Leo’s piece compared the traditions of Chinese and Western cinema, discussing whether there was really a “native” tradition to Chinese cinema.
He initially posited that Chinese cinema was a “direct transposition of conventional spoken drama”, which he later found too simplistic.
However, I argue that in the prewar era, the Chinese could hardly differentiate film and theatre as two segregated mediums. If we consider carefully the development of Chinese films, Leo held a legitimate argument.
The very first Chinese film believed to be produced “Ding Jun Shan” was a recording of the performance of a Beijing opera group. In fact, most actors from the pre-war Chinese cinema were members of traditional opera troupes.
For instance, when film production became impossible due to Japanese Occupation, movie stars like Sit Kok Sin traveled around the country along opera troupes to perform. To a large extent, the majority of the audience viewed films and theatres as pure entertainment.
Or for example, the venues which hosted theatrical performances also held film screenings. This further posed to the audience that film was an extension of theatre. The only difference was that the actors would not physically appear on stage but appear on screen. Otherwise, the setting or acting was nearly identical to the Chinese audience.
Leung Chun Hin Cedric
u3593980
It is enjoyable to read your insightful analysis of the development of the Chinese cinematic industry at the early age. Focusing on the evolution from traditional native theatre to modernized film makes your writing in-depth. I would suggest you reflect more on several questions: 1) In the evolution from traditional performance to a digital medium, what has stayed and what has gone? 2) To what extent did the native drama genre(s) influence the development of digital film? 3) What are the differences and similarities between film and native performance genres in terms of set design?