Inter-Asia Cultural Studies

ISSN: 1464-9373 (Print) 1469-8447 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riac20

When feminism encounters New Documentary

Movement: an uncompleted academic discussion

Lu Xinyu

To cite this article: Lu Xinyu (2018) When feminism encounters New Documentary Movement:
an uncompleted academic discussion, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 19:2, 294-309, DOI:
10.1080/14649373.2018.1463077

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2018.1463077

Published online: 18 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 517

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riac20
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES
2018, VOL. 19, NO. 2, 294–309
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2018.1463077

When feminism encounters New Documentary Movement: an

uncompleted academic discussion
LU Xinyu
School of Communication, East China Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article starts with the “encounter” between feminists in the “International Feminism; Wheat Harvest;
Symposium on Chinese Women and Visual Representation” and Chinese independent documentary;
documentary filmmaker Xu Tong’s Wheat Harvest, and explores the the lowest rung
viewpoints and standpoints of feminist actors. With the analysis of the
similarities and differences between the independent documentary
perspective and the feminist stance, the author elaborates more deeply on
why Chinese female directors do not have the consciousness of “feminism.”
China’s independent documentary shows how the issue of feminism in China
is intertwined with China’s various complex socio-political issues. The way of
Chinese documentary filmmaker as “living with the bottom rung” is a kind of
practical behavior that seeks truth by integrating itself with it. This requires
great courage and idealism, as well as social experience. The bottom layer is
where the dark side of the society exists which is beyond the law and
morality. The question raised is precisely how to promote the development
of feminism and documentary together to work for an equal and just society
itself. The more urgent task of Chinese feminism is how to rethink the
relationship between the reality of China and feminism, and how to re-
establish effective dialogue and cooperation with various critical forces in this
society. In the historical perspective of the feminism development of China
over one century, gender and women’s issues have never existed in isolation,
but have moved forward with various social and political movements. How to
re-examine this historic heritage to face China’s problems and crises today is
an uncompleted answer that China’s feminism must hand over.

The International Conference on Chinese
Women and Visual Representation, co-orga-
nized by the University of Michigan-Fudan
Joint Institute for Gender Studies, School of Jour-
nalism of Fudan University, Overseas Institute of
Women’s Studies of the All-China, and Gender
and Social Development Research Center of
Fudan University, was held at Fudan University
from 16 to 19 December 2011. The conference
was centered on feminism. On behalf of the con-
ference committee, I invited three independent
documentary directors from the Chinese main-
land with their films, in a hope of establishing
a channel for communication and cooperation
between Chinese feminists and independent
documentary makers, which has rarely been
seen before. The three documentaries are
Wheat Harvest (2008) by Xu Tong, When the
Bough Breaks (2016) by Ji Dan, and Bing Ai
(2007) by Feng Yan.
However, the conference eventually went
out of control. Unexpectedly, the academic

CONTACT LU Xinyu xininyu@163.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

discussion on Xu Tong’s Wheat Harvest evolved
into a fierce “fighting,” which later even
resumed on the Internet. Although the other
two films When the Bough Breaks and Bing Ai
were better accepted than Wheat Harvest,
some related issues failed to be discussed deeply.
What are the causes for the controversies? Why
do the feminists and filmmakers who are
assumed to share the same value orientation
and a common pursuit fail to reach some
basic agreements? The present article intends
to offer an interpretive summary of the dialo-
gues and debates at the Fudan conference.
What is feminism: controversies on
Wheat Harvest
In February 2012, there was an on-line
article entitled “Subalterns, ‘Hypocrisy’ and
Documentary Ethics: on the Controversies
over Wheat Harvest” by Women’s Voice
(2012), a non-profit weekly e-news organization
and active NGO feminist group mainly engaged
in dissemination of women’s rights and gender
equality in media. The article summarized a
series of protests against Wheat Harvest from
a feminist perspective.
The article listed five major protests against
Wheat Harvest, among which three took place
in 2009 respectively at the Yunfest Documen-
tary Festival in Kunming in late March, in the
Iberian Art Center in Beijing on 12 March,
and at the China Documentary Festival held
in Hong Kong in May. Later, the protests were
also seen at the International Conference on
Chinese Women and Visual Representation
held in Fudan University in December 2011
and in the screening of Shattered (2012)
directed by Xu Tong in Beijing on 7 January
2012. Many feminist NGOs from both main-
land and Hong Kong such as Ziteng, Wuyelan,
and Zizhibalou participated in these protests.
Among them, the protest in Hong Kong was
reported as the biggest by media, causing not
only the delay of the screening but also the
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 295
intervention of the police. The screening of
such documentaries as Wheat Harvest at the
Taipei Film Festival in July, 2009 also triggered
criticism from some independent media in Tai-
wan such as Coolloud and POTS. In 2009, some
workers from NGOs formed an informal group,
communicating by e-mails or meeting in main-
land, Hong Kong and Taiwan to further the
protests against curators and critics. The article
claims that:
Wheat Harvest couldn’t have got so many
screening opportunities and acclaimed so
many fruitful honors without the support
from the documentary industry. Zhang Xian-
min, a professor in Beijing Film Academy
and one of the organizers of the Yunfest, Lu
Xinyu, a professor in Fudan University in
charge of the screening of the documentaries
at the Fudan conference, and You Huizhen,
a programmer of the Taipei Film Festival,
are all renowned scholars and critics. They
still insisted screening Wheat Harvest and
defending for it in public even though they
were fully informed of the protesters’
opinions. Lu Xinyu and You Huizhen are
both feminists. Besides, what is to be paid
attention to is the support from Taiwan Pros-
titutes Rights Organization called “Periwin-
kle” (Ririchun) and it increased the
justification for Wheat Harvest. (Women’s
Voice 2012, 4)
Therefore, not only some individual, but the
whole “documentary industry” became the tar-
get of feminist protests. The protests against
Wheat Harvest were developed in two periods,
one in the year of 2009, and the other from
the conference at Fudan University in Decem-
ber 2011–2012. There were some movements
in mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan in 2009.
The Fudan conference in 2011sparked heated
discussions and debates on the Internet, such
as Sina weibo, the most popular social network-
ing site, where I myself was attacked for some
times on my dual roles as a documentary
researcher and feminist. In fact, I was not
alone. Professor Guo Lixin in Taiwan, a femin-
ist, was attacked in 2009 but supported by
“Periwinkle,” a Taiwan Prostitutes Rights
296 L. XINYU
Organization. However, no academic respond
has been made in the successive protests to
the voice supporting Wheat Harvest, which
was the right intention that I set Wheat Harvest
as the special topic for the conference. Instead,
Wheat Harvest has confronted many protestant
movements and moral allegations. This model
was repeated at the Fudan conference. Never-
theless, in their opinion, these protests “didn’t
decrease the mania and passion of the middle
class’ academic interest in the revelation of the
privacy of the lowest rung, which was only for
fun” (Ermao 2012).1
After the Fudan conference, two videos were
uploaded by Yi Yuan Community, a feminist
NGO mainly run by Lu Pin. One was entitled
“I Know What You Have Done at Fudan Uni-
versity”2 and another recorded the protest by
flash mob wearing masks against Shattered by
Xu Tong.3
The video “I Know What You Have Done at
Fudan University” was based on one of Lu Pin’s
interviews. She accounted what happened to
Wheat Harvest at Fudan University from a fem-
inist’s perspective, which was indeed an attack
against the conference. The video was followed
by many posts singing highly of Lu Pin’s
account. They claimed that concise as Lu Pin’s
interview was, it sharply criticized Xu Tong’s
arrogance as a mid-class chauvinist despising
and cheating prostitutes, Lu Xinyu’s pseudo-
neutral stance fully representing the curiosity
and indifference of academic feminists, and
Guo Lixin’s so-called equality with prostitutes.
Some parts in Lu Pin’s video need further
clarification. Firstly, she twice accused Xu
Tong of visiting the “beauty parlor” as a custo-
mer rather than a director. She attacked Pro-
fessor Guo Lixin’s criticism on protesters with
the mid-class moral clearness by defending
that unlike the middle class who consumed
the lower class, she as a feminist well under-
stood the living situation of the prostitutes.
She unfaithfully depicted the discussion about
Wheat Harvest in the conference and criticized
me for the control of speech as the chairwoman.
She told others that she was only a powerless
protester for feminism and said that
As power matters, I have limited time to
express my idea and I know unlike those dis-
tinguished guests I am only an ordinary audi-
ence and not allowed to speak more, but I
suggest you consider more about the relation-
ship between the ethics of documentaries and
human rights. What I said has offended the
chairwoman and she is unhappy. Lu Xinyu
think that I’ve not only disrupted the order
of the conference, but also questioned the
arrangement of the conference because I
think this film should not have been shown
here. (Yi Yuan Community 2012)
It is a pity that she did not tell the truth. Actu-
ally, the conference attached great importance
to the participation of Lu Pin as a feminist.
She was a special observer and paper reviewer
for the conference and was invited by Professor
Wang from University of Michigan. The con-
ference covered her air tickets and accommo-
dation. The discussion was actually not in my
control but in Lu Pin’s, whose speech trans-
formed the conference into a one-sided moral
trial. In order to emphasize the moral side, she
put herself at the place of an underdog, while
made me the target of an attack on hegemony
– I am quite familiar with the debate of this
model.
The show of Wheat Harvest is not a self-con-
tained part, but a part of a special panel on
Wheat Harvest, without which the panel could
not be complete. After the show, three paper
submitters made speeches, including Professor
Guo. In the following open discussion, I said
as the chair “We are glad to hear different
opinions.” Hardly had my voice faded away,
Lu Pin rushed to the stage and began to make
impassioned speech. After she finished, she
returned to her seat accompanied by warm
applauses. However, when Guo Lixin was reply-
ing to her, Lu Pin reproached him at her seat
“You can’t be more frivolous! You can’t be
more frivolous!” She also shouted “We are not

