DAOMA ZEI FILMS. 4 EDITIoN brings Judy'sclassy act" into her show, where Judy is humiliated as tragically realised. Steve, in a humiliating tirade, asserts that Judy has her stooge. One night, Bubbles announces that she has married Jimmy been a silly, stubborn" girl. " The incongruously huge hat that she Harris, a weak heavy-drinking millionaire divorce with whom Judy wears in this scene hides her face until, as Steve embraces her and tells has fallen in love. Consequently, in a scene that has been much her to"go ahead and laugh, it is revealed that she is, in fact, discussed, Judy, overwhelmed with frustration, furiously confronts weeping. Arzner's final irony offers the potential for a critique of the her heckling audience. The standing ovation she receives infuriates traditional boy-gets-girl resolution, and, implicitly, of the classical Bubbles, and they fall into a vicious fight. Judy, unrepentant, is sent to Hollywood text itself. ail,but the next day, Steve Adams, a ballet director who has been pursuing her, pays her bail and summons her to his office. He intends -Samantha Cook to train her to be a professional ballerina and, it is implied, his wife. Arzner's portrayal of the complex relationship between the two women is one or the ways in wnicn the apparent opposition set up DAOMA ZEL ing exploitation) is undermined. The ways in which each womans dance numbers are presented subvert the stereotypes of a sexual (Horse Thief Bubbles and an artistic Judy. For example, when Judy dances at the ight-club, Fitch, Steve's associate, comments in surprise at her China, 1986 impressive (i.e, artistic) footwork. Steve, however, leers that"her eyes aren't bad either. Arzner pinpoints with terrible clarity the Director: Tian Zhuangzhuang tension between a woman s struggle for integrity and a male gaze that by its very nature undermines that struggle. Where, then, does this Production: Xi' an Film Studio; Eastmancolour, Scope, 35mm;run- leave Bubbles? When she dances at the burlesque, the ironies of her ning time: 96 minutes. Filmed in Tibet. Distributed in the United performances are a real delight for the cinema audience. When she States by China Film Import and Export alls and points to her audience she is challenging them, from within the licensed confines of burlesque conventions, in a way that parallels Executive producer: Wu Tianming: screenplay: Zhang Rui; pho- judy' s later outburst. Both women challenge, from the stage, the men tography: Hou Yong, Zhao Fei; assistant director: Pan Peicheng who watch them, and thereby resist their passive status. So while we production manager: Li Changqing; editor: Li Jingzhong; art are invited to gaze upon Bubbles as a non-artistic spectacle, she is also director: Huo Jianqi; lighting: Yao Zhuoxi; music: Qu Xiaosong knowing, controlling, with a voice of her own. It is the sheer power of this"voice, ' Bubbles's potent screen presence, that subverts her Cast: Tseshang Rigzin(Norbu); Dan Jiji(Dolma); Jayang Jamco plied position as less worthy than judy. (Tashi); Gaoba(Nowre): Daiba( Granny); Drashi (Grandfather) Much of the critical attention paid to Judys furious speech has suggested that the artistic and moral m of the lecherous gaze of the burlesque audience also functions as a not-so-veiled attack on the Publications cinema audience. However. the film has much invested in drawing in its audience to enjoy the display of s bodies, and this impulse Book arguably triumphs over the conflicting impulse to alienate the audi- ence,or to chastise it for its voyeurism. Judys gesture is thus defused Berry, Chris, Perspectives on Chinese Cinema, London, 1991 by being applauded, and leading into the titillating catfight. But the rony is that she has found a voice and can defiantly assert, " I'm not Articles ashamed. not within the structures of the ballet but in those of the Variety(New York), 2 September 1987. As in Arzner's earlier work. and within the conventions of the Combs, R, Monthly Film Bulletin(London), September 1987 women's film, it is the scenes featuring women that are the most Stanbrook, A, "Sky-burial, 'in Sight and Sound(London), striking and subtle, and in contrast, the heterosexual romance appears Autumn 1987 hollow. Although a weak love-story element runs through the film, Bourgignon, T, ""Documentaire magique, ' in Positif(Paris),Decem- the women,'s desires are channelled less towards coupledom than ber 1991 nmy, Judy wishes on a star that she Cheng, Scarlet, ""Directors: A Rebels Cause, Asiaweek, February might become a dancer too. She wants it all, romance and artistic 16,199 integrity, and the latter is never submerged in the former. Bubbles, or Sklar, Robert, ""People and Politics, Simple and Direct, in Cineaste the other hand, desires economic rather than artistic independence (New York), vol 20, no 4, 1994 Both her dancing and her sexual desires are grounded in a cynicism Gladney, D. C," Tian Zhuangzhuang, the 5th Generation, and minori- about heterosexual relationships that affords her one of the films ties in Film in China. in Public Culture, vol 8, no 1, 1995. finest throwaway lines, describing the burlesque owner as"a great Buchet, J M, "Le voleur de chevaux, "in Les Cine-Fiches de gran big capitalist in the artificial limbs business. Angle, May 199 However, the position of strong female protagonists in a Holly wood text is a precarious one, and it is in the final scene that this isDAOMA ZEI FILMS, 4th EDITION 290 brings Judy’s ‘‘classy act’’ into her show, where Judy is humiliated as her stooge. One