Summary of the Core Content
"Niulai" is a low-quality animated film that took five years to complete, created by director Xin Yumeng and her mother Sun Lifang with all their efforts. Initially, its box office performance was dismal, but it unexpectedly became popular due to the "huge gap between the creative intent and the actual outcome"—they wanted to make an animated family-friendly movie, yet technical issues made it fail on every level. Audiences stopped focusing on how bad it was and instead treated it as a cultural event to engage with (for example, there were more screenings in midnight sessions, and people recorded the film as a form of ritual). At the same time, it sparked deeper questions about film censorship systems, cultural subsidies, market rules, and rumors such as "subsidy fraud" and "forced withdrawal from theaters," reflecting public concerns about the transparency of cultural resource allocation and market autonomy. This "unconventional bad work" has become a test of how much trust people have in these systems.
1. Why does the "badness" of "Niulai" make people want to watch it?
Ordinary bad movies (like "Chasing Dreams in the Entertainment Industry") are examples of industrial failures—professional teams produce them, but they still turn out poorly. However, the "badness" of "Niulai" is a result of sincere effort: the mother and daughter had no external investment or professional team, and despite their attempts to make a decent family-friendly animation, they failed even in basic aspects like making the cows look like cows and the characters move properly. This transparency of failure has become an attraction; audiences can see their perseverance and limitations, which is both amusing and sympathetic. Additionally, since people have treated it as a sort of cult-like experience (similar to the spoon-throwing scene in "The Room"), its status has shifted from "too bad to watch" to "so bad it must be seen."
2. Why do people wonder if it could have been released in theaters? (Misunderstandings about censorship)
Many think that getting a film approval means it's of high quality, but that's not the case. Censorship involves two steps:
- Content review: checking for illegal content (violence, sensitive topics); if it's legal, it passes.
- Technical review: ensuring the film can be properly shown (image, sound, subtitles meet standards); the quality of the animation or the story is not considered.
The approval is just a "ticket to enter" the theater, not a guarantee of quality. For example, American movie ratings (PG-13, R) don't reflect quality but only age restrictions. "Niulai" was released in theaters because it met the technical requirements, not because of its quality—this is a common misunderstanding among audiences.
3. Behind the two rumors lies public anxiety about the system
- Rumor of subsidy fraud: People see that the film doesn't make commercial sense (no one would invest in such a rough production), and their first thought is that it's trying to exploit cultural subsidies, reflecting distrust in how cultural funds are allocated. The rules are unclear, and the flow of money is invisible, so any work that seems outside the market framework is labeled as potentially fraudulent.
- Rumor of forced withdrawal: When "Niulai" became popular, there were concerns it might be taken off theaters by non-market forces. This stems from the chaotic summer film schedule and public skepticism about whether the market truly has the final say. These rumors are not true, but they reveal deep-seated concerns about the transparency of the system and market autonomy.
4. Why did recording the film become a "reasonable action" in this case?
Normally, recording films is seen as disrespectful, but for "Niulai," it became a necessary measure:
- Ritual significance: Like the costume-changing interactions in "The Rocky Horror Show," recording was a way to show participation in the cultural event; it proved that viewers understood how to engage with it.
- Preservation of evidence: There was concern that the film might disappear (e.g., not be available on streaming platforms after withdrawal), so recording served both to preserve the film and the memory of the experience.
- Social sharing: The recordings could be shared on social media, spreading awareness of the film and contributing to its cult status.
This "rule-breaking" behavior was justified because audiences viewed "Niulai" as a collective cultural experiment.
5. What does "Niulai" actually test?
The film serves as a mirror, reflecting public attitudes towards three issues:
- Trust in the market: The fact that "Niulai" was initially rejected by the market but later revived due to audience demand shows that people want the market to decide the fate of works.
- Trust in the system: The emergence of rumors indicates doubts about the transparency and fairness of censorship and subsidy systems.
- Trust in creators: Some believe in the mother and daughter's dedication, while others suspect fraud, reflecting uncertainty about whether grassroots creations are treated fairly.
In the end, the success of "Niulai" is not an example of inferior works displacing better ones; it's a surprising social observation. When a work breaks with convention, people use their own experiences and concerns to interpret it in different ways—this is what makes it so interesting.