????剛過去的一個周末是好萊塢的大日子，不過在奧斯卡獎慶典過后，美國電影業(yè)還得回歸到資金匱乏的工作狀態(tài)。包括好萊塢巨星克里斯蒂安?貝爾在內(nèi)的許多電影人，都正在逐漸接受一個事實——中國是他們的新大陸。

????中國電影業(yè)的發(fā)展速度甚至讓最樂觀的樂觀主義者都感到震驚。2005年，中國電影業(yè)的產(chǎn)值只有2.5億美元，相比好萊塢的230億美元，可謂微不足道。當時有些看好中國電影的人認為，到2010年，中國電影業(yè)產(chǎn)值會增至2005年的三倍，不過唱反調(diào)的人卻大搖其頭。他們表示，中國電影業(yè)的審查制度太嚴苛了，而且中國電影的藝術(shù)性不強。然而事實證明，中國電影在最樂觀的預(yù)測的基礎(chǔ)上還翻了一倍多。去年中國電影的票房收入超過15億美元。按照當前的增長率走下去，到2015年，中國電影的票房有望達到70億美元。

????這些專家的預(yù)測之所以與實際情況相差甚遠，大概是由于他們忽視了中國政府對其生機勃勃的電影業(yè)進行了多少投資。中國正在努力構(gòu)建一個消費型社會，而看電影對于一個消費型社會的發(fā)展起著重要的作用。自從2005年以來，政府大力推進基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項目的投資，其中就包括在主要城市投資興建新的電影院?，F(xiàn)在中國各地已經(jīng)有6000多個放映廳，其中許多放映設(shè)備都是數(shù)碼的。而且據(jù)中國政府的報告，中國平均每天都有三家新電影院開張。

????中國電影的內(nèi)容也有了提高。在過去10年的大部分時間里，中國的電影公司拍攝了大量關(guān)于中國歷史的古裝戲，這些片子一般都遵循著同樣的政治路線。這些電影公司幾乎都是由中國電影集團（China Film Group）支持的，而中國電影集團是中國最具影響力的國有電影制片和電影發(fā)行企業(yè)。不過，在過去的兩年里，中國出現(xiàn)了更多多樣化的電影，比如講述地震故事的情節(jié)片《唐山大地震》，和一部詼諧的中式西部大片《讓子彈飛》，二者各賺到了1億美元以上的國內(nèi)票房收入。

????就連用于政治宣傳的電影也借鑒了好萊塢的手法，在藝術(shù)上有了創(chuàng)新，從而實現(xiàn)了更高的票房收入。2009年，中國為了紀念毛澤東主席以及革命勝利60周年而拍攝了獻禮片《建國大業(yè)》，近200位中國最出名的演員都在電影中露面，其中包括功夫巨星成龍和李連杰。這部電影由于其藝術(shù)的完整性而廣受贊譽。如今，商業(yè)上的成功正在為中國電影拉來更多的投資，關(guān)于中國電影業(yè)的增長的預(yù)言已經(jīng)自行應(yīng)驗了。

中國與好萊塢：愛恨交織

????和大多數(shù)與中國經(jīng)濟的繁榮發(fā)展有關(guān)的故事一樣，中國電影業(yè)的崛起，也遠比其表面的樣子更為復(fù)雜。而現(xiàn)在好萊塢也萌發(fā)了打入中國市場的興趣，這無疑更為中國電影平添了一層復(fù)雜性。

????從歷史上看，中國與好萊塢的關(guān)系歷來籠罩著一層懷疑和厭惡之情。首先，中國猖獗的盜版和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)問題一直讓好萊塢惱怒不已——具體說來，美國電影人平均每年都會為此損失數(shù)十億美元。

????此外還有市場準入問題和收入分成問題。中國一向?qū)ν鈬娪皩嵭信漕~制度，每年只允許20部美國電影進入中國市場，這個限制比大多數(shù)國家都嚴格得多。其次，由于票房利潤分成合同十分苛刻，即便是那些獲準進入中國的電影也很難獲利。

????例如去年電影《阿凡達》（Avatar）在中國的票房收入達到2億美元，但制片方獲得的比例只有10%到15%。在其他多數(shù)國家，這個標準都在50%上下。盡管最近世貿(mào)組織（WTO）明確規(guī)定，中國的電影分銷網(wǎng)絡(luò)必須對本國和外國公司一視同仁，不過一位擅長中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的律師史蒂夫?迪金森指出，美國電影業(yè)不必對這項規(guī)定感到過于興奮?！岸嗄暌詠?，美國電影業(yè)一直希望找到打開中國市場的方法。世貿(mào)組織的這項決定并不會讓他們在這個問題上有任何進展。”

