Nothing about Cinema, Everything about Freedom

A Statement from Ying Liang

I’m experiencing quite a unique campaign for “film marketing”: every time when I finish a new film, I’d send some film stills and relevant materials to the media. But this time, what is in focus here is not the film itself. Most interview requests are not from the film-related media. It’s not that I don’t want to talk about other topics, but that the attention now is not directed to the quality of my new work.

For a filmmaker, the fact that the film has become a topic as such can’t be more embarrassing and unfortunate. What I have experienced and what I envision will happen in the future have made me to accept such a fact: “JUST CINEMA”, which indicates on the one hand that the power of cinema shouldn’t be over-evaluated, and on the other hand, cinema could achieve everything. I cannot totally agree with the latter opinion about the importance of cinema—- at least I don’t “simply”, “solely” or “absolutely” believe in such a statement. But there are people who insist that films could be so important that they would do everything to prove and guard this claim via public power and public instrument, which corners me, a negligible filmmaker, to a political or politicized predicament.

When receiving the invitation from the Jeonju Digital Project (JDP) by Jeonju International Film Festival (JIFF), I was experiencing my bottleneck period. For more than two years I haven’t shot any new work. The JDP has given me the chance to relish in the freedom and joy in filmmaking again. In recent eight and nine years, I have altogether shot four features and several short films, ending up getting lost in the search for motivations. Every time upon finishing shooting a new story, I’d be soon taught a lesson by actual events in life, of which the degree of absurdity, cruelty and sense of black humor usually exceed that of film stories, and they are way beyond our imagination too.

At the same time, I have come to the realization that a film made purely out of personal interest and likes could do nothing to help friends around me, and it may even push them to a worsened condition—–in this way, I’ve been cast spell by both cinema and life. Feeling confused, I have to stop and grope for an answer. ”When Night Falls” tells the story about the mother of a murderer. She has been kept away from the legal proceedings so that she has no idea about her son’s death penalty. It’s based on a real case in 2008. It is from the perspective of a mother that I shot this film for the JDP. It turns out that the curse works again, here goes the details:

November 29, 2011

I received the invitation from Jeonju International Film Festival to participate in the Jeonju Digital Project of 2012. At that time I had already worked for 3 months as an artist in residence at the School of Film and Television, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts.

February 20, 2012

The shooting of “When Night Falls” was done, and we started to edit. The film was then scheduled to premiere at Jeonju on April 28.

February 24, 2012

Friends of mine at Hangzhou and Shanghai were approached by people sent by the National Security Bureau from Shanghai. Because of my friends’ identities as teachers and students, the Ministry of Education also intervened to inquire them.

April 7 , 2012

When calling my parents at Shanghai I learnt that there were policemen inquiring about “When Night Falls” two days ago at home. They wouldn’t believe that my parents didn’t know about it. They required that the film should not be screened and it should be re-edited, and they could compensate for my loss. They also took away the DVDs of my previous works from my parents’ home.

April 14, 2012

The post-production of “When Nights Falls” completed, and the length is 70 minutes. The screener was sent to JIFF.

April 16, 2012

My wife Peng Shan’s mother told us via QQ that the policemen from Shanghai arrived at Zigong, Sichuan Province and approached Peng’s father. Their intention was to push the families to persuade me to pull out the film from the festival or re-edit the film. And Peng’s father added via QQ that he was approached by the policemen several times, and they hope it would be made clear to me that the official believes that this film has twisted the facts about Chinese legal systems, and has hurt the feelings of Shanghai police. If the film is screened, negative international impacts would be expected, and if we don’t pull out the film, we wouldn’t end up well. If we accept their offer, the police could compensate for any loss, and in the future when I shoot film in the mainland the  would support us.

The police even asked Peng Shan’s parents to take them to visit me at Hong Kong.

April 18, 2012

I received an email from my Shanghai’s families which says, “Your new film touched the nerves of Shanghai, and during the past 12 days, they visited us at home for 7 times. The public security bureau is watching you closely, and you would have difficulties crossing the borders…unless you pull out the film or change your name. They would take hard stance. You cannot come back to Mainland in the future.” My families also told me that the policemen had already read the film script.

