Renowned Chinese director Feng Xiaogang recently revealed in an interview that he no longer goes to the movies, primarily because smoking is prohibited in theaters, and he cannot satisfy his smoking addiction. His comments have sparked criticism.
Feng Xiaogang mentioned in a recent interview with “Phoenix Weekly” that besides rejecting AI and not watching short films, he also does not go to the cinema. He bluntly stated, “I smoke, but you can’t smoke in the cinema. How can a movie be so attractive if a smoker can’t smoke for two hours?”
In addition to his inability to resist smoking, another reason Feng Xiaogang avoids cinemas is that he now has a large screen TV and good sound system at home, making watching movies at home more convenient. Watching movies at home allows him to have control over his time, pause or comment at any time, and also sip tea or drink wine, making him feel comfortable and at ease compared to the various restrictions in cinemas. Feng Xiaogang believes that in the past, people would go to the cinema for social and dating purposes, but with changes in lifestyle, these needs are no longer as strong.
Many netizens were speechless at Feng Xiaogang’s blunt statement about not going to the cinema due to smoking. Some believe it shows a lack of self-control and even a hint of arrogance typical of an old-school director.
Some internet users mocked Feng Xiaogang’s statement by imitating his phrase, “How can a movie succeed if a smoker can’t smoke for two hours?”: “How can someone have such a big smoking addiction that they can’t control themselves for two hours?” For most people, refraining from smoking in public places for two hours is considered basic public etiquette and discipline. They find Feng Xiaogang’s smoking habit as a reason not to watch movies somewhat absurd.
Critics argue that cinemas serve as the frontline where filmmakers perceive the market and reach the audience. If a director like Feng Xiaogang refuses to go to the cinema, it will only disconnect him from the mainstream market, leading his creations to lose relevance.
Some netizens expressed disappointment in Feng Xiaogang’s recent works’ output and reputation decline in recent years, saying, “No wonder he hasn’t made any good movies in the past few years. How can he keep up with the audience’s aesthetic by working behind closed doors?”
In the same interview, Feng Xiaogang addressed the controversy he sparked at the 2017 Shanghai International Film Festival with his statement, “Trash movies exist because of trash audiences.” He mentioned that the quote was taken out of context when circulated online, causing public outrage. He clarified that he didn’t intend to categorize viewers as good or bad but aimed to discuss the two-way relationship between film quality and market feedback.
Feng Xiaogang further questioned his logic by asking, “Quality movies need quality audiences, so why do trashy movies have high box office numbers?” He believes this was the core issue he wanted the industry to contemplate with his previous controversial remarks.
Explaining the past controversy, Feng Xiaogang compared past and present movie audiences. He noted that today’s viewers differ from those in the late 20th century in terms of their willingness to engage with complex content and delve deeper into the meaning behind events. Some modern viewers seem to have decreased their ability for in-depth thinking and tend to oversimplify issues, easily getting caught up in emotional conflicts online.
According to reports by “NetEase News,” Feng Xiaogang’s revisitation of old issues stemmed from the disappointing box office performance of his latest film, “Spy Catcher,” which made only 1.19 billion Chinese yuan, falling short of expectations.
Facing the significant financial loss, Feng Xiaogang openly apologized to the investors in the interview, admitting that he felt “very sorry for investors.” He clarified that the actual production cost of the film was 165 million yuan, not the rumored 300 million yuan. He attributed the film’s poor box office performance primarily to the resurgence of the past “trash audience” comments leading to “internet mob-style, irrational” disruptions.
Feng Xiaogang’s replacement of “Trash movies exist because of trash audiences” with “Quality movies need quality audiences” seems to have once again angered netizens. Some media and internet users believe Feng Xiaogang is being stubborn by cleverly using more sophisticated language for a “change in words, not in content,” still blaming the audience.
Some netizens criticized Feng Xiaogang’s implied message that if “Quality movies need quality audiences,” then high box office numbers for low-quality films suggest that the audience buying tickets is “low-quality.” By softly substituting “trash” with “non-quality,” Feng Xiaogang still puts the blame for the film market’s struggles on the audience.
Some retorted, “Where was the misinterpretation? You repeated the same thing!” Some internet users pointed out that despite all the clarification, Feng Xiaogang’s final question essentially revived the “trash audience theory,” making his argument increasingly negative.
A sharp critique highlighted Feng Xiaogang’s public apology to the investment side for the losses in the film as showing his “integrity.” However, he showed no remorse towards the paying audience and instead complained about their lack of critical thinking ability, displaying a double standard that is unacceptable.
Regarding Feng Xiaogang attributing the dismal box office of the new film “Spy Catcher” to the resurgence of the past comments causing “internet mob-style, irrational disruptions,” netizens seem unconvinced. “Just throwing a boomerang! Audiences simply don’t want to be called ‘trash’ by choosing not to watch your movies. This is called ‘each to their own,'” one netizen sarcastically commented.
According to a report from “Sohu,” Feng Xiaogang’s latest response has led many netizens and media to reach a conclusion: audiences have never abandoned movies; it is some directors who have first abandoned the viewers.