阮玲玉
高若云
一.导演、演员介绍
1.导演
关锦鹏,著名导演关锦鹏,毕业于香港浸会大学传理系,首部执导电影《女人心》,从而开启自己的导演生涯,1988年,凭借爱情片《胭脂扣》获得第8届香港电影金像奖最佳导演奖。
关锦鹏是一位非常擅长于拍摄女性视角电影的导演。他的作品多集中在探讨不同时代下的女性命运。作为男性,他镜头下的女性身上有着不同年龄阶段的美和属于女性独特的力量感,同时也能够在强烈的时代性之下展开对女性命运的讨论,却不会将社会层面的任何意识强行地灌输到他作品的形象中。可以说他的作品为观众展示了女性更真实的一面,探讨女性最本真的价值,并传递当代女性的话语权。
2.演员
张曼玉(Maggie Cheung),1964年出生于中国香港,祖籍上海,华语影视女演员、歌手、词曲创作者,国家一级演员,在《甜蜜蜜》中饰演李翘。1983年因获得香港小姐亚军出道。1989年凭借电影《人在纽约》获得第26届台湾电影金马奖最佳女主角。1990年凭借电影《不脱袜的人》获得第9届香港电影金像奖最佳女主角。1992年凭借电影《阮玲玉》获得第42届柏林国际电影节最佳女演员、第28届台湾电影金马奖最佳女主角、第12届香港电影金像奖最佳女主角等奖项,成为首位在欧洲三大电影节获得表演奖项的中国演员。1997年凭借电影《甜蜜蜜》获得第34届台湾电影金马奖最佳女主角、第16届香港电影金像奖最佳女主角、第42届亚太影展最佳女主角。1998年凭借电影《宋家皇朝》获得第17届香港电影金像奖最佳女主角。2000年凭借电影《花样年华》获得第37届台湾电影金马奖最佳女主角、第20届香港电影金像奖最佳女主角。2003年主演的电影《英雄》提名第75届奥斯卡金像奖最佳外语片。2004年凭借法国电影《清洁》获得第57届戛纳国际电影节最佳女演员,成为首位获得该奖项的亚洲女演员。2005年获得第29届蒙特利尔国际电影节艺术成就奖。2007年获得第10届上海国际电影节华语电影杰出贡献奖。
秦汉,本名孙祥钟,1946年4月24日生于中国上海,祖籍四川华阳,中国台湾男演员。就读过士林中学、开平高中。1966年毕业于中影演员训练班,1988年以《庭院深深》获法国第1届华语影视片金狮奖最佳男主角奖。演出过多部琼瑶的作品,其中包括电影以及电视剧。
【参考文献】
[1] 中文电影百科.关锦鹏[DB/OL].[2020-09-22].
http://www.cinepedia.cn/?s=关锦鹏
[2] 中文电影百科.张曼玉[DB/OL].[2020-09-22].
http://www.cinepedia.cn/w/张曼玉/
[3] 百度百科.秦汉[DB/OL].[2020-09-22].