April 19, 2012

I received several unidentified calls, and once it was connected, the caller would not directly speak to me but would hand the phone to my mother. My mother would try to persuade me not to show the film or re-edit it. I reminded them that the new film has nothing to do with my parents and the policeman should directly approach me. At night, there was someone who claimed that he was sent by the Office of the Foreign Affairs of Shanghai Municipality calling me, and they hoped that on the second day I would be able to meet their “cadre” at the Saiwan area of Hong Kong Island. I replied that they approached me in such a hurry that we should just meet near my university. They agreed after discussion among themselves.

April 20, 2012

At 10 am at the Chifu Plaza near Pokfulam Village I met up with the two sent by the socalled “the Office of the Foreign Affairs of Shanghai Municipality”. One of them calls himself Director Zhang, and another is Xiaochen. Their accusation had two parts:

1) The film has twisted the facts about the case;

2) The film has offended the feelings and rights of the people involved.

My response:

1) I will consult with the lawyers about the legal issues;

2) The copyright of my film belongs to JIFF, and you should approach them;

3) As the director of the film, I don’t want to pull out my film or re-edit it.

That afternoon my wife consulted with a rights lawyer, and they told me both charges were simply absurd.

1) If the government doesn’t believe the film is based on facts of the case, then they should make public the details of the case, and all the lawyers with professional integrity are waiting for this day to come;

2) If the film does hurt the feelings of people involved in the case, then the charges should be raised by them. And that should be a civil lawsuit which doesn’t involve arrest.

Between April 21-23, 2012

Xiaochen from “the Office of the Foreign Affairs of Shanghai Municipality” texted me and kept calling me 2-3 times per day. I picked up one phone call once and he tried again to persuade me to approach the JIFF so they wouldn’t screen the film anymore. Suffering from the harassment I blacklisted his number.

April 27, 2012

A SINA WEIBO (micro blog) user called “Ni Jiu Shi Ta” posted,”#When Night Falls# before its opening, the JIFF was threatened by the CCP official, which requested them to stop screening Ying Liang’s part in the Jeonju Digital Project. But the demand was turned down by the festival. Then the CCP offered that, they would purchase the copyright of the film with 10 billion Korean Won so the festival won’t screen the film. The festival still downed them down”.

In this message the weibo user also provided the web link from a news site of South Korea. However this post was instantly deleted at WEIBO. This user again uses the English title of the film “When Night Falls” to repost, which was finally deleted on May 13. The item of “When Night Falls” at DOUBAN.COM (web 2.0 social network site in Chinese language) was deleted (http://movie.douban.com/subject/10465114/)

April 28, 2012

“When Night Falls” was premiered at Jeonju, with around 1100 audience. One of the coordinators of the festival Ji-Hoon Jo also confirmed that there was a Korean young man who approached the city council and the festival office on behalf of a Chinese film company. He wanted to buy the copyright of the film and required them to cancel the screening. But Jo refused him.

May 5, 2012

My families sent me two emails to convey the intention of the Public Security and National Security, which says, if I return to Mainland China, I would be arrested, and there is no space for negotiation. The branch bureau could arrest me without asking for authorization from the higher levels, and my filmmaking has been filed as one of  those “serious and important cases”, so it would be dealt with differently. Also the branch bureau seemed to imply that I would be OK if I give up to be a Chinese.  Also, I hear from my friend that the order was given by the head of The Public Security Bureau of Shanghai Municipality. For the first time I mentioned at Facebook that my security was under threat and freedom was limited.

May 8, 2012

One of my cousins told me that when she called my mother, she sounded calm, but the call was discontinuous, so she was suspicious that the call was intercepted.

Between May 11-12, 2012

After two days’ communication with Ji-Hoon Jo via email, Ji-Hoon clarified the fact about the circulating news on the 10 billion Korean Won (50 million RMB). Ji- Hoon told me that the news was not accurate. The director of the festival at the opening ceremony mentioned, “Even if Chinese government offers us 10,000,000,000 won to buy the film, we surely will screen the film in our festival.”  And it is where the misinterpretation came from. But Ji-Hoon emphasized that the proposal of purchase and the added conditions indeed existed. But they never mentioned about the price. Also the details about the “young Korean guy” are,

1)he repeatedly points out that he is not sent by the government,

2) he only knows that the film is made by Ying Liang, while having no idea about the Korean or English title of the film.

3)he claims that he has business relationship with some rich businessmen in Shanghai, who asked him to purchase the copyright at Jeonju

May 13,2012

My cousin again called my parents’ home at Shanghai, and they said they were no longer approached by the Shanghai police, and they guessed it was because the police believed I had already understood their intention. This cousin also told my parents about how I dealt with this situation by mobilizing Facebook and WEIBO, and then she sent my best regards to my mother for Mother’s Day. It was said that my parents seemed to be more relaxed, and they were from time to time laughing.