so frivolous as you!” She interrupted Guo’s talk-
ing for several times, breaking the progress of
the conference. The conference was in chaos,
filled with hisses and applauses.
An academic discussion turned into personal
abuses. I was extremely shocked by this scene.
Later on, I tried to stop Lu Pin, warning that
feminists should not kidnap and attack others’
dignity by using moral judgments. After that,
Professor Wang reminded me that I used
“you” in front of the feminist – I didn’t realize
it at that time. Maybe it was because things hap-
pened so suddenly that I unconsciously distin-
guished myself from this feminist.
Although I wanted to control the conference,
I found it impossible. In fact, I had no chance to
express my own opinion all the time. At the end
of the conference when I intended to say some-
thing, people shouted “Let Xu Tong talk! We
want to hear the director’s voice!” – Actually,
I was deprived of the right of speech, but not
the opposite. At this time, Xu Tong was record-
ing the conference with a camcorder.
Obviously, he was unwilling to talk, but they
forced Xu to apologize and admit his crime.
Of course, I was clear that this was an oppres-
sive situation. But as the chair, I submitted
and handed the microphone to Xu. Xu Tong
described his relationship with Miao Miao, the
filmed subject. Xu said Miao Miao had given
birth to a baby and shared the good news with
him, and he congratulated her and gave her a
sum of money. Xu attempted to show they
had mutual trust with each other, boycotting
the mass criticism toward him in an indirect
way. Xu’s behaviors and words didn’t satisfy
the audience and were later criticized as arro-
gant and indifferent on the Internet. His record-
ing at the conference was also intensely
questioned. Afterward, he explained that he
recorded this scene for the material of his next
documentary. His documentaries always stir
controversies, and I will mention it later. This
can be taken as Xu Tong’s way of responding
as a filmmaker.
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 297
Indeed, in the previous disputes over Wheat
Harvest, I had never claimed that I took a neu-
tral stance. However, when I witnessed the
attack on Wheat Harvest by moral judgement
and verbal violence, I chose to side with
Wheat Harvest.4 I stated in Sina blog that
Wheat Harvest can of course be criticized, but
the criticism cannot go to such extreme as boy-
cotting the film. Actually, the discussion about
the ethics of documentaries has been a heated
topic these years and there are quite a few
serious discussions on it. The theme of this con-
ference is to re-discuss it under the framework
of feminism instead of stopping documentaries
in the name of feminism.
Lu Pin retorted “Why don’t we let them
shoot the documentaries by themselves? Why
don’t we let them shoot us? Why do we have
to shoot them to satisfy us? It feels like that
we are committing ourselves to a significant
cause.” Her questions are based on the hypoth-
esis that any video concerning prostitutes is
unjustifiable. Therefore, it is only valid when
they shoot themselves or us. There are fallacies
in Lu Pin’s arguments. Firstly, she didn’t know
the fact that there have already been many
tries in making documentaries where the photo-
graphed shoot themselves, but many problems
emerged.
Secondly, she rejected the major role of the
documentary director. By doing so not only
denied a film but also the history of the global
documentaries. It is unreasonable that feminist
protesters regarded their action as exclusively
politically valid and lacked reflection on the
movement. It is even dangerous to suppress
academic criticism by using action.
Lu Pin criticized that Lu Xinyu, a middle
class, did fantasy grouping together with others.
She also criticized that Xu Tong filmed Wheat
Harvest from a biased view of male supervisor,
manifesting a relationship between a prostitute
and a male customer. Besides, the scholarly
feminism should be challenged since they can-
not be as powerful as pure feminism. She also
298 L. XINYU
held that academic discussion is a kind of privi-
lege. How could it reveal others’ privacy in the
name of academy? Therefore, the argumenta-
tion between Lu Pin and Lu Xinyu reflects the
difference between position and caste. Is it
necessary to care for the bottom layer and in
what way? How should we get along with
these people? How could Xu Tong attend the
conference representing male chauvinism and
why? He should be expelled out of the confer-
ence room! The Fudan conference was
described as an example in which the middle-
class feminists suppressed the bottom society
by grouping with the male chauvinism.
Obviously, the feminist activists took a domi-
nant position to “purify” feminism and expel
the dissidents.
It is also a pity that Lu Pin didn’t quote Guo
Lixin’s speech faithfully. She claimed that Guo
said “You know that people in the bottom
caste like telling lies!” She also claimed that
Guo insisted that Ge Ge was a bad girl and we
were not responsible to protect her right. Such
“political validity” is bound to leave stigma on
Guo, and Lu Pin further argued that she bore
the proper right to reproach Guo since Guo
“slandered” somebody in absence.
Lu Pin and her group stresses the political
nature of “We” and the importance of taking
people in the bottom class as subjects, mean-
while claiming that the filmmakers had no
right to represent “We.” This is naturally the
core topic for feminists. However, when the
feminists questioned the filmmakers because
of their mid-class status, they themselves may
also be questioned in the same way. These fem-
inists are middle class, aren’t they?
On 1 January 2012, a Mask Squad with the
slogan “Flash Action, boycotting Xu Tong”
shouted in front of lens “Long Live Feminism”
in “One-Way Street Bookshop” in Beijing
where Shattered showed. The protest was to
reveal some hidden sides of Xu Tong. After scat-
tering leaflets, the Squad dismissed themselves,
showing no interest in Xu Tong’s invitation to
watch Shattered. They said if Xu Tong didn’t
apologize, they would not only boycott the docu-
mentary Wheat Harvest but also him. Actually, if
the protesters would have watched Wheat Har-
vest, they might have different understandings
of the innovative way of shooting Wheat Harvest.
Likewise, they showed no more interest in Bing
Ai and When the Bough Breaks in the Fudan
conference. I was really sorry for that. How
could the dialogue on the documentaries go if
the participants refuse to watch them?
Only one protester remained and finished
watching the film. She admitted that Xu Tong
was well-mannered and honest in answering
questions in the Q&A session. However, who
really annoyed her was not Xu Tong but the
sex worker Tang Xiaoyan, a filmed subject in
both Shattered and Fortune Teller (2009). It
was the fierce protests against Wheat Harvest
that urged Xu Tong to invite Tang Xiaoyan to
attend screenings and discussions about Shat-
tered and Fortune Teller, the other two in
Homeless Trilogy both at home and abroad.
They were invited to a talk show “Behind the
Headlines” with Wentao in Phoenix’s TV.
Tang Xiaoyan will also be the main character
of Xu Tong’s next film. He took the video cam-
era to record the reactions and replies of Tang
Xiaoyan, also on such situations as in Fudan
conference, where Tang didn’t show up, but
the dispute was centered on her.
What bewildered the protester was the reac-
tion of Tang Xiaoyan. She rushed to the protester
and yelled at her “You ruined my show!” Just a
moment ago, the protester had criticized the
use of “We” by a speaker who said “We are not
afraid of being exposed to the media since We
have nothing.” However, when Tang Xiaoyan,
the proper representative of “We,” was in front
of her, she was completely at a loss. Obviously,
her criticism was targeted at Xu Tong and the
speaker, bearing no relation to “Sister Eryan”
(the protester mistook Tang Xiaoyan as Tang
Eryan since she could only recall Yan in the
name). The protester wondered how Tang Xiao-
yan did not line with her both as a female and a
sex worker who was assumed to be badly hurt by