https://baike.baidu.com/item/秦汉/20726
二.电影梗概
《阮玲玉》是嘉禾电影有限公司出品的传记片,由关锦鹏执导,张曼玉、梁家辉、秦汉、吴启华主演,于1992年2月20日在香港上映。
该片讲述了中国早期电影界知名女演员阮玲玉的演艺生涯,以及她与张达民、唐季珊、蔡楚生三者之间的恋情故事。
阮玲玉16岁投身影坛,在短短的9年时间里拍摄了29部影片。她所饰演的角色,从女学生、女工、农村少女、妓女,到尼姑、乞丐,涵盖面极广,有正派角色,也有反派角色,但基本上都不脱离悲剧的结局。阮玲玉认真的态度及自我要求甚高的表演哲学,使她拥有许多的观众。阮玲玉与张达民、唐季珊、蔡楚生三者之间的恋爱关系,却使她倍感苦恼,亦成为市民和新闻界关注的对象。1935年3月8日,阮玲玉在遗书上写满人言可畏,而后服毒自尽。
该电影对阮玲玉的一生做了非常翔实的复现,采用了套层结构。一边记录演员在拍摄电影时的采访以及对电影剧情、对阮玲玉和自己所饰演的角色本身的讨论,一边也进行电影剧情,更像是一部纪录片。非常真实地还原了阮玲玉从一位普通的少女成长为影后的历程生活,直至其自杀。电影对阮玲玉人生中几个关键节点做了非常优秀的复现和刻画。展示出一个富有天赋的女演员的悲剧一生。电影中阮玲玉不只是八卦流言议论的符号,更加是一个优秀的演员。
电影着重刻画过一些情节,阮玲玉为了拍摄出演员在雪地里给孩子喂雪的状态,在拍摄之前脱掉外套身穿单衣躺在雪地里。为了更加真实地将失去父亲的女儿演绎出来,在片场数次冒着人工雨要求多来几遍。直至浑身湿透。与她合作女演员的表演一直没办法让导演满意,阮玲玉几句话就指出了表演该角色的关键。这些情节,不仅可以看出阮玲玉是一个非常勤恳的女演员,也可以看出她在表演上确确实实是有着极佳的天赋。电影花了很多心思去刻画这些细节,去展示在流言蜚语之外,作为一个优秀演员的阮玲玉,她的电影事业是值得肯定和褒奖的。
我们常说安身立命,阮玲玉在事业上取得了成功,尤其是在当时的时代背景之下,女性很少能做到像她一样有自己的一份事业。但事业上的成功,并没有为她的生活带来独立和自信。她在感情上一直未能做到真正的独立,她在三个男人间徘徊,渴求家庭和被爱。但却总是所托非人,在电影开始她和张达民的纠缠中,她一直处于讨好者的地位,对他无微不至的关心。其实她是渴望家庭和稳定的,在电影开始她提到张达民是一个浪子,不喜欢被孩子束缚。她能为了对张达民的爱作出妥协,放弃自己的需求,迎合爱人。后来遇到的唐季珊满足她被爱被关怀的需要,却非良人。在几个男人之间兜兜转转追寻不到自己想要的爱情,又被舆论恶意攻击,最终选择自杀。电影对阮玲玉的情感需要刻画得十分细致入微。
三.相关获奖、报刊评价情况、颁奖辞和权威的获奖评价
1.相关获奖
该影片凭借出众的导演、出众的拍摄技巧和演员精彩的表演,获得多项电影节的多项提名。
主要有1991年获得第28届台湾金马奖最佳剧情片、最佳导演、最佳原著剧本等多项奖提名,以及最佳女主角、最佳摄影奖。
在1992年获得第42届柏林电影节金熊奖最佳影片提名、最佳女演员奖。
在1993年获得第12届香港金像奖最佳电影、最佳导演、最佳编剧奖等多项提名。获得同届最佳女主角、最佳摄影、最佳美术指导、最佳原创音乐等奖。
2.相关评价
《阮玲玉》电影在配乐上的表现也十分突出,音乐的创作和插入十分符合电影情节需要。整部电影除了在剧情上精心安排之外,在服饰、音乐等方面也都十分考究,极富艺术价值。
该电影在服饰选取上极具特色,非常呼应电影情节和人物的特点。导演在有限的服饰选择上用花色和线条的变化来应和人物的内心活动。《阮玲玉》的电影配乐表现出简单曲折的音乐形式和婉转唯美的旋律线条,推动了电影剧情的发展,为剧情本身增添色彩,具有鲜明的视听效果,同时也反映出阮玲玉的心理变化、她与社会环境的矛盾,继而烘托出阮玲玉人言可畏的悲情人生。(《北方音乐》评)