night, Bubbles announces that she has married Jimmy Harris, a weak heavy-drinking millionaire divorcé with whom Judy has fallen in love. Consequently, in a scene that has been much discussed, Judy, overwhelmed with frustration, furiously confronts her heckling audience. The standing ovation she receives infuriates Bubbles, and they fall into a vicious fight. Judy, unrepentant, is sent to jail, but the next day, Steve Adams, a ballet director who has been pursuing her, pays her bail and summons her to his office. He intends to train her to be a professional ballerina and, it is implied, his wife. Arzner’s portrayal of the complex relationship between the two women is one of the ways in which the apparent opposition set up between art (offering ‘‘self-expression’’) and entertainment (impos￾ing exploitation) is undermined. The ways in which each woman’s dance numbers are presented subvert the stereotypes of a sexual Bubbles and an artistic Judy. For example, when Judy dances at the night-club, Fitch, Steve’s associate, comments in surprise at her impressive (i.e., artistic) footwork. Steve, however, leers that ‘‘her eyes aren’t bad either.’’ Arzner pinpoints with terrible clarity the tension between a woman’s struggle for integrity and a male gaze that by its very nature undermines that struggle. Where, then, does this leave Bubbles? When she dances at the burlesque, the ironies of her performances are a real delight for the cinema audience. When she calls and points to her audience she is challenging them, from within the licensed confines of burlesque conventions, in a way that parallels Judy’s later outburst. Both women challenge, from the stage, the men who watch them, and thereby resist their passive status. So while we are invited to gaze upon Bubbles as a non-artistic spectacle, she is also knowing, controlling, with a voice of her own. It is the sheer power of this ‘‘voice,’’ Bubbles’s potent screen presence, that subverts her implied position as less worthy than Judy. Much of the critical attention paid to Judy’s furious speech has suggested that the artistic and moral criticism of the lecherous gaze of the burlesque audience also functions as a not-so-veiled attack on the cinema audience. However, the film has much invested in drawing in its audience to enjoy the display of women’s bodies, and this impulse arguably triumphs over the conflicting impulse to alienate the audi￾ence, or to chastise it for its voyeurism. Judy’s gesture is thus defused by being applauded, and leading into the titillating catfight. But the irony is that she has found a voice and can defiantly assert, ‘‘I’m not ashamed,’’ not within the structures of the ballet, but in those of the burlesque. As in Arzner’s earlier work, and within the conventions of the women’s film, it is the scenes featuring women that are the most striking and subtle, and in contrast, the heterosexual romance appears hollow. Although a weak love-story element runs through the film, the women’s desires are channelled less towards coupledom than independence. After a date with Jimmy, Judy wishes on a star that she might become a dancer too. She wants it all, romance and artistic integrity, and the latter is never submerged in the former. Bubbles, on the other hand, desires economic rather than artistic independence. Both her dancing and her sexual desires are grounded in a cynicism about heterosexual relationships that affords her one of the film’s finest throwaway lines, describing the burlesque owner as ‘‘a great big capitalist in the artificial limbs business.’’ However, the position of strong female protagonists in a Holly￾wood text is a precarious one, and it is in the final scene that this is tragically realised. Steve, in a humiliating tirade, asserts that Judy has been a silly, stubborn ‘‘girl.’’ The incongruously huge hat that she wears in this scene hides her face until, as Steve embraces her and tells her to ‘‘go ahead and laugh,’’ it is revealed that she is, in fact, weeping. Arzner’s final irony offers the potential for a critique of the traditional boy-gets-girl resolution, and, implicitly, of the classical Hollywood text itself. —Samantha Cook DAOMA ZEI (Horse Thief) China, 1986 Director: Tian Zhuangzhuang Production: Xi’an Film Studio; Eastmancolour, Scope, 35mm; run￾ning time: 96 minutes. Filmed in Tibet. Distributed in the United States by China Film Import and Export. Executive producer: Wu Tianming; screenplay: Zhang Rui; pho￾tography: Hou Yong, Zhao Fei; assistant director: Pan Peicheng; production manager: Li Changqing; editor: Li Jingzhong; art director: Huo Jianqi; lighting: Yao Zhuoxi; music: Qu Xiaosong. Cast: Tseshang Rigzin (Norbu); Dan Jiji (Dolma); Jayang Jamco (Tashi); Gaoba (Nowre); Daiba (Granny); Drashi (Grandfather). Publications Book: Berry, Chris, Perspectives on Chinese Cinema, London, 1991. Articles: Variety (New York), 2 September 1987. Combs, R., Monthly Film Bulletin (London), September 1987. Stanbrook, A., ‘‘Sky-burial,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1987. Bourgignon, T., ‘‘Documentaire magique,’’ in Positif (Paris), Decem￾ber 1991. Cheng, Scarlet, ‘‘Directors: A Rebel’s Cause,’’ Asiaweek, February 16, 1994. Sklar, Robert, ‘‘People and Politics, Simple and Direct,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 20, no. 4, 1994. Gladney, D.C., ‘‘Tian Zhuangzhuang, the 5th Generation, and Minori￾ties in Film in China,’’ in Public Culture, vol. 8, no. 1, 1995. Buchet, J.-M., ‘‘Le voleur de chevaux,’’ in Les Cine-Fiches de Grand Angle, May 1997. ***