being shot in the film. At last, she brought an
unexpected and frightened end to the protest.
How ironic the protest was! Evidently, the pro-
test clearly demonstrated the ethical dilemma
these feminists are trapped in that they also fail
to represent “We.”
“Subalterns, ‘Hypocrisy’ and Documentary
Ethics: on the Controversies over Wheat Har-
vest” (Women’s Voice 2012, 4–7) summed up
seven arguments for independent documen-
taries. First, protesting against Wheat Harvest
was restraining the freedom of speech. Second,
the protests were assumed to be mainly based
on mid-class’ inappropriate sexual morality as
well as their hypocrisy. Third, there were no
laws or regulations against shooting and releas-
ing documentaries. Fourth, Ge Ge’s words that
she was physically and mentally hurt were far
from the truth. Fifth, Wheat Harvest offered
the audience a chance of knowing what a true
China is and recognizing the living condition
of people who are marginalized and ignored.
Therefore, the film should be fully approved
and the value of it has been proved since many
audiences are either moved or shocked. Sixth,
due to the great value of the film, the risk of
harming a minority of people can be accepted.
Finally, Wheat Harvest has only screened in
some limited venues, which actually prevents
the characters in the film from being hurt. The
article claims that the seven arguments above
are all groundless. Reasons are as follows.
Firstly, the protesters advocate responsible
shooting, decent show and moral audience,
rather than restricting the freedom of speech.
They hold that it is irresponsible to show a film
in public since invades privacy. Secondly, the
protesters are not from the middle class, nor
are they afraid of the exposure of the sex workers
to the public. The protesters care little about
whether such subjects as Niu Niu and Ge Ge
are moral or not, nor do they care whether the
film shows appropriate respects to sex workers.
What really matters to them is whether the
film invades the privacy. Lastly, as the protection
of privacy is based on laws and ethics, the
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 299
documentaries and something like them must
not offend the right of privacy. Ge Ge did not
dare to sue Xu Tong in fear that her privacy
would be further exposed to the public. So, any-
one who had a conscience should not shoot those
who are not able to protect themselves from
being exposed. For the documentary directors,
it is a part of their work to get the permission.
If they cannot get the permission, then just as
Xu Tong said, do not shoot.
To be honest, although the summary is not
objective and comprehensive, it still clarifies
some problems.
Perspective of independent
documentaries and the position of
feminism
I sincerely hope that feminist protesters could
voluntarily understand the working way and
condition of independent documentary makers
in China so as to avoid many misunderstand-
ings. A group of independent documentary
directors emerged in New Documentary Move-
ment in late 1980s. They pay much attention to
independent self-awareness and exploring the
bottom rung of society to depict the real life
in China. Most of them live on their slim sav-
ings. Xu Tong, for instance, sold his house
property in Beijing to finance his documentary
films. Although he has gained many awards
both at home and broad after shooting his
Homeless Trilogy, he was still short of money
even for his basic daily life. Actually, this is
the problem most independent documentary
directors in China are confronted with and Xu
Tong is no exception to it.
Xu Tong made his directorial debut with
Wheat Harvest. Before that, Xu Tong graduated
from Communication University of China with
a major in film in 1987. After graduation he
failed to land a job in TV stations. He tried
many different jobs, which helped him gain a
deep understanding of the society. Afterward,
he had been engaged in the field of modern
arts for a couple of years and quitted in 2007
300 L. XINYU
because he considered modern arts catering to
western tastes and bearing no relation at all
with the real life. Then, he embarked on writing
novel. To get inspiration and experience, he
often went to Beijing’s eastern suburbs called
Gaobeidian near Communication University of
China, where he got acquainted with Miao
Miao, who later became the leading character
in Wheat Harvest. In Xu Tong’s mind, his life
situation resembled Miao Miao’s closely, which
further deepened their relationship and also
helped him get access to the life of more people
around Miao Miao. After knowing that Xu
Tong was a filmmaker, she asked him to shoot
her. Therefore, “living while shooting” began.
That is the story of Xu Tong. When he began liv-
ing with the bottom rung of the society, he met
not only his subjects but also documentary. As
a result, “Xu Tong’s life unconsciously inter-
twined with people like Miao Miao. Sometimes,
Xu Tong could not even identify himself.
When being with Miao Miao and her friends,
he was usually mistaken as a customer” (Wang
2011). The feeling of “getting back to the real
life” or getting as close to the photographed as
possible helps Xu Tong get clearer about the
direction of his filmmaking and way of shooting.
It is generally assumed that some distance is
needed between the photographer and the
photographed, and otherwise the photographed
will be easily influenced by showing rather than
pure presenting, which might eventually ruin
the authenticity of documents. But it is sheer
ridiculous that the photographer could prevent
the photographed from acting by shooting from
a certain distance. Are the photographed idiots?
Don’t they know that you are shooting them
when you are five meters away holding a cam-
era? This is simply exposing what you intend
to hide. The photographer is not a fly perching
on the wall, but a human being. Only when liv-
ing with the photographed, will you be trusted
and shared with what is in the deep of their
hearts, which is the most natural way (see
Wang 2011).
The smallest shooting distance of Wheat
Harvest is 30 centimeters, which is not only
employed by Xu Tong. The directors of When
the Bough Breaks and Bing Ai also lived together
with the photographed for a long time. Such
method is actually taken by many Chinese inde-
pendent documentary makers, which however
is bound not to be commercialized since it is
quite difficult to estimate the cost. It is not
accepted by the well specialized and commer-
cialized western markets. No market means no
investment. Nevertheless, it was the regardless-
ness of cost and sincerity that helped create a
large quantity of excellent works in the New
Documentary Movement, presenting a com-
plete and rich picture of the life in bottom
rung of modern China.
The directors of independent documentary
in China have acquired an equal view through
a long-time living with the photographed,
which is typically stated in Xu Tong’s words
There is no need to specify one’s position,
either as a director or a customer. First of all,
I am an ordinary man. After getting along
with Miao Miao and her friends, I found
that their life was no big difference from
mine, and Miao Miao and her friends were
more experienced in society and mature in
thought. I kept the camera on all day and
documented Miao Miao day after day. For
most of time, Miao Miao and I even forgot
that we were the photographer and the photo-
graphed. (Wang 2011)
Accordingly, the documentary could not be
made by secrete photography. On the contrary,
the shooting should be based on trust and
mutual understanding. Therefore, Wheat Har-
vest was definitely not a “stolen” one as was
accused of in the article mentioned above. Fur-
thermore, these independent documentary
directors also don’t like signing a contract
with the photographed at the very beginning,
which in their mind is reduced to a sheer com-
mercial relation between the photographer and
the photographed, thus changing the feature of
“walking and communicating” they pursue in