《阮玲玉》为关锦鹏带来了极高的荣誉,尤其它让“花瓶”张曼玉彻底转型,更是至今仍被人们津津乐道。但关锦鹏直到今天依然坚持,自己当时拍摄《阮玲玉》,对拍电影过程的关注,远胜于传记的本身:“我感兴趣的并不是重塑阮玲玉的一生。我当时想的是如何通过电影这个媒介,探讨一下电影的本质,它的真与假。”
所以关锦鹏在最初定下梅艳芳出演阮玲玉的时候,他所作的剧本,描写梅艳芳生平比阮玲玉的还多。他说:“如果由梅艳芳来演,90年代的戏会比现在多很多。影片也不会像现在这样主要以访问和对谈的形式出现。我想我也不会以彩色与黑白交替拍摄,全片会以彩色表达,完全是讲梅艳芳的事。”
后来梅艳芳因为种种原因无法接演该片,阮玲玉才变成了张曼玉。现在的关锦鹏很避讳将梅艳芳与张曼玉谁更适合演阮玲玉进行一个比较,“这是没办法比较的。虽然偶尔也会设想如果换一个人,电影会是怎样的光景。但我要说,《阮玲玉》是唯一的,不可能重来。而张曼玉当时的表现,在拍摄的过程中,已经很多次打动了我们。”(刘嘉琦)
《阮玲玉》里多种电影手法的运用使整部影片呈现出不同于传统概念里传记片的样式。无论是镜头的运用或是画面的构图,或是服装造型设计,或是灯光的运用,还是声音设计都精雕细琢,用心安排。(《电影文学》评)
【参考文献】
[1] 关锦鹏称《阮玲玉》不能重来,张曼玉表现很感人[J\OL].东方早报,2005.03.04
[2] 张春岭.论《阮玲玉》的女性意识与结构技巧[J].电影评介,2014
[3] 韩萌萌.如歌如诉绝代佳话——电影《阮玲玉》的配乐赏析[J].北方音乐,2017
四.文献综述
电影《阮玲玉》是香港导演关锦鹏在1992年拍摄的一部传记电影。影片采用了套层结构。虽然不是一部纪录片,却格外真实地还原了民国著名影视女星阮玲玉的一生。
阮玲玉父亲早逝,母亲在大户人家做帮佣供她读书,中学辍学后经人介绍开始从事电影表演,时年16岁。由于在表演上过人的天赋和努力学习,她很快就成为红极一时的著名影星。但在男友张达民和富商唐季珊之间的情感纠葛中陷入名誉纠纷,不堪忍受,在25岁时服安眠药自杀。该影片由于其独特的拍摄视角,对尖锐话题的深入讨论,引起了社会各界的广泛关注。导演通过对阮玲玉一生的重现探讨在当时时代背景下女性的命运和女性的力量,影片播出后在国内外得到很大反响,演员张曼玉也凭借在这部电影中用精湛演技对阮玲玉形象细致入微饱满立体的刻画成为第一个在国际电影节上封后的华人演员。
就阮玲玉本人而言,作为20世纪30年代的电影明星,阮玲玉一方面在电影表演中塑造出一个个被携裹进现代社会的矛盾个体,当这些前现代人物进入现代,或尴尬不适,或激烈反抗,或热情拥抱;另一方面,其本身作为公众人物,从明星的诞生到明星的死亡,又构成一种社会表演。其电影表演与社会表演某种程度上构成一种内外互文的关系,共同成为折射30年代的镜子,照映出时代变革中破碎的现代性(王一平,2010)。在30年代与阮玲玉多次合作的郑君里曾这样总结阮玲玉的银幕形象变化史,“被封建势力压得抬不起头的弱女、被阔佬损害的风尘女性、打破传统的婚姻观念的女性、要求与劳动人民结合的有初步觉醒的女性。”(郑君里,1957)这一系列人物形象的转变和当时中国的整体社会思潮是紧密结合的。“新女性”这个角色贯穿了她几乎整个演艺生涯,无论是戏里还是戏外,她给观众的感觉都是明艳妩媚热烈的。但如同她所饰演的角色一样,个体在面对时代变革所展示的矛盾性也同时体现在她身上。戏外的阮玲玉尽管已经是一名成功的电影明星,除了仅有的一次主动争取《三个摩登女性》中的角色之外,“对‘联华’的制片业务却几乎没有任何发言权”(沙丹,2011)。可以说阮玲玉作为一个女性电影明星的角色是一种符号和象征,是被时代背景、社会思潮、制片制度构建起来的。既承载着都市女郎的时髦性感,亦承载着底层妇女的民族大义与阶级抗争。
