IT'S an occasion for dancing in the streets. The popularity of the Internet parody, entitled A Murder Sparked by a Chinese Bun, is not just a victory of grassroots wisdom over a film guru's mediocrity.

 

It's the hallmark of a new era in China, when small potatoes are free to satire public figures in a way that's short of actual malice.

 

The 20-minute downloadable film has raised the hackles of film director Chen Kaige, because it mocks his new film, The Promise, in a humorous and yet ruthless way. 　　

 

But it has won the hearts of tens of millions of netizens, who share its author's joy in undoing that pompous film. 　　

 

Chen spent 350 million yuan (US$43.2 million) on The Promise, one of the most expensive films ever made in China. Of course he would see it as the apple of his eye. No wonder he has threatened to sue Hu Ge, author of the parody, for so-called "copyright violation." 　　

 

The basic plot of Chen's film is thus: A poor girl suddenly became rich and powerful, but she was doomed to a life without love unless time moved backwards. Then a humble man appeared and was able to run fast enough to beat time and bring her back to love. In the process, the lady's husband was killed and more than one guy fell in love with her. 　　

 

A sideline plot involves a man whose character was forever distorted after the girl cheated him over a bun when he was a boy. The film does have grandiose scenes like those you would see in a modern Hollywood film. But to one who loves plot more than pictures, the film is no doubt a waste of money. 　　

 

Certainly simple plots are easier for foreign audiences to understand if the film is also targeted at the international market. But simple should not be made stupid or tasteless. What moves the audience is true love if love is the theme. What The Promise has produced, however, is a story of shallow or forced affection. 　　

 

The splendid clothes of the characters and the use of computer skills to create marvelous scenes cannot cover the paleness of the plot. 　

 

It's the pale plots that have disappointed many audiences, who have subsequently been thrilled at Hu's caustic mick-take. 　　

 

In his parody, produced on the heels of the film at the end of last year, the rich and powerful lady was twisted to become a fashion model in an entertainment company. The rich lady or at least her "splendid" attire must be so repugnant to Hu that he made her job in his parody to be nothing but "dressing and undressing" all day long. 　　

 

Along with the narrative of her job, you would see a picture of the lady pasted from the original film but specially treated on Hu's own computer so that she appears to be dressing and undressing really quickly. 　　

 

While the bun was not the major element in the original film, Hu sarcastically reduced the whole film to the gratuitous killing over a bun. 　　

 

The Promise is by no means about the killing over a bun. The parody is just making fun in an extreme way. Hu just wants to show the absurdity of the original film and he has achieved just that. 　　

 

There are people who applaud the film, to be sure. For example, actor Pu Cunxi (who has no role in the film) has hailed The Promise as a classic that will be respected worldwide. (Although the fact is that the film has been far less welcome overseas than in some Chinese cities.) 　　

 

People are bound to have different ideas. To sue someone who disagrees with you is too much. Hu's short film and its huge popularity is evidence that tens of millions of people are bored with the The Promise. 　　

 

When Hu used Einstein to write a formula - The Promise equals fastidium multiplied by factor two, wasn't he expressing his ultimate disappointment with the film? 　　

 

To many audiences, Chen spent so much money and time to tell a fastidious story, while Hu spent five days and no money to tell what Chen really has to offer. 　　

 

Who is wiser? 　　

 

No where in the parody was there found seditious libel against Chen. It's just a film review structured as a parody. Now Chen threatens to sue Hu over "copyright" violation. 　　

 

Come on. 　　

 

Yes, the author of the parody has copied some scenes from the original film, but China's Copyright Law allows the proper use of others' works for the purpose of "introducing or commenting on the certain works or an issue." 　　

 

By any standard, A Murder Sparked by a Chinese Bun is an original opinion. It's like any written film review published in a newspaper or magazine. But it has a far stronger effect. 　　

 

Twisting the characters of the original film is a powerful way to express one's own idea, not any form of plagiarism. 　　

 

Even Wang Ziqiang, the spokesman of the National Copyright Administration, did not clearly side with Chen when he commented on the dispute on Wednesday. He would kick the ball to the court if the court would ever hear the case. 　　

 

In fact, Chen's allegation of Hu's violation of copyright isn't really about copyright. It's about Chen's face. He felt the intentional infliction of emotional distress. 　　

 

This is reminiscent of the famous case Hustler Magazine vs Falwell in the United States in 1988. In that case, US Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court held that a public figure offended by an "outrageous" magazine parody could not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without a showing of the actual malice on the part of the parody's author. 　

 

In that case, Hustler had parodied an ad for Campari Liquor entitled Jerry Falwell Talks About His First Time. Hustler's parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their "first times." Although it was clear by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they had sampled Campari, the ads played on the sexual double entendre of "first times." 　

 

Copying the form and layout of those Campari ads, Hustler chose Falwell as a featured celebrity and printed an alleged interview with him in which he states that his "first time" was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.

 

The parody suggested that Falwell was a hypocrite who preached only when he was drunk. This ad contained the disclaimer: Ad parody, not to be taken seriously. 　　

 

In deciding against Falwell, the US Supreme Court said the appeal of the cartoons or caricature is often based on exploration of unfortunate physical traits or embarrassing events - an exploration often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. The art of the cartoonist is often not reasoned or even-handed, but slashing and one-sided. 　　

 

No such case has been heard in a Chinese court yet. The US case is a useful reference. 　　

 

A Murder Sparked by a Chinese Bun also involves a public figure and has a disclaimer saying it's purely fabricated. 　

 

It's also one-sided. 　　

 

Public discourse regarding film or other subjects will be considerably poorer without cartoonists, satirists or parodyist who in good faith are just saying what they think. 　　

 

(Shanghai Daily February 20, 2006)