China Doesn’t Believe in ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ – Hollywood Should Be on Guard | PRO Insight
by Rep. Mike Gallagher | May 2, 2023
https://www.thewrap.com/china-propaganda-censorship-control/
Class struggle. Revolution. Propaganda. Censorship.
The Chinese Communist Party has harnessed art to enforce ideological conformity
from the very beginning. Today is no different. Controlling art and
storytelling — including the use of market power to shape Hollywood’s
narratives — remains central to the Party’s multibillion-dollar global
propaganda effort, and the creative industry needs to be wary of playing into
its hands.
I recently led a congressional delegation from the
House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party out to California to get
outside the D.C. bubble and hear from entertainment executives on the good, the
bad and the ugly of their dealings with China.
Here’s a question I like to ask people to get them to
understand the problem: Can you name the most powerful, successful actress in film
history? United Artists co-founder Mary Pickford? How about modern box-office
powerhouses like Julia Roberts or Scarlett Johansen?
Not even close. The most powerful film actress ever
was Lan Ping. A middling actress in the Shanghai film scene of the 1930s, she
left behind a string of scandalous affairs when she ran off to join the
Communist revolution and fell in love with a man named Mao Zedong. The starring
role of Lan Ping’s career would be when she gave up her stage name and became Jiang Qing, Chairman Mao’s partner in power for the rest of
his life.
There was “no such thing as art for art’s sake” Mao
declared in one of his famous talks at Yan’an. Art was another weapon for use
in class struggle. And censorship was not anathema — it was an essential part
of Communist art. Mao said:
“We must… repudiate all works of literature and art
expressing views in opposition to the nation… and to the Communist Party,
because these so-called works of literature and art… produce the effect of
undermining unity.”
Jiang Qing seized control of the Central Propaganda
Department, which controlled the entire film industry. She helped kick off the
bloody Cultural Revolution, and at the height of the chaos practically the only
dramatic works that were deemed “politically correct” were the eight
revolutionary model operas she produced. The joke was “eight stage works for 800 million people.”
Contemporary examples of modern influence tools,
descendants of Jiang Qing’s foundational work, include near-total control of
Chinese language media outside of China; Xinhua’s “wire service” which pumps
propaganda through newspapers around the world; TikTok, WeChat and their combined billions of users; and the co-optation of foreign
media and entertainment outlets via economic coercion. Today, the Central
Propaganda Department is more powerful than Jiang Qing could have dreamed.
On our recent trip, my colleagues and I were
particularly concerned by the stories we heard about how the entertainment
industry self-censors material that might run afoul of Party sensitivities just
for the prospect of potentially accessing the Chinese market. I posed a
question to a group of studio executives, “If you were asked, in public, ‘Is
there a genocide happening in Xinjiang?’, how would you answer that question?”
Several admitted they would be very reticent to answer it honestly, for fear
that the Chinese Communist Party would retaliate — not just against any
currently running movies, but against their entire studio.
Perhaps that answer should not surprise us: We have
seen dozens of prominent figures in American entertainment, sports, and at
private companies dodge and weave when asked about the Xinjiang genocide. But
it should concern us very deeply. How have we gotten to a point where so many
prominent people in American public life are afraid to speak the truth about an
ongoing humanitarian tragedy? Hollywood is not usually known for shrinking from
activism, and, historically, has rightfully played a leading role in bearing
witness to the Holocaust through the power of film.
I understand the allure of the mainland Chinese
market. The “Wolf Warrior” movies are now some of the highest-grossing movies
of all time, in any geography. We heard all about how American moviemakers
don’t get a fair shake in China. Even when our movies are allowed in, the state
takes an enormous cut of the profits. And, of course, Party censors prevent the
Chinese people from receiving any message that might challenge the party
line.
Why is the CCP so paranoid about censorship? Because
the Party believes that it is engaged in an existential, whole-of-society
competition with the United States. Every company, newspaper article and movie
is a potential lever to achieve strategic dominance. The CCP weaponizes access
to the Chinese market to enforce party orthodoxy on the companies it cannot
control directly.
To counter the CCP, we need to engage the whole of our
own society. Not in a coercive way, like the CCP, but in a way that reflects
American values. We want American entertainment content to remain dominant
around the world. I came away from the conversations with a new appreciation of
the amount of work that goes into opening new markets for our entertainment
content, and the need to make market access for our films a key aspect of trade
policy, especially elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region.
No one watches Jiang Qing’s revolutionary operas
anymore, yet the whole world watches American movies from that same era. Given
the choice, free people prefer art to propaganda.
With a little self-reflection and an embrace of its
historic ideals, Hollywood can help ensure that in a hundred years the world
will still be marveling at American creativity, while Chinese Communist
propaganda collects nothing but dust.
Rep. Mike Gallagher is a Republican who has represented the 8th District of Wisconsin since
2017. A Marine on active duty for seven years, Gallagher served as the lead
Republican staffer for the Middle East and Counterterrorism on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. He now chairs the Select Committee on the
Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist
Party.
没有评论:
发表评论