????盡管如此，隨著好萊塢的利潤日漸縮水，中國在利益鏈中的比重也越來越大。中國的市場仍比不上日本和歐洲，而且與其他國家相比，中國的利益分成或許令人頭痛，不過中國畢竟是全世界增長最快的市場。印度雖然也是一個大市場，但印度已經(jīng)有了符合觀眾品味的“寶萊塢”，因此相比之下，印度的潛力也不如中國。

????中國也可以從好萊塢身上獲得很多好處。雖然有少數(shù)極為成功的中國演員、導演和制片人處在電影業(yè)的金字塔尖上，但是中國的編劇和導演人才并未得到積極的培養(yǎng)。盡管各地興建了越來越多的電影院，但是可供演員和導演進行學習的院校卻少得可憐。例如在北京電影學院的導演班里，每期只有不超過30名學員。北京某電影公司的一位制片助理說道，他讀到的劇本要么是全盤抄襲好萊塢大片，要么就是無腦的浪漫喜劇。這些都限制了中國國產(chǎn)電影自主發(fā)展的速度。

中美電影人的聯(lián)姻能否一直維系下去？

????中國電影如何才能走向國際？好萊塢如何才能在中國賺錢？如果二者能夠建立創(chuàng)造性的合作關(guān)系，則或許不失為一種解決之道。很少有人指望短期內(nèi)中國政府會進一步開放電影市場，因此許多好萊塢電影公司的老板們選擇退而求其次，通過與中國電影公司進行合作的方式進入中國市場。而中國似乎也滿足于這種模式——尤其是因為這種模式有助于中國發(fā)展自己的電影業(yè)。因此，現(xiàn)在“中美合作”的模式正在遍地開花。例如《黑天鵝》的制片人邁克?麥德沃伊出生于上海，他現(xiàn)在正在與北京一家電影發(fā)行商合作，幫助中國電影走向國際?？死锼沟侔?貝爾最近也與一家中國電影公司簽約，即將成為一部中國國產(chǎn)電影的主角。

????不過，這種合作關(guān)系并非沒有潛在的危險。去年中國就向好萊塢的電影公司發(fā)出了一個信息：如果你誆我們，我們就會讓你的日子很難過。這個信息直接針對好萊塢高層。例如美國知名的制片人、電影大亨哈維?韋恩斯坦的電影《諜海風云》原計劃在上海拍攝，不過由于中國政府拒絕讓韋恩斯坦在上海取景，因此韋恩斯坦只得在倫敦和曼谷拍攝此片。顯然，韋恩斯坦多次買進中國電影，但又不發(fā)行這些電影的做法已經(jīng)惹惱了中國政府。

????雖然在電影《諜海風云》發(fā)布時，韋恩斯坦說了很多關(guān)于中國電影業(yè)的溢美之辭，不過這還不夠。中國的國有媒體發(fā)表了許多電影人對韋恩斯坦的刻薄評論。例如中國的大牌導演馮小剛——也就是《唐山大地震》的導演，就公然稱韋恩斯坦是“騙子”。

????坦率地說，這種爭執(zhí)對中美兩國都沒什么好處。中國需要利用國產(chǎn)電影業(yè)推進商業(yè)和消費文化，而好萊塢也需要在這個過程中分得一杯羹，為了滿足兩者的需要，必須建立起一個合適的中間地帶，使中國電影人可以和西方電影人進行合作，并從這些西方電影人身上學到東西。

????最后，一部電影必須是好電影，才能賣得出去。一位接受了美國教育的中國銀行家兼電影發(fā)燒友雄辯地指出：中國電影業(yè)要想在國際水平上進行競爭，那么中國電影人就必須拍攝一些現(xiàn)實題材的電影，講述對中國來說重要的事情。要想把電影賣出去，他們必須弄懂如何把這些故事包裝成電影，然后展示給全世界。

????譯者：樸成奎

????It's Hollywood's big weekend, but after the celebrations the industry will return to work on Monday in the same cash-strapped state it was in before the Oscars. Many in the business -- including Christian Bale -- are slowly embracing the fact that China is their new frontier.

????The speed at which the Chinese film industry has grown has surprised even the most jubilant of optimists. In 2005, the industry was worth just $250 million, compared to Hollywood's $23 billion. China bulls speculated that its industry might triple by 2010, while naysayers shook their heads. Too much censorship, they said, and not enough artistry. Instead, China's movie business has more than doubled even the most aggressive forecasts -- box office receipts topped $1.5 billion last year, and at its current rate of growth sales could reach $7 billion by 2015.

????What the experts seem to have discounted is just how invested the Chinese government is in a vibrant film industry. Movie watching plays a critical role in the development of a consumerist society, something China is working hard to create. Since 2005, the government has invested heavily in infrastructure projects, including new theaters in China's major cities. There are now more than 6,000 screens in the country -- many of them digital -- and the government reports that three new theaters are opening every day.

