Chinese actor Xu Zheng’s self-directed and self-acted new film “Reverse Life” tells the story of a middle-aged middle-class person who suddenly becomes unemployed and turns to delivering takeout food in the face of mounting pressure. While the film’s protagonist encapsulates the survival difficulties faced by many Chinese people today, it has faced widespread criticism since the release of its first trailer. The real reviews from preview screenings and the premiere day have shown a clear divide in opinions.
The biggest controversy surrounding “Reverse Life” is that some netizens believe it to be a “rich person acting as a poor person to earn money from the poor” kind of “blood-sucking” film. They argue that affluent entertainment industry figures are “condescending” by impersonating laborers to generate publicity for the movie; the hardships faced by the vast working class are “appropriated” to serve as tools for capital gains, while they also happen to be the main contributors to the box office success.
According to some netizens, the “208s” (having privileges with the digits 2 representing snobbery, 0 indicating zero effort for exams, and 8 symbolizing wealth, fan base, and Beijing residency) exploit the poor, representing a double-edged sword in their actions.
This perspective easily triggers public resentment towards the film in today’s China, significantly impacting the film itself. Consequently, the film faced multiple boycott crises even before its release, with box office forecasts being significantly downgraded from an initial estimate of over 1 billion Chinese yuan.
Upon its release, “Reverse Life” did not perform as well as anticipated at the box office. Even with the accumulated pre-sale and preview screenings, the total box office earnings on the first day barely reached 50 million yuan, and the following day, it faced competition from the romantic films “White Snake: The Realm of the Floating Life” and “Double Good Luck” released on the Chinese Valentine’s Day. The final projected box office takings were expected to be less than 500 million yuan, falling short of even the revised estimates by third-party media.
One possible reason for this setback could be associated with Xu Zheng’s previous self-directed independent film, “Lost in Russia.” Released as part of the comedic “Lost” series, it was streamed online due to the COVID-19 outbreak four years ago, prompting significant controversy and potentially leading to theaters boycotting “Reverse Life” screenings– portraying Xu Zheng as “paying the price for his past actions.”
In “Reverse Life,” a realism-themed film, the plot portrays the protagonist, a programmer named Gao Zhilei (played by Xu Zheng), who, despite working “996” every day, is fired by the company due to diabetes caused by long hours and work pressure, deemed unfit for high-intensity work. His attempts to find a new job are met with severe age-based discrimination, with almost no responses to over 130 job applications.
Approaching middle age, Gao Zhilei has elderly parents and young children to support, shouldering the responsibility of caring for the elderly and nurturing children as the family’s pillar. The burden of a hefty mortgage adds immense financial pressure while additional expenses such as daily living costs, his father’s sudden stroke, and his daughter’s enrollment in an international school (later abandoned) make the family’s financial situation precarious.
The psychological blow of shedding his prior status and societal position compounds Gao Zhilei’s loss of self-esteem and identity, leaving him feeling bewildered and helpless about the uncertain future. External factors such as P2P lending platform scams, declining real estate prices, economic downturn, and the challenges of re-employment further exacerbate Gao Zhilei’s predicament. Ultimately, with no alternatives, he becomes a food delivery driver. Although he secures a job, being a delivery driver also poses its own difficulties, forced to work quickly and tirelessly under algorithm-driven pressures.
Many viewers believe that “Reverse Life” successfully depicts the struggles and hardships faced by delivery workers. In response to criticisms of “rich individuals profiting from portraying the struggles of the poor,” some argue that commercial films are typically funded by wealthy individuals, and while well-known actors may lead a privileged life, their portrayals on screen are performances regardless of the character’s background. By effectively capturing the hardships of ordinary laborers, such films can reflect reality, provide comfort, and contribute to addressing real-world issues positively.
Some mainland Chinese netizens perceive that regardless of its execution, “Reverse Life” will struggle to escape the controversy shadowed by public opinions. They point out that filming sensitive subjects with commercial aspects creates a precarious “minefield.”
Recently, in an article for Da Ji Yuan, commentator Yuan Bin expressed how the circumstances of delivering food in China differ significantly from those in developed countries. He criticized the Chinese government and management for failing to address the hardships faced by food delivery drivers. Instead of reflecting on these issues and acknowledging their role in them, the authorities expect gratitude from delivery drivers, a level of shamelessness that few ruling parties in history can match.