In the future with the screening of “When Night Falls” at other places, the timeline above would be constantly updated—I simply feel sad, and I am reminded of what Yang Jia said, “in a country run by these policemen, even a law abiding citizen who’s obedient for more than 20 years would be sentenced to prison ”

What I have written above has nothing to do with my filmmaking. To be honest, in these years, except love letters, I have got few chances to write about anything irrelevant to cinema. At the end of the statement, I shall protest against Shanghai police and the CCP government on the following issues:

Give back the independent filmmakers’ dignity!

Give me back the freedom for creation and speech, and also personal freedom!

Stop harassing and threatening my families and friends!

Stop all the ridiculous acts hindering the screenings of “When Night Falls” !

Make public the facts about Yang Jia’s case!

Cancel the surveillance around Yang Jia’s tomb, stop restricting Mrs. Wang Jingmei’s

freedom of speech and persona freedom!

Compensate for Mrs. Wang Jingmei’s loss and give her a reasonable explanation!

Ying Liang

May 14,2012 Hong Kong

"When Night Falls" (dir. Ying Liang)

Since the initial threat made to Ying’s family and the prospect that he may be arrested if he returns to mainland China, Ying has returned to his teaching post in Hong Kong and has been keeping followers updated on the situation via his facebook and twitter.

"When Night Falls" (dir. Ying Liang)

The narrative film, which recounts the true story of a man who murdered six Shanghai policemen after suffering police beatings as punishment for riding an unlicensed bicycle, is a story of brutality, unlawful detentions, and the state of justice in today’s China. The film premiered recently at the Jeonju International Film Festival in South Korea.

"When Night Falls" (dir. Ying Liang)

The Chinese title of the film Wo Hai You Hua Yao Shuo, can be translated as “I Still Have Something To Say.” The trailer was posted yesterday and can be seen here.

Ying Liang (photo credit: Wenjei Cheng)

Ying Liang, the director of Taking Father Home, Good Cats, and The Other Half and a leading figure in the world of independent Chinese cinema, has reportedly had police visit his family in Shanghai. Ying, who is in Hong Kong, has been threatened with arrest if he returns to China. The harassment began following a screening of his most recent narrative feature, When Night Falls at the Jeonju Film Festival in South Korea. Writing for The New Yorker, Richard Brody reports:

The film that got Ying in trouble is his latest, “When Night Falls,” which, according to [Malaysian filmmaker and blogger Edmund] Yeo, was shown in the Jeonju film festival, in South Korea. Yeo’s post has a wide range of details about the film and the case. The movie is based on the true story of a man who was “executed in 2008 for murdering six policemen with a knife in a Shanghai police station after being arrested and beaten for riding an unlicensed bicycle.”

Yeo quotes from Ying’s post on Facebook, which states that, after the film was shown in Jeonju, his family, in Shanghai, and his wife’s family, in Sichuan, were visited and intimidated by the Chinese police, who then tried “to buy the copyright of the film” in Korea for an extraordinarily high price. Ying adds that he returned to Hong Kong (where he is currently working) and learned that he would be arrested if he goes back to China.

Since the incidents, Ying has been active on facebook and twitter, commenting on the evolving situation and assuring concerned friends and fans alike that his family “are ok.” Ying has also released a series of statements on facebook, some of which have been made public to non-”friends”. In a most recent facebook post, dated May 9th, Ying clarifies some of the conditions surrounding the harassment:

“My parents and my wife’s parents were harassed by policemen at the early of this April. The last time, I got the info, the policemen from Police Department, National Security, and National Protection had visited my family in Shanghai at least seven times. Their main work were helping my parents to understand “my case”: such as the film exposed the eyesore of them, nobody could be allowed to touch the case about Yang Jia, and I wouold be arrested once I come back. The day before yesterday, my friend gave a call to my home; she said my mother’s voice and emotion sound ok, but telephone always discontinue, maybe phone was being eavesdropped.