《阮玲玉》这部电影讲述的是20世纪30年代一代影星——阮玲玉的悲剧人生。导演采用纪实的创作风格,以阮玲玉和三个男人的爱情故事为主线,展现了一个女人在短短的几年如何芳华绝世而又悲剧收场。片尾,阮玲玉选择了自杀。(秦晓,2011)阮玲玉美貌且极富才华,在事业上十分成功。造成其不幸命运的根源是与张达民、唐季珊、蔡楚生三个男人的纠缠。生活在男权统治下的女人,“新女性”意识萌发,但传统的男权意识还占社会的统治地位,她可谓是处于绝对弱势。从影片最初的阮玲玉,从以前的“花瓶”形象转变成为现在会演戏的一名演员,这是她付出的努力和对命运的反抗。最初她和母亲帮佣家庭的公子张达民相爱,但他好赌成性,没有丝毫男人的担当。就像一个大孩子一样需要阮玲玉的照顾。在当时阮玲玉的认知里,男性是要给女性依靠,组建家庭为其遮蔽风雨,在影片一开始其实就体现了阮玲玉对家庭和孩子的渴望。张达民无法满足她的期待,于是表面上风度翩翩有责任有担当的唐季珊自然而然地吸引了她,但唐季珊有自己的家庭,而张达民威胁要将她和唐季珊的关系公之于众更是让这段本就不稳定的感情摇摇欲坠。此时的阮玲玉默默承受这一切,没有逃避,又一次选择了和命运抗衡,鼓足勇气问生命中第三个男人蔡楚生:“你可不可以带我走,我们去香港。”男人也有软弱的时候,当软弱遇上勇敢便是失望,没有生活的动力变成了绝望,她知道自己已经无能为力,也只好结束自己的生命。这是绝望和希望、恐惧和孤独、无奈和期待坚持的诸种女性与现实的交织。整部电影,她试图抗争却屡次失败,究其根本还是她始终依附于男人,无论是喜欢或被喜欢,都是需要男人的肩膀,没有做到真正的独立。
这部电影将在历史上处于边缘的女性放在聚光灯下,探讨在父权话语临界点上的女性地位和命运,让大家正视女性的价值和命运。一个极富才华旧女性完全能够自力更生,但父权的枷锁最终还是抹杀了她在社会上的生存空间。
电影同时也让我们思考一个问题,阮玲玉在遗书中说到人言可畏,她选择自杀是迫于舆论的压力。在一个社会面临大动荡的转型时期,舆论更是错杂纠纷。虽然在当时女性独立思潮有所起步,但是话语权还是几乎只掌握在少部分男性手中,舆论对女性并不宽容。阮玲玉本身的行为,对爱情的追求,在当下的视角看来,纯粹是出于个人的选择。追求被爱也好,遇人不淑也罢。既没有违背人伦,也未触犯法律,只不过是出于自己内心渴望的选择。更别提她还是一个非常优秀的女演员,在自己的领域里获得了成就。但这份成就并未为她挣得话语权和自由选择生活方式的权利。当时社会是出现了鼓吹女性自由的风气,却对追求爱情自由的阮玲玉恶语相向,让她在舆论的夹缝中难以喘息。这是在经历转变的社会必经的阵痛阶段。中国女性地位千百年来的困境并不会一朝一夕逆转,即使阮玲玉处在相对前沿的职业,而且拍摄的影片也多涉及到鼓吹妇女解放、放大女性形象的题材。但是实际生活中的阮玲玉却依旧囿于传统思想的困境之中。过于根深蒂固的传统女性道德要求并未因为她的职业和能力而放松。阮玲玉身处前沿职业,实则是完全可以成为独立女性代表,也有这个能力。但精神内核还是没有独立。所以在情感失去寄托和舆论的攻击下,生命也失去了依托。
【参考文献】
[1] 王一平.1930年代的上海明星制与破碎的现代性——从人类表演学视野考察阮玲玉及其电影[J].艺苑,2011(09)
[2] 余继增.一代影星阮玲玉的遗书之谜[J].文史精华,2006,(5).