????The content appears to be evolving as well. For most of the last decade, Chinese production houses, nearly all of them backed by China Film Group, the country's most influential state-run filmmaking and film distribution enterprise, produced costume dramas about the history of China that generally followed a very specific political line. In the last two years, more diverse films have emerged, such as Aftershock, an earthquake melodrama, and Let the Bullets Fly, a witty Chinese Western, each made over $100 million in local box office sales.

????Even the propaganda films have learned from Hollywood and are evolving artistically -- and selling better as a consequence. In 2009, The Founding of the Republic, China's celebration of Chairman Mao that coincided with the 60th anniversary of the Communist revolution, starred nearly 200 of China's best-known actors, including Kung Fu legends like Jackie Chan and Jet Li, and was widely praised for its artistic integrity. Now, the scent of commercial success seems to be fueling more investment and turning Chinese film industry growth into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

China and Hollywood: A love-hate affair

????Like most stories connected to the booming Chinese economy, the rise of China's film industry is far more complex than it might at first seem -- and Hollywood's budding interest in tapping Chinese markets is certainly adding yet another layer of complication.

????Historically, China's relationship with Hollywood has been characterized by skepticism and antipathy. For starters, rampant piracy and intellectual property issues in China continue to rub Hollywood the wrong way -- and, much more concretely, cost U.S. filmmakers billions of dollars every year.

????There's also the issue of market access and dismal revenue splits. China has historically upheld a quota system granting only twenty U.S. films per year access to Chinese markets -- a far more restrictive regime than those of most countries. Even those films that are granted access to China face major difficulties making profits, due to highly restrictive box-office profit sharing agreements.

????Avatar, for instance, made $200 million in China last year, but the proportion of the box-office receipts that went to the studio were between 10-15%. In most other countries, around 50% is standard. And China shows no signs of changing, despite a high profile recent WTO decision declaring that China must give equal treatment to foreigners as it does to domestic companies in its film distribution network. Steve Dickinson, a lawyer specializing in China intellectual property law, urges the U.S. film industry not to get too excited about the ruling: "The American film industry has been trying to find ways to break open the China market for years. This decision doesn't get them anywhere on that issue."

????All the same, as Hollywood's profits shrink, China becomes an ever-larger part of the profit equation. China remains a smaller market than Japan or Europe, and the revenue splits may be terrible compared to those in other countries, but China is the fastest-growing market in the world. India, another big market, already has well-developed audience tastes for Bollywood, so it's less of a potential goldmine.

????And China has much to gain from Hollywood. Although there is a small group of actors, directors, and producers at the top of the movie business who are extraordinarily successful, talent among screenwriters and directors isn't actively cultivated. And even though more theaters are being built, there are few institutes where actors and directors can study. In a director's class at the Beijing Film Academy, for instance, there are no more than 30 people in class at one time. A production assistant at a Beijing production house says that the scripts he reads are almost universally knock-off derivations of Hollywood blockbuster films or mindless romantic comedies. At least in the near-term, all this significantly limits how quickly China can develop its domestic film industry working on its own.

Riding into the sunset together?

????How, then, can China go global -- and how can Hollywood make a buck over there? Creative partnerships appear to be at least part of the solution. Since so few people expect the government to open the market further in the near term, many Hollywood studio bosses seeking entry into the Chinese market are settling for co-production arrangements with Chinese partners. China appears to be content with this status quo -- particularly because it may help them grow their own industry. Given all this, partnerships are proliferating. Mike Medavoy, the producer of the Black Swan, who was born in Shanghai, is working with a Beijing film promoter to help Chinese films go global. Christian Bale recently signed on to be the leading role of a Chinese domestic film.

????This kind of collaboration is not without its potential pitfalls. Last year China sent a message to Hollywood filmmakers: if you cross us, we'll make life hard for you. The message went straight to the top. Harvey Weinstein, the famed American producer-mogul, had to shift production for his film Shanghai from Shanghai itself to London and Bangkok after the Chinese government refused to allow Weinstein to film there. Apparently, Weinstein had irked Beijing by buying Chinese movies but not distributing them.

????Although Weinstein made flattering public statements about the Chinese film industry when Shanghai was released, it wasn't enough. State-run media published vitriolic remarks about Weinstein from a slew of filmmakers. One of China's biggest directors, Feng Xiaogang, who made Aftershock, publically called Weinstein a "cheater."

????These kinds of spats, frankly, help neither country. For China to utilize its domestic film industry to promote business and consumer culture, and for Hollywood to productively participate in this project, a suitable middle-ground must be found in which Chinese film-makers collaborate with and learn from their Western counterparts.

????At the end of the day, a movie has to be good for it to sell. One U.S.-educated Chinese banker, an avid filmgoer, puts it eloquently: If the Chinese industry wants to compete on an international level, then Chinese filmmakers should start producing movies about what's important to China. To sell, they must figure out how to package such stories as films, and then show the world.