documents. It is not only about the birth of a
documentary, but more about the explorations
the directors make into life. In this significance,
a piece of contract usually impairs the richness
of documentary. On the contrary, the con-
tracted shooting is to ensure the realization of
costs. Consequently, the contracts are signed
mainly to guarantee the profits of the sponsor
and the smooth going of shooting rather than
to protect the rights of the subjects.
“Living with the bottom rung” was a kind of
practice taken by Xu Tong to seek truth, which
involves courage, ideality and experience. How-
ever, Xu Tong’s parents didn’t understand it. In
their minds, how could their son mingle with
such people of lower classes as sex workers all
day regardless of the great efforts parents had
made to support his college education? How-
ever, the bottom layer is where the dark side
of the society exists. Xu Tong’s contribution
lies in revealing a vagrant society in China in
the Homeless Trilogy and working on these
films was filled with challenges and dangers.
Actually, the depth Xu Tong’s films explore
into on the life of people in the bottom goes
far beyond those movements carried out by
most Chinese feminists, which, in fact, is also
seen in When the Bough Breaks and Bing Ai.
But why was only Wheat Harvest alone to be
accused by feminists. Was it because that the
director is male? Should a male’s point of view
necessarily be Chauvinism?
The key criticism was related to a filmed sub-
ject called Ge Ge in Wheat Harvest, a friend of
Miao Miao. Ge Ge fell in love with Miao Miao’s
boyfriend, which harmed the friendship
between the two girls and made Miao Miao sor-
rowful. Professor Guo Lixin was interrupted by
Lu Pin when he was talking about Ge Ge. Guo
held that secret photography was impossible.
In the earliest edition of Wheat Harvest, Ge
Ge once yelled at the lens “Stop shooting! Or
delete it!” In the Q&A session after Wheat Har-
vest was shown in Taiwan, Xu Tong explained
that the reason why he kept this scene was for
its authenticity. But it was this scene that
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 301
sparked protests among the audiences at the
Yunfest. So, in the later edition, this scene was
cut out. In fact, Xu Tong kept this scene to pre-
sent a complete process of the development of
the relationship between the photographer and
the photographed from alerting to relaxing. In
my opinion, cutting out this scene has done
harm to the documentary. Guo further claimed
that if Xu Tong pretended to be innocent, he
would not have kept this scene at the very
beginning. What’s more, the living condition
of Ge Ge displayed in this documentary was
so real in life that it could not be photographed
secretly but being allowed. A large gap lied
between the charge made by Ge Ge on the Inter-
net and what was shown in the film. Is there a
possibility that she does not want the documen-
tary to be screened because it documents her
disgraceful life?
Besides, is it possible that as Wheat Harvest
aroused protests when screened at the Yunfest,
Ge Ge found it a good chance to get some
benefits from Xu Tong by charging the director
with secret photography and infringement?
Some may think that my speculations on Ge
Ge were subjective and vicious. Of course, not
all my statements are correct, but what if there
is some possibility that they are true? If what I
said might be partially true, how could the pro-
testers and critics in mainland, Hong Kong and
Taiwan ignore these possibilities and blindly
believed Ge Ge and those spread on the Inter-
net? Why must “Ge Ge” be kind-hearted and
innocent as a hurt angel?
Professor Guo stressed that the simple and
rigid dichotomy between capitalist and laborer,
exploiter and exploitee, mainstream and non-
mainstream, upper class and under class
might lead to the failure in understanding the
complexity of human nature and under class,
since capitalist, exploiter and upper class are
mechanically taken as evil while the opposite
party is kind, innocent and moral. Therefore,
unlike Lu Pin’s accusation, Guo’s opinion was
that people in each class including the under
one are likely to lie. The political correction
302 L. XINYU
based on moral principle is very dangerous,
which may precisely cover the problem. In the
history of documentary, there were many legal
disputes between the photographer and the
photographed even though a contract was
signed. It is resulted from the complex relation-
ship between the unique but complex feature of
the documentary and the reality, which cannot
be solved by any contract at any time. This
was the destiny of documentary or its original
sin. However, we cannot sentence the docu-
mentary to death. It was this original sin that
kept the tension between the real life and the
film, thus making “reality” an everlasting source
of power and contributing to human being’s
endless revelation of reality. It was impossible
that the documentary only displayed the posi-
tive side, which was not only against the real
life but also against the ethics of the documen-
tary. In When the Bough Breaks, Ji Dan depicts
an arbitrary father. Why didn’t the feminist
come out to protest against it?
As the above-mentioned said, Ge Ge left a
large amount of words full of indignation and
panic on the Internet. In summer of 2009,
some NGO workers at the Yunfest and in Beij-
ing against this documentary met Ge Ge and
recorded her charges, most of which were actu-
ally not released. Those posted on the Internet
were some without clear sources. I searched
the Internet and got three short articles on Dou-
ban, one of which was posted by “Scolding Xu
Tong Only,” the net name of Ge Ge.5 However,
it is clear that what was posted by “Scolding Xu
Tong Only” was not in line with what was told
by Ge Ge mentioned above. The above-men-
tioned claimed that Ge Ge did not sue Xu
Tong because she worried about the further rev-
elation of privacy. But the article “Can 50,000
Yuan Solve Wheat Harvest problem and Buy
My Esteem?”6 posted by “Scolding Xu Tong
Only” said that the reason was about money,
stressing that it was the lack of money rather
than privacy that kept her from suing Xu
Tong. However, Lu Pin said that Ge Ge stopped
the film because she worried that her future
spouse might know her prostitute background
from the film. Another version was that Ge
Ge was beaten and locked up by her boyfriend
after he knew she was a sex worker, which I
could not found on the Internet, nor was it
mentioned in “Subalterns, ‘Hypocrisy’ and
Documentary Ethics: on the Controversies
over Wheat Harvest.” In Lu Pin’s video, a
middle-aged woman and last speaker in the
conference said with deep sympathy that if Ge
Ge was your family, you would definitely hope
that the film should be forbidden. The heated
discussion was suddenly stopped by her speech.
Actually, it had to be over because time was up.
The accusation of Xu Tong above was made
because Ge Ge was regarded as the weak. Just
imagine that her privacy was exposed by other
ways than the documentary and she was beat
by her boyfriend after he knew her privacy,
which line would the feminists stand? To
stand with the boyfriend or to criticize his vio-
lence? And those who thought that the family
should not be exposed actually considered sex
workers disgraceful. Therefore, it sounded
rational that sex workers should be beaten
after being exposed. The key problem was
who does harm to Ge Ge if she was a victim.
In fact, when the feminists fought for Ge Ge’s
rights as the weak, they were not aware that
they unconsciously copied the logic of male
chauvinism. However, which power on earth
made Ge Ge and people like her suffer? The
question has not been answered at all! On the
contrary, the documentary is blamed for and
even to be prohibited. How ridiculous it is! In
this sense, it proves rather than denies Professor
Guo’s argument that it is mainly out of mid-
class’ moral clearness. Guo argued if feminists
really wanted to safeguard the legitimacy of
prostitution, why did they stigmatize the direc-
tors as whoremongers? It is obvious that both
the whoremonger and the whore are dirty
names. On the other hand, it was not under-
standable to expose the privacy of the directors
to protect the privacy of sex workers. Even
though the directors were whoremongers, why