[3] 石川.复活的神女:阮玲玉的银幕人生与当代意义——为纪念阮玲玉诞辰100周年而作[J].当代电影,2010(04).
[4] 秦晓.唤醒与节制——女权主义对中国电影女性角色地位的影响[J].影视文学,2011(11).
五.跨文化知识点
1.服饰文化——旗袍
通常意义上的旗袍一般是指20世纪民国以后的一种女装式样。而所谓“旗袍风尚”则更多是从装扮行为模式和社会群体角度考虑,其基本特征为:以旗袍为基本品类,在配装上则具有一件制服装的特点,下身基本不再配穿可能外露的裙或长裤,在一定的社会群体中风行一时。郑逸梅先生即称“原来女子在清代穿短衣,不穿旗袍,旗袍在民国后始御之”。
风行之始的旗袍是中式表观下的西化穿用,其既有中国服装传统的外观承袭,但又是西风吹拂下的传统变异。时尚美好出乎想象的强大力量,渴望和向往包括服装流行在内的西方文明的社会风气,加上民众重视衣饰的习俗和传统服装制作业的基础,以及北伐革命风起云涌的时代背景,终于成就了旗袍在中国的全面流行。
一袭得体的旗袍,将女人的妩媚典雅、山水韵律衬托得恰到好处,这是影片中阮玲玉面向观众的第一个全镜头,然而体态婀娜、风度飘逸的她,并未拥有如旗袍般绚烂多姿的人生,而是像一团火焰,熊熊燃烧后,化作一堆灰烬,随风飘散。
2.海派文化
海派文化是指二三十年代,上海随着经济的兴盛与繁荣,成为全国的金融中心、商贸中心、工业中心。远东第一大城市和东方第一大港。这个时期上海确立了全国文化中心地位,而文化活动也被逐渐纳入了商业的范畴。本片中的女主角阮玲玉所处的电影行业,就是一个典型代表。海派文化的主要特征就是市民化和商业化,经济环境的宽松和海外文化的输入为上海带来较为宽松和包容的社会氛围,商业意识开始渗透到普通市民的生活中。总而言之,海派文化为当时的上海带来了更加多元的人文环境,对异质文化的包容度更高。电影行业的兴盛就是海派文化的产物,市民们多参与文化活动,电影这一形式就在当时的上海广受欢迎。涌现了许多有名的影视明星,十分受到人们的追捧。在该部影片中可以看到阮玲玉的知名度非常高。与封建社会时期的戏子不同的是,该时期的电影明星社会尊重度提高。阮玲玉成为知名影星之后,出入场合都是上流社会。电影中提到当日军攻打东北时,她是有资格和上海的上流阶级一起去香港避难的。同行者也多是一些有社会地位的人,可以看出她作为当时流行文化一部分是被肯定的。
【参考文献】
[1] 卞向阳.论旗袍的流行和起源[J].艺术设计史论.2003(11)
[2] 张晨阳.《申报》女性广告:女性形象、现代性想象以及消费本质.[J]妇女研究论存.2005(05)
六.讨论题
1.如果在西方,女明星遇到阮玲玉的经历会自杀吗?
2.讨论现代女演员和阮玲玉的异同。
3.你认为阮玲玉应该作出怎么样的选择?
