On Monday, the Wuhan Municipal Bureau of Culture and Tourism announced the conclusion of its investigation into an operatic performance by comedian Guo Degang back in July, and said that it would levy hefty fines on the organizers and theatrical venue involved. The investigation purportedly stemmed from a complaint by an unknown member of the public who alleged that Guo, one of China’s most famous comedians, had “distorted and vulgarized” a revolutionary classic by slightly altering the lyrics to a song that had once appeared in the 1956 revolutionary film “Railway Guerrilla.” The case has been cited as an example of the growing chill over various forms of expression in China.

The Wuhan investigators concluded that Guo’s performance had “caused a negative social impact,” but did not fine him personally, nor did they say whether he would face performing restrictions in the future. They issued punishments to the theatre and the performance organizers for violating Articles 16, 25, and 26 of the “Regulations on the Administration of Commercial Performances.” The organizers were punished with a formal warning, the confiscation of 48,687.4 yuan ($7,260 USD) in “illegal gains,” and a punitive fine of 486,874 yuan ($72,600). They were also ordered to rectify their practices and strengthen management of performers and performance content. The theatre management was given a formal warning and fined 110,000 yuan ($16,400).

Although the investigators’ statement does not specify exactly what portions of the three Articles were violated, Article 16 is a fairly straightforward regulation requiring organizers of commercial performances to submit certain materials (including a program and relevant audiovisual materials) to the local authorities in advance. This implicit stifling of improvisational elements sparked consternation late last year after an earlier brush between Guo and the authorities. Article 25 lists an expansive number of prohibitions in commercial performances, including: endangering national security, harming national honor, inciting ethnic hatred, disrupting social order or undermining social stability, harming public morality or national cultural traditions, among others. Article 26 requires venue operators or performance organizers to halt any performance that violates the provisions outlined in Article 25, and to immediately report the violation to local authorities.

The final paragraph of the report gives some hint as to the motivation and mindset behind the penalties: “Songs from the War of Resistance carry the Chinese nation’s memory of that struggle and its national sentiment, and no unit or individual will ever be permitted to distort or alter them. We will strengthen regulatory oversight in accordance with the law and earnestly safeguard the cultural marketplace."

CDT Chinese editors have archived a now-deleted post from WeChat account 难得君 (Nándéjūn), which discusses what the punishments bode for Guo Degang’s future career, and for the world of comedy in general. In "The Penalty Against Guo Degang Has Been Handed Down, But Is He Still Allowed to Perform?" Nandejun describes the ambiguity of the investigators’ brief report, and argues that their conclusions and the punishments they meted out represent a kind of face-saving compromise. Below is a translated excerpt from that censored article:

But what’s truly interesting is what wasn’t included in the announcement.

There is no performance ban, nor any explicit prohibition against Guo Degang performing on stage.

The announcement only stated that "those involved will be dealt with seriously." This wording leaves a lot of room for interpretation, certainly enough to give pause to those who prematurely declared that Guo Degang was “finished.”

The punishment has been handed down; the other shoe has dropped. But whether Guo Degang can still take the stage and perform crosstalk or Peking Opera remains unanswered in the official announcement.

Not providing an answer is itself an answer.

[…] The official statement was strongly worded, using terms like "distortion and falsification" and "negative social impact," applying all the appropriate characterizations. But the actual penalties were limited to fines, rectification, and “serious” disciplinary action. There was no ban on performances, no revocation of licenses, and no "complete end" of the issue.

This achieved two things: it addressed the public opinion storm, but also left the industry a way out.

This is not about appeasement. It’s about finding a balance in the complex public-opinion landscape that manages to uphold the bottom line without completely cutting off all avenues of communication.

Two opposing viewpoints seem to prevail online: one seeks to destroy Guo Degang and make things worse by escalating the issue, while the other argues that when it comes to crosstalk, any subject is fair game for jokes.

What the investigators’ report represents is an attempt to chart a new path between those two extremes. [Chinese]