When the Policemen from National Security visited me in HK, they didn’t use true identity, just said they from the Foreign Office of Shanghai Government. Because of my families’ troublesome, I thought I must see them. They told me my film didn’t meet the true, and violate somebody’s emotion. Then they request me to cancel all screening plan, or re-edit the film.” [sic]

As friends and supporters of Ying Liang, we at dGenerate Films extend our great concern to Ying and his family. Ying Liang is not only a remarkable director, but a leader, teacher, and role model in the Chinese independent film community—a true symbol of independent thought and artistic practice. Our thoughts are with Ying and his family. We will be following this situation as more information becomes available.

"Titianic 3D" in China (courtesy sina.com)

James Cameron, director of Avatar and Titanic, deep-sea explorer, and self-proclaimed “king of the world” was in Beijing earlier this week attending the Beijing International Film Festival. He spoke with Edward Wong of The New York Times and Gady Epstein of The Economist about his involvement in China, the numbers game of US-China co-productions, and the avalanche of Avatar the future may hold.

Wong, Epstein, and Cameron also discussed the censorship and quotas governing theatrical releases in China:

NYT: You must have had people talk to you to give you a briefing on the censorship process, about how it works or how it’s affected certain films here. Do you have any general thoughts on that?

Cameron: As an artist, I’m always against censorship. But censorship’s a reality, even in the U.S. We have a form of it there. We used to have the Hays commission. We now have the M.P.A.A. ratings system, which is basically a self-censorship process that prevents government from doing it. But the economic imperatives are that if you get an R rating, the studio won’t make a film that looks like it’s headed toward an R rating, and if you get a R you’ve got to cut it yourself to comply with PG-13. So it’s really just a form of censorship indirectly.”

NYT: Do you consider that the same as Chinese censorship?

Cameron: You’ve got a little more choice in it. It’s not as draconian. But I can’t be judgmental about another culture’s process. I don’t think that’s healthy.

While Cameron expressed misgivings about the censorship rules at play in Chinese cinema, he stressed a belief that things are “moving in the right direction.” Said Cameron:

Well, “Titanic” is actually censored less this time than it was in ’97. Because it was their second bite at the apple. It’s gotten much wider and we’re seeing it being less restrictive. So we’re moving in the right direction. The quotas for international films coming in now, it’s a higher quota, the percentage of revenue is higher, so everything is moving in the right direction. You see the market opening up.

Still, Cameron’s involvement in China appears to be a simple investment of time and labor into an environment where both box office sales and 3D technology are on the rise. Exhibiting a mild enthusiasm for Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige, Cameron admittedly lacks much knowledge—or empathy—for Chinese artists under the thumb of government censorship:

NYT: Did you talk to other filmmakers – your peers – about Chinese censorship?

Cameron: No. I’m not interested in their reality. My reality is that I’ve made two films in the last 15 years that both have been resounding successes here, and this is an important market for me. And so I’m going to do what’s necessary to continue having this be an important market for my films. And I’m going to play by the rules that are internal to this market. Because you have to. You know, I can stomp my feet and hold my breath but I’m not going to change people’s minds that way. Now I do feel that everything is trending in the right direction right now, as I mentioned earlier.

To hear James Cameron, whose box office successes in China represent the pinnacle of Hollywood’s dearest hopes, wax so apathetic about censorship and the reality of Chinese filmmakers is disheartening. The recent swirl of co-production news that has surrounded US filmmaking efforts in China has seemed to neglect a seemingly crucial question: exactly what kind of collaborations can we expect from these future co-productions? Co-productions may hold the power to shape future censorship constraints, as well as infuse both Hollywood and the Chinese film industry with new talent and ideas, but Cameron seems to have all but written Chinese filmmakers out of the equation. Certainly, Cameron does not speak for all of Hollywood. What he does express in his careless attitude towards other filmmakers, however, speaks at a blockbuster volume.

Beijing in focus

A new book from the World Film Locations series entitled World Film Locations: Beijing, edited by John Berra and Liu Yang, is available for pre-order. This exciting new title features “a series of spotlight essays and illustrated scene reviews, a cast of seasoned scholars and fresh new voices explore the vast range of films—encompassing drama, madcap comedy, martial arts escapism, and magical realism—that have been set in Beijing. Unveiling a city of hidden courtyards, looming skyscrapers, and traditional Hutong neighborhoods, these contributors depict a distinctive urban culture that reflects the conflict and tumult of a nation in transition. With considerations of everything from the back streets of Beijing Bicycle to the forbidden palace of The Last Emperor to the tourist park of The World, this volume is a definitive cinematic guide to an ever-changing and endlessly fascinating capital city.”