4.你怎么看中国的旗袍文化?民国时期的旗袍改良是否能体现出女性自由?
5.海派文化中的女性角色讨论。
Center Stage: Interrogating National Film Historiography
with Female Subjectivity
Dingru Huang
Center Stage(Ruǎn Língyù阮玲玉,release:1991)
Directed by Stanley Kwan关锦鹏
To call Stanley Kwan's Center Stage a biopic of the 1930s legendary film star Ruan Lingyu would be reducing its thematic and formalistic complexity. The film defies classification by incorporating interviews with film veterans who had worked with Ruan,interactions within the film crew,and even films within a film—reenacted scenes from Ruan's lost works. The central character Ruan Lingyu is hence approached as both a historical and fictional figure. With these self⁃reflexive elements that constitute a multi⁃diegetic film structure,Center Stage explores the mechanism of filmmaking as a critical form of history⁃writing.
Drawing attention to how Kwan's mise⁃en⁃scene ruptures “narrative flow with meta⁃fictive asides and ellipses,” American film critic Michael Atkinson compares the film to a “a cube of interrelating but separate film forms: romantic fiction,documentary,archival footage,film history re⁃creation.” (Atkinson 1996,45) Likewise,the film scholar Mette Hjort,who wrote a monograph on this classic of New Hong Kong Cinema,also suggests that “besides ‘biopic’ and ‘documentary’ that immediately come to mind,Center Stage can be also considered as a ‘heritage or nostalgia film’,or in terms of the genres that largely define Kwan's career...: melodrama and women's film.” (Hjort 2006,3-4) Center Stage hence not only accounts the marvelous life and death of Ruan Lingyu,but also interrogates the (im)possibility of reimagining a woman's subjectivity against a reconstructed historical backdrop through the medium of cinema. Not surprisingly,existing scholarship has approached Center Stage from two interrelated perspectives,one feminist and the other historical.
Shuqin Cui perceives the film's postmodernist conceptualization of history to be in conflict with its feminist potential manifested in the “thematic concentration on the female subject in relation to film history.” (Cui 2000,61) While postmodernism and feminism both question the master narratives in history and philosophy,their approaches to the issue of subjectivity are different. Cui argues that the fragmentary feature of the narrative in Center Stage prevents a female subjectivity from taking shape. Women in the film “remain as historical images but do not assume historical subjectivity.” (Cui 2000,65) Cui considers the scene of Mr. Skinner's farewell party,which takes place the night before her suicide,as a missed opportunity for the communication between postmodernism and feminist criticism. Mr. Skinner has introduced a recording facility for sound cinema to the Lianhua Film Studio. At his farewell party,Ruan Lingyu announces that she would be giving a speech on women's liberation at a high school. As a Cantonese speaker,Ruan attempts to rehearse the speech in Mandarin but fails,indicating the impossibility for her voice to be heard in the age of sound cinema. Instead of critically pondering on her symbolic “silence”, the film nevertheless reinforces this silence by following up with a series of cross⁃cutting between her talking about each director she worked with and the director commenting on her life at her deathbed. Cui interprets this transition as “a subtle transition from woman as speaking subject to woman as object to be commented on by her mentors.” (Cui 2000,76) In a similar manner,Li Guo approaches the female subject in the film from the perspective of female voice and silence. She argues that “the female voice in Center Stage is submitted to sound synchronization,which seeks to reconstruct an organic totality of female subjectivity yet fails to articulate female silence in historical experience.” (Guo 2012,80) She highlights the elusiveness of Ruan's image preserved in photographic stills and impaired film clips,as well as the filmmaker's anxiety to compensate this insufficiency with “organic” sound. This desire to restore the “original” is reflected in the painstaking efforts to create the soundtrack,including stepping on the audio tapes,to make it sound “fragmented” and “dated”. The efforts made by the filmmakers to evoke the “authenticity” of the sound nevertheless reveals the discrepancy between Ruan's on⁃screen presence and her suppressed voice.In this discrepancy,however,Guo also finds some subversive potential: “The fact that Ruan's voice failed to be ‘synchronized’ on⁃screen indicates the subject's rejection of being assimilated and contained by the symbolic order that structures and regulates the visible and audible world.” (Guo 2012,80) The failed synchronization thus functions as a symbolic protest against the hegemonic symbolic order of mass media that threatens to subsume Ruan Lingyu's subjectivity.