did not they go to some places that match their
middle-class status?
Since Wheat Harvest tells stories of prosti-
tutes, an illegal profession in China, the docu-
mentary is thus not allowed to screen
nationwide on a large scale. I learned from Xu
Tong that the film has been shown no more
than five times at home, including the show at
Fudan University. Therefore, it was groundless
to accuse Xu Tong of shooting the film on sen-
sitive topics for fruitful commercial profits.
Besides, there was little possibility for the audi-
ence to meet the characters in the film in real
life if it hadn’t been revolved into a public affair.
After the protests of the feminists, Xu Tong
tried his utmost and reacted quickly to abridge
the film and prevent it from being spread on
the Internet. He also promised to stop public
screening in China. This time I asked special
permission from Xu Tong because the discus-
sion would be impossible if we didn’t watch
the film. And it is required that the taking
photos be not allowed in the conference. The
measures above showed great respects for the
will of feminists.
However, the feminists did not think this
way. On the one hand, they protested that the
privacy of Ge Ge was exposed. On the other
hand, it was the protest in Hong Kong, Taiwan
and the Chinese mainland that attracted the
public focus on Wheat Harvest and a great
number of reports about it, which was regarded
as a sign of success of the feminist protests.
After it was promised that Wheat Harvest
would not be shown in China, the Mask move-
ment went against this original intention by giv-
ing out the leaflets to boycott the film. Wheat
Harvest was shown at the Chinese Documen-
tary Festival founded by Hong Kong indepen-
dent documentary director Zhang Hong in
Hong Kong in 2009. The festival did not give
any money to the winner. Those who knew
the truth of the development of Hong Kong
documentary really understood the tough con-
dition of Hong Kong documentary in the com-
mercial environment. Zhang Hong pitied that
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 303
Hong Kong was a city without documentary
(see Wang 2012). Zhang Hong sold her house
property to shoot documentary films for fulfill-
ing her “little idealism” (see “Interview with
Director” 2013). I had been to her studio, Vis-
ible Record Film Studio, run by a director and
a photographer together with some volunteers.
The studio was just a narrow and shabby
room led by long and dim stairs outside. To
maintain the operation of the studio, they had
to charge for the tickets at the festival. Lu
Pin’s accusation that charging for the tickets
was a kind of business was quite careless
because she did not realize that she hurt not
only Zhang Hong, but also a true feminist. On
8 September 2013, Trilogy of Family Violence
by director Guo Xiaoyun from Taiwan was
shown at the Chinese Documentary Festival,
which was followed by a heated discussion
attended by social workers and women victims
from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao. Lu Pin
criticized that Zhang Hong took the opportu-
nity to hype the festival. It was unfair. Actually,
it was not Zhang Hong but the feminist protes-
ters, including Lu Ping herself, who made
Wheat Harvest a spotlight as they spared no
efforts to boycott the film.
Why is there no feminist Chinese
female director?
One related fact worth mentioning is that Chi-
nese women directors of documentary were
always asked whether there was feminist con-
sciousness in their works. Generally speaking,
they would answer no. Even if there was, it
was admitted quite later. But actually a kind of
“unconscious feminism” perspective is easily
recognized in their works. This perspective
echoes with some theories of feminism, but
also differs from them in other aspects. It is
rather interesting. However, few previous fem-
inist theories have ever touched upon it, nor
have rational explanations been proposed. On
the contrary, the anxiety on the absence of fem-
inism and enlightenment consciousness of
304 L. XINYU
feminism is getting strengthened. Inside the
feminism circle, there were rarely self-examin-
ation and criticism from the opposite
perspective.
A participant of the Fudan conference
deemed that Bing Ai by Feng Yan almost res-
cued the whole meeting, which was disturbed
by the heated disputes over Wheat Harvest.
Bing Ai moved almost all the audience. The
story is about the relationship between land
and traditional Chinese women. Resembled
with the fertile land, women in the story also
feature persistent, enduring and resilient. Bing
Ai’s husband was fragile with illness, so she
took all the heavy farm work by herself. But in
front of the other people, she was fighting to
keep her husband’s face. As a traditional
woman she is, Bing Ai is struggling against
many modern problems for her family based
on traditional family ethics. In a family where
the man failed to be a bread earner, Bing Ai
played the role of a man and endeavored to safe-
guard her family’s integrity. Why does such a
female move us? A female director from urban
area with modern education devoted her
emotion and efforts to this country woman
bearing traditional virtues. In this documentary,
feminism seemed to be hibernated since either
the director or the audience was unwilling to
criticize Bing Ai under feminism. Two plots
intertwine in the story: one was the develop-
ment of Bing Ai’s emotion, the other on her
struggles to protect her family. There was sort
of tension between the two storylines, which
contributed greatly to the forge of a charismatic
woman. In other words, it was the sacrifice of
feminism that helps build up a touching figure.
Similarly, Miao Miao in Wheat Harvest gave all
of her money to her family to pay for her
father’s medical costs. It was exactly typically a
traditional filial daughter who sacrificed herself
to save her father.
When answering questions from the audi-
ences at the Fudan conference, Feng Yan
referred to a four-hour talk between Bing Ai
and her, where they discussed Bing Ai’s
intimate life. Though living with her husband,
Bing Ai never slept with her husband side by
side and barely had intimate touches with her
husband. Feng Yan once took her to hospital
to diagnose whether she had sexual frigidity or
not. The medical report showed that she was
healthy. Although she determined to make her
family harmonious, she did not love her hus-
band at all. She still missed her first love. So,
she asked for Feng Yan’s opinion whether she
should divorce her husband. In Feng Yan’s
mind, Bing Ai still has desire as a woman. She
regretted saying something against Bing Ai’s
husband. She told her that she should devoice
and give up her marriage. What’s more, Feng
Yan told her that her child was old enough
and she needed not worry too much. However,
after a second thought, Bing Ai decided not to
change her life. Hours later, Bing Ai’s husband
came out to take her home. Seeing the husband
at that moment embarrassed the two women.
At the end of the documentary, Bing Ai was
together with her husband by the river like a
gentle and obedient lady, which Feng Yan
thought was to conceal her inner guilty. Later
on, when the document was screened in
Chongqing, Bing Ai was present. One of the
audiences asked her if there were afterlife,
what kind of life she would prefer. Bing Ai
replied that she only wanted to live a life with
love. At the last scene in the documentary,
Bing Ai, sitting on a beach, cleaned a pear
with hand and handed it to her husband. It
was quite unexpected to see such a warm and
touching moment from the story.
Therefore, there was actually a hidden frame
in Bing Ai, a repressed frame of feminism. Once
the frame was unveiled, the narration of the
whole film would collapse. We, the present fem-
inist audiences, however, were all moved by the
repressed frame. What does it imply? Why did
the director and Bing Ai feel guilty when seeing
the husband coming out to meet the wife?
Could we put all of this to women’s lack of sub-
ject consciousness as was often criticized at by
feminism critics? Are we not genuine feminists?

