Summary of the Core Content
"Niulai" is a poorly produced and low-quality animated film that has unexpectedly become a phenomenon-level public event. Despite initial box office failures (only 7,705 yuan in the first 10 days), it has surpassed 40 million yuan in sales within just over 10 days through internet memes, fan groups, and cross-platform sharing. This has sparked a wide-ranging discussion about film censorship standards, audience engagement, artistic aesthetics, and market choices, and it has even caught the attention of international media, becoming a symbol of the Z-generation's passionate film culture.
Analysis of the Phenomenon
1. From "Ignored" to "Online Sensation": The Path to "Niulai's" Success
The success of "Niulai" was entirely due to a series of unconventional strategies:
- Starting Point: Criticism and Memes: After 10 days of release, only 236 people had watched the film, leading to complaints on Bilibili, which sparked discussions among film enthusiasts.
- Promoters: Fan Groups and Meme Creators: Wuhan film enthusiasts organized screenings, and Douban bloggers launched a campaign with the slogan "Drink milk and watch Niulai." Netizens spontaneously created memes (replacing giants in "The Odyssey" with cows, making IMAX posters), and came up with jokes (using the phrase "bull market comes" as a play on words to attract stock investors).
- Theatres' Response: The manager of the Caoyang Cinema in Shanghai saw the discussions and decided to show "Niulai" in the early sessions, which immediately attracted 40 viewers. The number of screenings nationwide increased by 359, with audiences even forming a "cow" shape in their seat selection.
- International Impact: Bloomberg and the BBC reported on the film, and fans in Los Angeles bought tickets remotely. A British curator sought overseas distribution, with some even booking flights to return to China for illegal screenings.
This success was not due to the film's quality but because netizens turned it into a collective social experiment through creative memes.
2. Why Do Audiences Love a "Bad Movie?" A Collective Form of "Reverse Entertainment?"
Audiences watched "Niulai" not for its artistic value but for the joy it provided:
- Breaking Theatre Rules: They took photos, made loud comments, imitated the dialogue ("Mommy—" "Niulai—"), and shouted "Cancel the ticket! Oscar is guaranteed," turning the cinema into a public living room.
- Emotional Release: Vulgar language became a form of applause, and some viewers exclaimed, "So stupid! But so funny!" as a rejection of traditional "高雅" cinema.
- Identity Expression: On Bilibili, buying tickets for "Niulai" became a way to show one's proletarian identity. International student Gigi described it as something only locals would do, turning the act of watching into a cultural ritual.
- Social Currency: People shared videos on platforms like REDnote and WeChat Moments, using the film as a topic to interact with friends.
In essence, people went to watch the film not to appreciate art but to engage in a playful experience.
3. The Gray Area of Censorship: How Did This "Cow" Make It into the Cinema?
The fact that "Niulai" received a release permit (the "Dragon Mark") reveals the ambiguity in film censorship:
- Ideological Priority: The most strict censorship applies to sensitive content (national security, religion, etc.). Since "Niulai" is about a calf's growth, it did not touch on any sensitive topics.
- Artistic Quality: With its diverse animation formats (2D, 3D, experimental), reviewers struggled to define whether its "ugliness" was a form of art. The director stated that the goal was to create a "cute and silly" effect.
- Regional Differences: With fewer long animated films produced in Liaoning each year, the censorship might have been more lenient. One commentator suggested that the film would not have passed in Zhejiang or Guangdong.
- Technical Issues: While national regulations require 5.1-channel sound, reviewers might not have noticed, as "Niulai" likely used 2.1-channel sound to bypass the requirements.
In contrast, independent director Zhang Shuai's three documentary applications were rejected due to the need for a "more mature script," making "Niulai's" approval seem like a surprise, exposing the hypocrisy of censorship standards.
4. The Anxiety of Serious Filmmakers: Does Our Persistence Still Matter?
The success of "Niulai" has left serious filmmakers frustrated:
- Underperforming Art Films: Director Liu Bing's film "Like Happiness" failed at the box office, leading him to admit his own absurdity. Director Cui Jingxuan said his commitment to artistic standards was meaningless and announced he would no longer make films for theaters.
- Public Disinterest: Some criticized Liu Bing for being "arrogant" and "harassing cinema staff," suggesting that without "Niulai," his films would go unnoticed.
- Artists' Reflection: Liu Weiwei called "Niulai" the "best public cultural event of the year" because it made people question, "Why should a film be shown in theaters? What is the logic behind the aesthetic controls?"
This is not about inferior content displacing superior one but about the audience using their power to challenge "elite aesthetics" and rigid censorship.
5. "Niulai" itself: The Complexity Behind Simplicity
Director Xin Yumeng and her mother, Sun Lifang, worked on the film for five years, learning animation on their own and using affordable equipment. Their initial intention was to create a motivational story for parents and children. The simple dialogue ("Shui Yingying, drinking it won't make you sick") was interpreted by netizens in various ways, such as relating it to autism and mother-child relationships.
- An Unexpected Platform: The film's lack of aggression allowed audiences to freely criticize and interpret it, turning it into a reflection on censorship, aesthetics, and culture.
- The Director's Perspective: Xin Yumeng knew the film was not of high quality and didn't expect such a reaction, but the audience's enthusiasm went beyond her expectations.
The "simplicity" of "Niulai" allowed it to reflect a range of complex social emotions.
Conclusion
The success of "Niulai" is not about the film's quality but about a collective dialogue about who has the right to define what constitutes a good film. It serves as a mirror, revealing the ambiguity of censorship, the audience's resistance to traditional norms, the anxiety in the arts community, and the power of internet memes. In the end, this "cow" has not only entered theaters but also influenced people's thoughts on cultural freedom and market choices.