The self-directed and self-acted new film “Reverse Life” by Xu Zheng was released on August 9. However, after 9 days, the cumulative box office revenue was only 2.84 billion Chinese yuan, far below expectations. It is worth noting that the film was embroiled in controversies of “consuming hardships” even before its release. Recently, Xu Zheng responded to this during a promotional event.
“Reverse Life” tells the story of IT man Gao Zhilei, played by Xu Zheng, who suddenly gets laid off at the age of 45. Despite sending out 1300 resumes, he receives no responses. Under immense pressures with elderly parents to care for and children to support, he is forced to become a food delivery driver.
According to reports from Chinese media, this year’s mainland summer box office was particularly focused on director Chen Sicheng’s “Decryption” and Xu Zheng’s self-directed and acted “Reverse Life”. Both new films by these “billion-dollar” filmmakers were highly anticipated by the market. However, as of 9:30 pm on August 17, “Decryption” had only earned 3.18 billion at the box office after 15 days of screening, with very few daily showings. On the other hand, Xu Zheng’s first summer release film “Reverse Life” had been in theaters for 9 days, but its box office revenue was only 2.86 billion. It was expected to reach over 5 billion, but compared to his past box office performance, the film faced a significant challenge.
In recent years, with high unemployment rates in mainland China, a large number of jobless individuals have turned to the food delivery industry, leading to a rapid increase in the number of food delivery drivers. “Reverse Life” focuses on the survival struggles of these individuals. This film, like Xu Zheng’s previous work “Dying to Survive”, shines a light on the lives of the lower strata of Chinese society, garnering attention even before its release and resonating with many viewers who appreciate its realism and authentic portrayal of the working class.
However, the audience’s reactions to the film have been polarized. Some online critics have labeled the film as “rich people playing poor roles” and accused it of exploiting the hardships of the poor. They suggest that the film would have been more suitable in the format of a documentary, questioning the authenticity of “wealthy individuals portraying poverty, expecting the less fortunate to foot the bill and turning the struggles of the lower class into a tool for capital gain and box office contributions.”
In response to this criticism, Xu Zheng stated during the promotional event, “Making movies nowadays is quite challenging because it’s impossible to please everyone with a single film. After watching a movie, everyone’s feelings and perspectives vary. Different audiences notice different details and have different expectations. It’s unfair to criticize a movie without actually watching it.”
Xu Zheng also mentioned that regardless of positive or negative reviews, he accepts them all because each audience member has a different life attitude and perception, leading to diverse feelings towards the film.
Some netizens disagree with the notion of “consuming hardships” in the film, stating that commercial films are often produced by the wealthy and famous actors, who can depict both the lives of the poor and the rich. By portraying the struggles of ordinary laborers effectively, such films can reflect reality, comfort the audience, and contribute positively to addressing real-life issues.
Xu Zheng’s film “Dying to Survive” in 2018, which he produced and starred in, not only received critical acclaim and numerous awards but also sparked discussions in mainland China about high import drug prices and drug fairness. The film reached the top of the global box office with a first-week box office of 13.33 billion yuan, eventually achieving a total box office revenue of 31 billion yuan. Some netizens believe that Xu Zheng has been less fortunate this time. Due to the changing environment in China, regardless of how “Reverse Life” is received, it is challenging to escape the controversy surrounding the film. The root of the problem lies in using the format of a commercial film to tackle sensitive topics, making it a potential “minefield” to navigate.