Or are we Chinese feminists not competent to
understand the story like this?
In When the Bough Breaks, there seemed to
be a more dynamic line on feminism, which
was overwhelmed by more complicated lines.
The director did not stand on an overt feminism
position, but adopted a prudent and realistic
attitude.
After watching the documentary at the
Fudan conference, Ji Dan quoted one sentence
from One Hundred Year’s Solitude by Marquez:
“The world was so new that many things still
lacked names, and to mention them, one had
to point with a finger.” “I deem that Chinese
documentaries are just naming some old things
which we consider indifferent and apathetic, or
something we do not know.” Afterward, she
referred to some documentaries including
Bing Ai. She made an important statement on
the modern Chinese documentary and her
way of creating films:
Before naming something, as the moment I
entered a dark house, I just want to see the
darkest side, expelling all my subjective pre-
suppositions, my rationality and my eagerness
to find a solution. All I need to do is look
around with my eyes and listen with my
ears. As for making this documentary, I was
not attempted to reflect social problems, but
deliver the feeling in the dark air to the
audience.
“Feminism” was one of the things expelled.
The leading roles of this documentary are two
twin sisters, who try their utmost to afford col-
lege education for their younger brother. After
the elder sister was raped and disappeared,
they suffered a lot. Once a Chinese American
had planned to support their schooling, but
eventually he refused to support the boy’s edu-
cation since whom he insisted on aiding were
actually the twin sisters rather than the boy. Ji
Dan emphasized:
I witnessed by myself how his words did harm
to the sisters and the brother. He did not
understand the reality of China. I think only
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 305
it is this family itself that knows what it really
needs, but not others including me.
Why is the subsidy based on feminism harmful
to the sisters and the brother? To what extent
can Chinese feminism help those in need?
In the forum of the independent documen-
tary show in Nanjing, we discussed with Ji
Dan on how to understand the patriarchal pro-
blem in When the Bough Breaks. Professor Guo
Lixin, a feminist from Taiwan, particularly
asked Ji Dan:
What do you expect us to reflect on the family
in When the Bough Breaks? […] To be specific,
you said after the screening that the father
from the bottom rung of society was typical,
dominant and bossy but meanwhile he also
cooked breakfast for his children. We could
not see how he expressed his paternal love in
the film. We could only see the absolute auth-
ority and despotism of him. His children and
wife could hardly bear him but they had to
accept it. They were not willing to fight against
him. How could we criticize such absolute
paternity?
The father earned money for the family, but it
could not be the reason for his bossiness. In
front of the lens, to what degree did he act?
If there was no acting, might the absolute
paternity be justified by the documentary?
What did the documentary attempt to convey
us and what is your moral position?
It seemed that Ji Dan did not answer these
questions directly. She said
I was always puzzled by this contradiction,
including the relationship between the photo-
graphed and me. Sometimes, I considered it a
judo match, or even a war. Sometimes, it
looked like a family, a complex marital
relationship. I tried my best not to judge
their life when I made this movie. What we
should face was the documentary itself,
whether it was good or not and whether it
was worth watching. As for the questions
you just mentioned, I thought I could not
give you definite answers as I hoped each indi-
vidual audience could share my time with the
family and have their different feelings and
306 L. XINYU
thoughts after they watched the film. Through
shooting them and establishing relationship
with them, I made this film.
The complexity of this documentary lies in
two aspects. On the one hand, we could see
the subjectivity in the twin sisters since they
had particularly strong wills to struggle with
life. On the other hand, what they wanted
most was to send their younger brother to uni-
versity. It seemed to be a paradox, namely they
expressed their subjectivity by sacrificing it. At
the last scene, while the two sisters held critical
attitude to the paternity, but they rose to safe-
guard paternity when the son had conflict
with father. This kind of paternity in bottom
class was the question raised by this documen-
tary. The father at the bottom of society had
totally lost his way of maintaining his self-con-
fidence and authority as he had failed in life all
the time, so he employed a pathological way to
demonstrate his paternity in the family. He sup-
pressed other members in the family, which he
knew would make others sick and sulky, but to
his surprise others were very cooperative. Actu-
ally, others understood that he was just acting to
defend his paternity. Is this to secure, pity or
overthrow paternity? Different people had
different understandings. This is the reality of
the paternity in China, especially at the bottom
society.
Professor Guo Lixin chaired the discussion
after the show of When the Bough Breaks in
Fudan University. Liu Hong, a prestigious artist
and professor in University of Michigan, said
that she had a great respect for all the characters
in the film and pity for their sufferings,
especially for the father. Professor Guo broke in
I was not satisfied that the paternity in the film
hadn’t been blamed. But now it just occurs to
me that it is unfair to use feminism to judge on
the father. We should extend our gratitude to
the independent documentary directors
because it is they who have offered us an
opportunity of understanding the complex
relationship between feminism and different
kinds of social and political issues in China.
Thus, it is unlikely to separate feminism from
other issues. In the process of great changes in
China, the old social security system collapsed,
so people at the bottom society could only
depend on the blood bond to help each other,
which is a bleak tragedy. Therefore, the femin-
ism based on liberation and freedom of
women is difficult to function in China.
At the Fudan conference, Professor Wang
Zheng and I had a common dream that we
could resume the discussion on “class” and
“socialism” in feminism, which can no longer
be avoided as many problems in both theories
and practices emerge in Chinese feminism. In
western countries, the feminism was in full
swing in 1960s but waned in the twenty-first
century. In recent years, the feminists had
reflected on the relationship between the second
wave of feminism and new liberalism and glo-
balization of capitalism (see Su 2013). In
China, the feminism was developed on the
second wave and the difficulties encountered
were also related to it. Therefore, it is urgent
for Chinese feminism to reflect on the relation-
ship between feminism and Chinese reality and
how to communicate with all kinds of critics. In
the development of feminism in China, female
issue has never been isolated from other social
and political movements. Therefore, Chinese
feminists have to ponder over solutions to the
problems in China through a thorough investi-
gation into the influence of new thoughts of the
second wave on Chinese feminism.
The Chinese independent documentary
directors mingled with people at the bottom
society and were responsible for recording
“original sins” hidden in society. This could be
seen in how to define the nature of sex work.
Some claimed that sex work should be legiti-
mated in China as prostitution was common
and should be endorsed by laws to protect rights
of the prostitutes. However, is it possible to get
rid of the discrimination against sex workers in
the market? No. Many sex workers were bullied
and suppressed, and even raped and trafficked,
which could not be solved by market. Therefore,