While World Film Locations: Beijing features discussions of many of the films that first made Beijing recognizable to world audiences in the 1990s and early 2000s, this collection of writings also highlight numerous dGenerate titles, including Liu Jiayin‘s Oxhide, Ou Ning‘s Meishi Street, and Cui Zi’en‘s We Are the … of Communism. Addressing the city’s historical legacy as a bastion of Chinese power to modern concerns of urban development and shifting culture through myriad cinematic lenses, World Film Locations: Beijing boasts writing from such scholars as Chris Berry, Yomi Braester, Seio Nakajima, and Grace Wang.

The book is available for pre-order here.

Does The Art Movement Exist?

The first ISAAS series last year brought over twenty films to numerous Chinese cities with the theme “To Live In China,” and was profiled in Chinese Artforum. This year’s series will feature work by Jia Zhangke, Ai Weiwei, Hu Jie, Zhao Liang, Li Ning and many more. The objective of this mobile screening series and art exhibition is to encourage the spread of Chinese independent narrative and documentary, promote new thinking on independent arts practice, and create an environmental of accessible artistic exchange. More information (in Chinese only) can be found here.

And pretty soon, it’ll have a face, too. According to Clifford Coonan of Variety, a $1.27 billion facility that will serve as a “co-production film financing platform, a co-production service center with post facilities, a facility for 3D conversion and a distribution and marketing center” is being constructed outside of Tianjin. The Chinawood behemoth, which is being built approximately a thirty-minute train ride outside central Beijing,

“is aimed at luring U.S. and other foreign productions and will provide a hub for co-productions, which are exempt from Chinese import quotas. Some 35% of the investment is earmarked for film financing.”

The question of “luring” Hollywood attention to China seems an easy game, as American producers look increasingly to China for box office numbers that elude American releases. The hurdle Hollywood must surpass to produce and distribute in China, of course, is government control of everything from content to distribution quotas, many of which are highlighted in a recent New York Times profile of the China Film Group and its director, the veritable overlord of the Chinese film industry, Han Sanping.

In The Guardian, Andrew Pulver writes of Chinawood:

Chinawood’s main aim will be to service co-productions between Hollywood and China – a move that will no doubt be popular among US producers, to get around China’s strict quota regulations.

By design, Chinawood will provide an infrastructure—both physically and institutionally—that allows both Chinese and American filmmakers to grab their piece of the pie. Certainly, Chinawood represents an immense investment that aims to provide American producers with the technical and political support to rake in Chinese box office revenues and also provide Chinese filmmakers with access to new talent, new audiences, and a new means to export filmmaking as “soft culture.” It’s a win-win, right?  In fact, the still rigid guidelines for the distribution of foreign films in China (even Chinawood’s co-productions) portend that those involved in productions in China may still face some formidable impediments in the shape of the China Film Group’s censorship policies. Writing for the Times, David Cieply and David Barboza report:

Co-productions with Chinese companies by foreign producers are subject to the authorization of the China Film Co-Production Company, a China Film Group unit, the report said.

Submission to the Chinese censors, who typically spend 15 to 30 business days reviewing a film and sometimes demand changes, again runs through the film group. Several of the largest theater chains, the commission found, were at least partly owned by the group.

Chinawood is slated to open in October 2012, when the particular dynamics of this co-production giant will become more apparent. The formulas to dual success in the land of US-China co-productions are largely untested and Chinawood may represent one of the boldest attempts to shape this future. Perhaps the elevation of Chinawood is ineluctable, though they might want to reconsider the name.

"When The Bough Breaks" (dir. Ji Dan)

Ji Dan, whose film When The Bough Breaks unfolds the story of a family enmeshed in a struggle of harrowing personal and financial stakes, was awarded the top prize at the 2012 Millenium International Documentary Film Festival in Brussels. Lauded for is technical and artistic merits, as well as close examination of some of China’s most wide-reaching social issues, the film was awarded the Objectif d’or earlier this month.

A video interview with Ji Dan, complete with clips from the film, can be seen here. Congratulations to Ji Dan and When The Bough Breaks!

The Times reports:

The inquiry creates a potential roadblock for the industry’s plans to expand in one of the world’s largest markets.

The S.E.C. investigation has so far focused on at least three studios, the person said, but all of the largest and some smaller studios have been contacted or made aware of the inquiry, according to the person, who has direct knowledge of the investigation but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter could end up in court.

