Status:IN COMPETITIONSpring Fever, or to give it its full untranslated name
Chun Feng Chen Zui De Ye Wan is a massively intriguing prospect and one that will surely ignite the proverbial cultural touch-paper back in China. Filmed in secret, with the ominous threat of a domestic film-making ban hanging over the head of director Lou Ye, it not only portrays homosexuality- still a fierce taboo in China- but it also relies heavily on the kind of sexual imagery that Chinese censors traditionally balk at. The movie is the rather convoluted tale of two sets of destructive relationships: and isnt, as the blurb seems to suggest, just the tale of a woman who hires someone to follow her husband Wang Ping who she suspects of having a homosexual affair, and the spiralling consequences when the man she employs gets involved in that affair. It is rather a more broad-ranging look at a number of relationships, focused not upon the beleaguered wife, as story-telling tradition might reasonably have us presume, but instead upon the rogue element of the relationship, our unlikely protagonist Jiang Cheng (
Qin Hao). The best elements come in the form of the film's aesthetics- the hand-held style which may or may not have been a consequence of the production being secret, works extremely well with the fragmented style (before the chronological leaps become too much) and the general look and feel of the film are impeccable. The manner in which China is depicted- becoming as glum and claustrophobic as the destructive relationships at the film's heart- is impeccable, and the achievement can not be glossed over. My problems with the film are largley with its substance and its occassional preference for style over coherent narrative- I'm all for interesting, subversive style when it doesnt interfere too much and am always quick to herald the arrival of a new stylistic shift, but
Spring Fever doesnt strike a balance. This would perhaps be easier to digest were it not for the luncacy of the plotting which left far more loose ends than is forgiveable, and some unnecessary character introductions, chief among them Luo Haitao's girlfriend and her friend Mr Ming who seem like hugely dispensible figures, and merely add running time to an already overlong feature. Secondly, I have to question the film's moral compass, and what it is really trying to say about homosexuality. While it is obviously a challenging art work, designed to ignite discourse on the subject of China's continued taboo, by presenting supposedly "wrong" relationships, the film is never fully commited to embracing its sexuality. First of all, the manner in which it portrays gay sex is dangerous- largely relying upon imagery presenting it as animalistic expression and violent passion; the post-coital reaction can not be pointed at accusatorily though, as Ye presents both the heterosexual and homosexual post-coital moment as dominated by apathy, shame and even regret. Once again the looming shadow cast by Chinese tradition creeps out, reminding us that sex on screen (especially so explicit) and homosexuality are still shameworthy (at least in China's eyes). The most telling evaluation of the film's embedded idea of homosexuality that I cant ignore is one of deviance- while again it is obvious that the film acts as a mirror to China's own idea of homosexuality as deviant, marked byWang Ping's wife's reactions to her adulterous husband ("
I can understand a girl, but a boy!?"), the animalism of the sex, and the quasi-grotesqueness of the gay club scene, as well as the constant reminder that as a homosexual Jiang Cheng is obviously hugely promiscuous point towards deviance. The depiction relies upon motifs of otherness, which merely reinforce destructive stereotypes and reaffirm taboos- especially when you consider what the movie is trying to say by having a heterosexual man overcome by homosexual desires, all under the banner of a Fever. Whisper it, but I think it is infinitely possible to read here that homosexuality is just a departure from the senses, something to be overcome by pulling oneself together, rather than an inherent persuasion, which is a leap backward for the Gay Rights Movement. Add to this the way the film "resolves" two of the homosexual relationships within it and the feeling is magnified: unlucky Wang Ping kills himself when he is cast aside by Jiang Cheng and sleuth-turned-fornicator Luo Haitao "cures" himself and chooses his girlfriend over his lover (or so the narrative implies). Adding the tagged-on upbeat ending (which itself feels a little misplaced) in which Jiang Cheng lives happily ever after with a cross-dressing workmate from his time as a transvestite singer feels too contrived and unbelievable, and the overall staleness of the ending really sullies the intended effect. But, it cant be ignored that it is precisely this type of movie- deliberately inflammatory in parts and consciously provocative- that inspires debate and dialogue which together are the twin pillars of knowledge to the detriment of ignorance. Perhaps
Spring Fever will help readdress the situation that views homosexuality in a similar way that Hollywood did as long as thirty or forty years ago- unfortunately the style, though beautiful in itself, compromises that objective by making it extremely unlikely that
Spring Fever will find its audience, or that that audience will be of a significant size. As a purely aesthetic piece of work, it is a beautiful thing, but scratch below the surface and
Spring Fever throws up too many issues.