legalizing prostitution might not only be mis-
leading, but also cover the real source of
inequality. In other words, legalizing sex work
meanwhile justifies the social source of inequal-
ity. This was the real problem.
At the conference, Marina Svensson, a Swed-
ish scholar, compared Wheat Harvest with
another two foreign documentary films. One
was Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light
Kids (2004) shot in Kolkata, India and honored
the 77th Oscar Award for Best Documentary in
2005 and another Sacrifice (1998), shot in Thai-
land and Burma. When shooting the films, the
directors endeavored to change the life of the
photographed. Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s
Red Light Kids recorded how the director taught
kids shoot, and exhibited and published the
kids’ photography in western countries. The
film gained popularity in western countries,
but was severely criticized by Asian scholars
because they thought the director ignored the
environment the kids lived, had little sympathy
for their parents and did not criticize the pros-
titution and the sexism. They said the director
could only save quite few kids. Actually, the
director himself was denounced as an external
helper. Sacrifice recorded interviews with sex
workers; some were forced to be a prostitute
and even girls below 18. Even though the film
was shot in coordinate with NGO, it was criti-
cized about privacy. Marina Svensson did not
mention a piece of news in February 2009
from The Indian Times and later reported by
many Chinese media that the girl starring the
Born into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids
finally was reduced to a prostitute (see Xu
2009). Preeti Mukherjee, the leading role in
the documentary had become a prostitute in
the largest red light district of Asia while she
was excited to tears in 2005 in Kodak Theater
of Los Angles as she was honored the Oscar
Award. It was unclear why she turned to be a
prostitute, but she had been rescued by police.
The policemen didn’t set Preeti free because
they claimed she had been a part of sex sells
involving many men of influence. Besides,
INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 307
some voluntary sex workers are not to be res-
cued. Therefore, it could be seen that documen-
taries, as a part of social activity, could not be
isolated from power, violence and inequality
in society. The legitimacy of sex work could
not really better the situation since many
females are forced to be prostitutes. All these
problems needed to be discussed critically.
It also reminds us that if Chinese feminism
only focuses on liberating the females from
patriarchy in the family and the country by pla-
cing them in the market, it is likely that one
power is just replaced by another. Therefore, a
simple dichotomy mode of thinking as family/
country vs. market must be discarded because
the feminism issue could not be separated
from the inequality of social structure and the
bottom of male society that is discriminated as
well, as is seen that the story of Tang Xiaoyan
could not be separated from the experience of
Li Baicheng in Fortune Teller. As long as the
darkness of the bottom society is still not
revealed and as long as the inequality of social
structure is not changed, the mission of femin-
ism could not be fulfilled no matter the prosti-
tution is legitimate or not.
New issues increasingly arise in the New
Documentary Movement’s confrontation with
the bottom society and feminism. However, I
regard it as a turning point because it helps us
consider how feminism is related to the reality
in China and how to conduct a simultaneous
development of documentaries and feminism
so as to struggle for a more equal society.
These are the questions not only this uncom-
pleted conference is faced with but also each
of us should think over.
Notes
1. In “Why should we reject Wheat Harvest,” the
author said,
Since the Yunfest Documentary Festival in
2009, the controversial documentary has
been boycotted but come into public view
over and over again. From Yunnan, Hong
308 L. XINYU
Kong, Taiwan, to Fudan University, each
screening was fiercely denounced and pro-
tested; but that didn’t decrease the mania
and passion of the middle class’ academic
interest in the revelation of the privacy of the
lowest rung, which was only for fun. (Ermao
2012)
2. The video briefs at the beginning,
In 2009, a few NGO workers set up an infor-
mal group specifically for boycotting a docu-
mentary Wheat Harvest. They met with a
filmed subject appearing in the documentary
to investigate into the filmmaking process
and the pressure on the filmed subject caused
by the film. The group members have kept fol-
lowing up on this issue. In the International
Conference on Chinese Women and Visual
Representation held in Shanghai, a group
member chanced upon a screening of the
film and registered a strong protest in the
meeting. This is what “I Know What You
Have Done at Fudan University,” a feminist
accusation of visual violence against human
rights, want to tell you.
3. For the video, see http://v.youku.com/v_show/
id_XMzQxMTkyNTg4.html.
4. Jia (2011) said,
As Professor Lu Xinyu in the School of Jour-
nalism at Fudan University suggested, we dis-
cussed the topic of ethics in the 1990s because
we hoped to better protect the filmmakers and
the filmed. However, we now need to reflect
on the way we discuss the ethnics while the
ethnics today turned to be a violence that
strangles the documentary directors and the
films. Many people said that Wheat Harvest
is a good piece but that’s not how it should
be made. But if the film was made in their
way, all people in it would have to be pixelated.
Then the film would not even exist at all. The
ethics thus traps itself and reduces to a rope
that hangs the documentary to death. Such
practice is something that I oppose. We should
respect the director, who voluntarily produced
a documentary like this and assumed the
responsibility and the burden of conscious-
ness. Only on the premise of respect, the docu-
mentaries that represent the bottom society
can truly express themselves. And in front of
such respect, there would be little room left
for the audiences’ moral superiority.
5. For the articles, see http://www.douban.com/
people/4551346/notes.
6. For the article, see http://www.douban.com/
note/42286864/.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Center for Research on Women
of Shanghai University, Nanjing-Brown Joint Pro-
gram in Gender Studies and the Humanities, and
School of Foreign Languages of Shanghai University
for the organization of the international conference
on “New Development of Global Capitalism and
Women’s Movement” in June 2014 and their help
in translating the article into English.
Notes on contributor
Lu Xinyu is professor and dean of the School of
Communication, ECNU (East China Normal Uni-
versity), where she also serves as senior research fel-
low. Her research is focused on the relationship
between visual culture in China, mass media and
the social development. Her many writings include
Documenting China: The New Documentary Move-
ment (Beijing, SDX Joint Publishing Company,
2003), Writing and What It Obscures (Guiling,
Guangxi Normal University Press, 2008), The New
Chinese Documentary Film Movement: For the Public
Record (as two chapters author and co-editor, Hong
Kong University Press, 2010), and Academic, Media
and Publicity (Shanghai, East China Normal Univer-
sity Press, 2015).
References
Ermao 二毛. 2012. “为什么我们要抵制《麦
收》!?” [Why Should We Reject Wheat
Harvest?!] 豆瓣电影 [Douban Movie], January
1. http://movie.douban.com/subject/3314878/
discussion/43520437/.
“Interview with Director of Hong Kong Independent
Documentary Films Zhang Hong: Idealism in
‘Direct Cinema.’” [专访香港独立纪录片导演张
虹心存小小理想主义的“直接电影.”] 2013.
ChinaLuxus.com, January 30. http://art.
chinaluxus.com/Atn/20130130/263584.html.
Jia, Kai 贾恺. 2011. “‘方法的焦虑：当代中国纪录
片的困顿与出路’: 研讨会综述.” [Overview of
Conference on “Anxiety of Methods: Challenges
and Solutions to Contemporary Chinese
Documentary.”] 电影艺术 [Film Art] 2: 158–159.
 INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 309