Yiman Wang's “The Palimpsest Body and the shifting Border: On Maggie Cheung's Two Crossover Films” shares Cui's concern with the difficulty of locating a female subject in a fragmented narrative. She draws attention to a documentary segment,in which the director Kwan is discussing Ruan's life with the actress Maggie Cheung. Cheung,now playing herself,is sitting in front of the camera. As the camera moves,it captures the reflection of Kwan and two film cameramen behind him in a mirror on the opposite wall. Li Guo also cites this scene,and reads Kwan's use of mirrors and reflections as his way of affirming his own sense of identity and contemplating on the “very multi⁃diegetic structure in cinematic representation that seeks to recover the ‘true voice’ of the silent⁃film actress.” (Guo 2012,77) Wang,on the other hand,suggests that in this process the actress Cheung is denied to the access to her own image,which is subjected to“multiple gazes of Kwan,the camera⁃eye,the audience,and the mirror that redoubles Kwan's and the camera's gazes.” (Wang 2012,960) Wang's article reveals the male⁃centered audiovisual regime in the film Kwan establishes by repeatedly showing how diegetic and nondiegetic male directors from the 1930s Shanghai and contemporary Hong Kong instruct Cheung's (and Ruan's) acting. This audiovisual regime,Wang argues,can be subverted by the “foreignness” of Maggie Cheung's body and ironically by the mismatch between the actress and her role.
Mette Hjort's book touches upon the casting process for the role of Ruan Lingyu. Hjort notes that Kwan originally intended to cast Anita Mui as Ruan Lingyu,which was widely known and stirred the discussion revolving around Kwan's original and final choices.According to Hjort,“one view has it that Anita Mui's physiognomy,body language,and even life history would have lent themselves more readily to the kind of cinematic project in which audiences are encouraged to make believe that the contemporary actress somehow incarnates the earlier one,as in the more classic biopic. Cheung,the argument goes,somehow expresses an energetic,pragmatic,and essentially forward⁃looking Hong Kong sensibility,making her the antithesis of the kind of tragic figure that a film such as Center Stage would appear to require.” (Hjort 2006,17-18) Wang nevertheless believes that rather than a disadvantage,this mismatch between Cheung and her role can in effect enable her to “escape and transcend the patriarchal and Orientalist gaze.” (Wang 2012,964) Maggie Cheung's “foreign” body hence facilitates Kwan to reconceptualize and decentralize the national film historiography through a lens of Hong Kong.
Despite not being Kwan's first choice for this role and being seen by some as a misfit,Maggie Cheung's outstanding performance won her the best actress at Hong Kong Film Awards,Chicago International Film Festival,and Golden Horse Awards. She also became the first Chinese actress to win Silver Bear at Berlin International Festival. Carols Rojas argues that Cheung's reenactment brings out new “auratic presence” that is different from Ruan's. (Rojas 2001) Like Rojas,Tony Williams notices the parallel between Ruan's rising career in Center Stage and Cheung's then nascent star status,which enables Kwan to critically reflects on the production of stardom. Williams notes that Ruan Lingyu's stardom is often associated with “the maternal melodrama in which the female usually occupies a subordinate position.” (Williams 2011,276) Challenging the boundary of such a melodramatic pattern,Williams contends that Center Stage should be seen as “a critically dialectic work interrogating one type of melodrama common to Shanghai cinema in the 1930s,influenced by Hollywood,but also haunting post⁃1945 Hong Kong cinema.” (Williams 2011,276) In a maternal melodrama,the heroine often has no escape from oppression but death. The tragic death of Ruan Lingyu in history may be seen as falling into this pattern. By contrast,the audience of Center Stage witnesses how Maggie Cheung opens her eyes and takes a breather after she performs the death of her tragic historical counterpart. This sequence thus symbolically frees the image of Ruan Lingyu (embodied by Maggie Cheung) from the deadly maternal melodramatic patterns that were inflicted upon the great actress on and off the screen.