The industry territory Hollywood seeks to annex has produced several co-productions in recent years, but government regulations, as well some considerable differences in the way the American and Chinese film business is conducted, have stymied some Hollywood efforts to expand into China.

Hollywood has been trying to get more films into the Chinese market for decades, but efforts have picked up in recent years in large part because China has identified cinema as a growth priority. China is racing to build more modern theaters to entertain an expanding, cinema-loving middle class. The country is also escalating local film production, partly as a way to spread its culture across the globe…

Ticket revenue in China is expected to reach $5 billion by 2015, up from $2.1 billion last year, according to box office tracking companies.

Hollywood is facing a slowing movie market at home. Last year, attendance in North America dropped to its lowest level since 1993. Studios, contending with a dying DVD business, are more reliant than ever on showings in theaters and see China as a major antidote to their various economic problems.

While the S.E.C.’s investigation remains inconclusive, the race for Hollywood to take advantage of Chinese resources and audiences remains a hot topic–perhaps too hot in some ways. It seems now, though, that the investigation may join the navigation of a government censorship and uniquely Chinese business practices such as the guanxi network in blocking some of Hollywood’s  plans. The Times reports also on possible diversions that Hollywood may be seeking as alternatives to the “overheated” Chinese market:

In an interview earlier this month, Peter A. Chernin, the chief executive of the Chernin Group, a media company that joined in producing “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” for Fox, said he was more inclined to deploy his own company’s next investments in India or Indonesia. The chase for media investments in China had become “overheated,” he said, and heavy regulation has made China less attractive to him than other Asian markets.

Director Liu Jiayin and her parents in "Oxhide"

Profiling Liu Jiayin, Andréa Picard praises Liu and the Oxhide series, musing “Who was this filmmaker who so maturely delineated the space of her imagination, carving a humanist monument from next to nothing?”
On these remarkable films that measuredly unfold an intimate world of family minutiae, Picard discusses Liu’s ”carefully calibrated yet warmly sensual sound and image construction, a droll humanism, and, ultimately, a feisty hopefulness.” 

Zhao Liang

Zhao Liang, called a “poet of justice” by reviewer Albert Serra, is described as an artist who “cannot simply describe social injustices, lies, abuses of power…because as an author he’s realized that “reality” itself is unjust and abusive. And it’s absurd to find a way to fight against it because reality has as much power as the “system” does in China.” Of the careful examination of power and artistry at play in Zhao’s Crime and Punishment and Petition, as well as his dedication to pulling back the layers of the grueling injustices of Chinese beaurocracy, Serra writes: “With any other topic he could have been involuntarily serving the propaganda of what he’s criticizing, but the issue of the absence of justice turns our hearts with so much power that this is impossible.”

"The Search" (dir. Pema Tseden)

dGenerate films consultant and blog contributor Shelly Kraicer takes on an appraisal of the frontrunner of Tibetan new wave, Pema Tseden (in Chinese, Wanma Caidan). Of the director of The Silent Holy Stones, The Search, and most recently Old Dog, which is currently enjoying an international festival run, Kraicer says, “Given Pema Tseden’s extremely complicated position as a Tibetan in China, and the necessity of having his films pass stringent Chinese censorship, his ability to speak eloquently of individual despair and the emergency of cultural obliteration is masterful; his ability to do this in films of such eloquent, quiet beauty is nothing short of astonishing.” 

Reviewed by Chris Fujiwara, Wang Bing‘s work, which includes the films The Ditch and Fengming, a Chinese Memoir, is described as being imbued with “an attempt to imagine unimaginable (though real) conditions for human life, there is also a war-movie element, a working-over of the terrain, together with the becoming-mineral of humanity that recalls the hard-bitten, antiheroic sagas of Samuel Fuller, Anthony Mann, and Miklós Janscó.” 

Jia Zhangke, perhaps the Chinese filmmaker on this list whose reputation most predicts inclusion on such a list, is discussed by Tony Rayns as an inspiration to those filmmakers who followed in the footsteps of Jia’s early hometown trilogy: Xiao Wu, Platform, and Unknown Pleasures. “After Jia,” writes Raynes, “the flood. From the start, Jia had a genius for seeing and showing how larger social changes (political, economic, moral) impacted on individual lives.” 

"After Jia, the flood" Jia Zhangke's "Unknown Pleasures"

Congratulations to Cinema Scope for reaching this milestone and to all the directors who grace this list—the future is in your capable hands.