Su, Hongjun 苏红军. 2013. “危险的私通：反思美 Special terms

国第二波女权主义与新自由主义全球资本主
义的关系.” [Dangerous Collusion: Reflection on Ziteng 紫藤
the Relationship Between Second-Wave Wuyelan 午夜蓝
Feminism in the U.S. and Neoliberal Global Zizhibalou 自治八楼
Capitalism.] 妇女研究丛刊 [Journal of Periwinkle (Ririchun) 日日春
Women’s Study] 3: 5–14. Gaobeidian 高碑店
Wang, Jiannan 王建南, ed. 2011. “徐童：回到生活 One-Way Street Bookshop 单向街
的第一现场” [Xu Tong: Getting Back to the Real Wheat Harvest 麦收
Life.] 新浪微博 [Sina Weibo], November 10. When the Bough Breaks 危巢
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4735d3430100vb4n. Bing Ai 秉爱
html. Fortune Teller 算命
Wang, Xiaolu 王小鲁. 2012. “没有纪录片的城市” Shattered 老唐头
[A City Without Documentary Films.] 法治周末 Xu Tong 徐童
[Legal Weekly], July 18. http://www.legalweekly. Feng Yan 冯艳
cn/article_show.jsp?f_article_id=5824. Ji Dan 季丹
Women’s Voice. 2012. “底层者, ‘伪善’与纪录片伦 Lu Xinyu 吕新雨
理:麦收争论之例.” [Subalterns, “Hypocrisy” Lu Pin 吕频
and Documentary Ethics: On the Controversies Guo Lixin 郭力昕
over Wheat Harvest.] 女声电子报 [Women’s Tang Xiaoyan 唐小雁
Voice] 108: 1–9. Zhang Hong 张虹
Xu, Simiao 徐思邈. 2009. “奥斯卡最佳纪录片女主 Zhang Xianmin 张献民
角沦为妓女” [Heroine in Oscar documentary You Huizhen 游惠贞
turned prostitute]. World.huanqiu.com, February 25. Wang Zhen 王政
http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2009-02/384607. Guo Xiaoyun 郭笑芸
html. Liu Hong 刘虹
Yi Yuan Community. 2012. “我知道你在复旦干了什 Yi Yuan Community 一元公社
么” [I Know What You Have Done at Fudan Women’s Voice 女权之声
University]. Video. 优酷 [Youku], January 1. http:// Visible Record Film Studio 采风电影
v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzM4NzU5Mzc2.html.