Mette Hjort also investigates the dynamic interactions between the past and the present in the film. She reveals the historical connection between 1930s Shanghai cinema and Hong Kong cinema through Li Minwei,a historical figure who is also a character in Center Stage played by Waise Lee Chi⁃hung. Li was one of the cofounders of the Lianhua Film Studio,which brought Ruan to the peak of her career. Films produced by the Lianhua Film Studio are famous for their progressive political predilections. Center Stage represents how Lianhua filmmakers navigate the complex political situations in 1930s Shanghai while preserving their own enterprises. In their practices,Hjort identifies positive traits such as “courage,flexibility,resilience,and firm commitment.” (Hjort 2006,100) Kwan's film represents equal and effective communications between Lianhua filmmakers and actors as well those within his own film crew. The link between 1930s Shanghai cinema and 1990s Hong Kong cinema is thus not so the nostalgia for an irretrievable past,but rather the legacy of Lianhua as a filmmaking community that has inspired Kwan's reimagine his own career in the instrumentalized system of mainstream commercial filmmaking in contemporary Hong Kong.
Center Stage challenges the linear and coherent narratives in national historiography with its fragmentary feature. At the same time,it interrogates the possibilities and limitations of reviving a female subjectivity from a contested history she simultaneously embodies,resists,and transcends. Its self⁃reflexive and multi⁃layered narratives hence inspire us to imagine potential dialogues between interlocutors with spatial,temporal,and gender differences,between actresses and male directors,between 1930s Shanghai and 1990s Hong Kong,between the golden age of Chinese cinema and contemporary audiences around the world.
Discussion Questions
1.Have you heard about Ruan Lingyu before seeing the film? What are the impressions you have about her?
2.What do you learn about 1930s Shanghai from this film? What about 1990s Hong Kong?
3.Why does the director incorporate documentary and archival footage in the film? What can be their possible effects on the audience?
4.If you were to make a biopic of a contemporary idol you like,how would you do it?
References
1.Atkinson,Michael. 1996. “Songs of Crushed Love: The Cinema of Stanley Kwan.”Film Comment. Vol. 32,Issue 3: 42-46. ProQuest.
2.Cui,Shuqin. 2000. “Stanley Kwan's Center Stage: The (Im)possible Engagement between Feminism and Postmodernism.”Cinema Journal. Summer 39,No. 4:60-80.https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2000.0012.
3.Guo,Li. 2012. “Rethinking the Female Voice and the Ideology of Sound: On Stanley Kwan's filmCenter Stage (Ruan Lingyu,1992).” Film International (Göteborg,Sweden). Vol.10 (4): 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1386/fint.10.4-5.72_1.
4.Hjort,Mette. 2006.Stanley Kwan's Center Stage. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
5.Rojas,Carlos. 2001. “Specular Failure and Spectral Return in Two Films with Maggie Cheung (and One Without).”Senses of Cinema. Accessed October 5,2020. https//www.sensesofcinema.com/2001/12/cheung/.
6.Wang,Yiman. 2012. “The Palimpsest Body and the S(h)ifting Border: On Maggie Cheung's Two Crossover Films.”Positions. Vol. 20,Issue 4: 953-981.https://doi.org/10.1215/10679847-1717717.
7.Williams,Tony. 2011.“Center Stage: The Melodrama of Resistance.”Asian Cinema. Vol.22 (1): 274-306.https://doi.org/10.1386/ac.22.1.274_1.