend it straight through to the end of summer vacation?
还不是尽头: Haha, might as well extend it until “Wolf Warrior 3” comes out.
专属小杰哥哥: If you don’t watch “Ne Zha,” you’re not Chinese.
无敌暴龙战士: We’ve fast-forwarded to: “If you don’t watch ____, you’re not Chinese.”NN: I was banished to Singapore because I didn’t watch “Ne Zha.”
余杭: While it’s normal for theatrical releases to be extended, it’s obvious that the wall-to-wall publicity for “Ne Zha 2” has sapped whatever goodwill it once had.
横蛮但却恐惧: Couldn’t you theatres and film associations manage to coordinate with each other to show some other movies? Over the past few months, there have been a few new movies I honestly wanted to see, but they never showed up in theatres. Theatres have just been extending release dates and rescreening old films day after day. I’m baffled—I want to go out and spend money but they won’t let me.
立鑫: In the past, no matter how good a movie was, it would never stay in theatres this long. Besides investors trying to wring the last bit of profit out of a dying market, there’s an acute shortage of resources being invested in film.
Joe.: It’s kind of gone off the rails. These endless extensions just to chase box office clout seem pointless.[Chinese]
The interminable extensions of “Ne Zha 2” in theatrical release, along with new restrictions on imported films, may curtail box-office choice for cinemagoers in China. The China Film Administration announced in April that it would “moderately reduce the number of American films imported,” in respose to the U.S. government’s increased tariffs on China. A few weeks later, President Trump ordered a “100% tariff” on all movies produced abroad. Reuters noted last month that industry analysts believed the financial consequences for China of limiting imports of American films would be minimal, given Hollywood’s declining box-office returns in China:
Chris Fenton, author of "Feeding the Dragon: Inside the Trillion Dollar Dilemma Facing Hollywood, the NBA, and American Business," said limiting U.S.-made films was a "super high-profile way to make a statement of retaliation with almost zero downside for China."
Hollywood films account for only 5% of overall box office receipts in China’s market. And Hollywood studios receive only 25% of ticket sales in China, compared with double that in other markets, Fenton said.
"Such a high-profile punishment of Hollywood is an all-win motion of strength by Beijing that will surely be noticed by Washington," Fenton added.
[…] Since 2020, Chinese-made films have consistently accounted for around 80% of [China’s] annual box office revenue, up from around 60% previously. [Source]
“Chinese cinema has never been as conflicted as it is today,” wrote one Chinese blogger in March, regarding the difficulty of smaller-budget and arthouse films to calibrate success abroad with acceptance at home. As the blogger noted, filmmaker Huo Meng’s Berlin Film Festival win was met with a flood of negative Weibo comments about the film’s depiction of China. But much of the challenge on the homefront comes from the government rather than from audiences. After Yunnan-based independent filmmaker Guo Zhenming screened a film at last year’s Berlin Film Festival, the Urumqi Municipal Culture and Tourism Bureau in Xinjiang fined him 75,000 yuan (US$10,300) for “illegal filmmaking” activities, i.e. shooting some footage in their jurisdiction while having made a previous film in Hunan province without official permission from China’s film censors. And this week, after director Bi Gan’s latest art-house feature, Resurrection, won a special award at the Cannes Film Festival, China Daily noted that Bi “plans to make some refinements upon returning to China” in order to ensure that his film is able to be released in the Chinese market.
The government’s heavy hand also limits the success of Chinese films abroad. In an article published last month in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Ying Zhou highlighted the shortcomings of China’s Belt and Road (BRI) film co-productions, through which the Chinese government has too often attempted to impose its own superficial or propagandistic narratives:
BRI co-productions, over the past decade, have not fully realised the cross-cultural communication objectives initially outlined in the BRI strategy. A significant contributing factor to this discrepancy appears to be the inherent tension between its cultural and political aspirations and the prevailing development principles of the global film industry. To address this, a more nuanced and quality-focused approach to co-production is imperative, one that prioritises artistic integrity and meaningful cultural exchange over superficial collaboration.
[…] For an extended period, the Chinese government has placed substantial emphasis on the value of films as conduits for cultural exchange and tools of propaganda.
[…] To effectively attain the strategic objectives in BRI co-productions, it is advisable to prioritize factors that mitigate cultural discount. […] When selecting thematic elements, it is prudent to emphasize topics of global resonance, rather than superficially imposing Silk Road narratives and cultural elements. [Source]
