(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
What is the best way to say something about the story? Or; How can we actually learn something from the past? Let's agree that conventional documentaries may not be the answer. At the same time, these questions are not unknown to documentaries or creators of fiction films.
Tracy Dong intended to make a documentary about contemporary Chinese actors. This informs the opening text, but she happened to end up with a revival of time during Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. Dong explains the unforeseen events that unfold during the shoots as "the charm of making documentaries".
Without ideals
In Character tells the story of a group of actors chosen to play Red Guardians. They are recruited by director Ye Jin, for a new movie about his youth in the sixties. He has planned to make a poetic film rather than a realistic one, and it seems that he nurtures romantic feelings for this awful period in China's recent history. He remembers a country with a strong leadership style and powerful, heroic songs.
What is the best way to say something about the story?
Dong joins the film team to record the casting process, for use in his documentary. The young actors are raised in what is technically still a communist country, but have little in common with the country Ye Jin grew up in. In his eyes, they are spoiled, ignorant and lacking in ideals.
Red Guards training
While the actors are initially rather nervous and giggling as they practice choreography and songs, they gradually become more and more dedicated. Together, they look at archive footage of Mao Zedong, reader from his little red book (Quotes from Chairman Mao Tse-tung) and practice songs. In order for the actors to be further prepared for their roles, they are taken to a remote, abandoned factory to conduct "experiential training". No one is allowed to leave the place at any time. Isolated from friends, family, phone and other displays – as well as from running water, electricity and heating – they are "trained" to act as Red Guard units, with costumes and everything associated with their new identity. As they receive orders to act as an egalitarian and social group, the collective soon takes over the individual.
Collective punishment
The film has an observational style, and the events are presented in chronological order. When Ye Jin comes to visit the factory, he is welcomed by the actors with a series of scenes as he moves through the premises. This has a rather absurd and distancing effect. Dong shoots and hides behind the camera.
In Character is a revival of time during Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution.
Midway through the film, when it turns out that one of the actors, Jiang Siyuan, has asked to visit the family as their grandfather has fallen ill, the trip has come to the "charm" of making documentaries: The actor's request to leave the set results in a larger "fighting session" – a public defamation intended to humiliate the "enemy" and to teach and warn others. Jiang Siyuan must also through a scene of self-criticism, the others – such as he who plays this character's father – join. After two "investigators" (the team coordinator and general manager) have reviewed the "incident" – including the rhetoric that comes with such an assessment – Jiang Siyuan must write a letter apologizing. He makes things even worse for himself as he spells Mao's name and is eventually sent away.
Ethically sound?
All this takes place in a long and rather dull sequence. Although visible throughout the film, the different layers of reality merge here: The actors alternate between their "real" identities and their Red Guardian identities. Another level is the experiment as an experience of life during the cultural revolution. And here meet Ye Jin's fiction film project and Dong's documentary film.
Is this true and is it ethically justifiable?
The actors are subjected to a set of strict rules and regulations, which include collective punishment for individual bad behavior, in a way reminiscent of The novel 'The experiment' (2001) – a movie based on the experiment at Stanford Prison in 1971. Tensions increase, some break down and cry. Some of the actors attach great importance to the career significance of this project and the need to devote themselves fully to the project and the manager for it. Do they show their best performances as actors here? Understanding what is going on is a challenge, and two questions arise: Is this real and is it ethically justifiable?
Experiment as experience
The film doesn't explicitly say anything about this. In light of the statement from Dong quoted above, it seems that the "incident" is simply considered one of those unforeseen "gifts" that documentary film can offer. But have the actors through this experiment / experience gained a better understanding of the cultural revolution and its "tools"? And if there is any truth in the claim that we live in an experience economy, what does it mean to try to learn something from the past? At the end of the documentary, a group of high school students with giggling extras in a mass scene full of banners and slogans. It is these who in turn experience this story.
