Feeding Boys, Ayaya (2003)

This film is about a young Chinese man in Beijing, who got inspired by a male prostitute to become a male prostitute.This film is bad. I don't normally mind low budgets, but in this film it really hurted me to watch it. The filmmakers did not even have appropriately wide angle lens to film most scenes, so most of the time, we could not even see the characters on the screen properly. Take the music choosing scene for example, the guy who wanted to choose music was at the edge of the screen. Only his face could be shown, not even the ears could be seen.Another big problem is that they often filmed it against bright light, such as against a window of a room. The resultant effect was that only shadows could be seen. The third major problem was that the background music was highly annoying. It consisted of weird sounds, which was totally out of place with the film. A further problem was that the film was inundated with totally irrelevant scenes, such as people playing Tai Chi on a bridge or the traffic on a motorway.This film seemed more like a psychotic experiment. Avoid this film like the Black Death!

The land of the Sleeping Dragon has been given license to make movies. This particular film has made the circuit and has been touted by many as Avante guard. The director Cul Zi en has crafted his film to promote cinematic interest and mounting international concern for one of China's fastest growing problems, male prostitution. The film itself is, by western standards, ill conceived and poorly constructed. Furthermore, it proves an ill woven tapestry of minor characters, spectral images, philosophical dialogs and a tangled message which has viewers wondering, if they are in the wrong theater. Lacing a shadowy musical composer who's role and purpose is never fully explained, with that of an elder brother, who's role is equally sketchy at best is confusing enough. His aim is? To save his younger brother from the brutal streets of Bejing. What little is understood of Cul Zi en's message is clear if one is on medication, but the options of a boy prostitutes in any country is doubtful at best. Sandwiched between overt poverty, harsh imprisonment, armies of religious zealots and the mounting problems of a ambivalent nation, prostitution, like any vice, becomes morally offensive, but a necessary evil. The film, like it's message, is destined for the shelves in the library of humanity.

Zi'en Cui is a young cinematic artist producing provocative films in China, and though this venture is not wholly successful, it does show promise of a young filmmaker of cautious bravery. FEEDING BOYS, AYAYA may not be the film the DVD jacket cover suggests, but is a work that informs us of many of the current changes going on in Communist China.Essentially this is a docudrama of sorts: the idea is to follow the day to day routine of of male prostitutes in Beijing, giving insight as to why youths elect to follow this lifestyle. In order to give a feeling of story to the film, Zi'en Cui (who not only wrote and directed but plays a pivotal role of 'composer') has created a dialogue between two brothers - the older one is a virgin who is complying with the religious concept of forgoing premarital sex with his girlfriend since he is a right wing religious conservative, while the younger brother is planning to embrace the life of male prostitution. The argument for and against chastity and prostitution comprises much of the dialogue: the younger brother wants to feel the needs of the poor lower class boys who enter the city from the provinces to make money in any way they can - 'water always flows downhill'. The older brother refuses to understand why one would defy caste just for money.Out on the streets and parks of the city the hustlers entertain each other and plan for their clients not only paying for services but also supplying wardrobes. Money (read 'capitalism') is of paramount importance. They are all constantly challenged by the bible-thumping brother, warning them that 'the end of the world is at hand', pleading with them to forego their occupation. The brother hands his role of evangelist to his girlfriend to continue his work. Meanwhile his younger brother embraces the life of a hustler and even brings his clients home to his parent's house for business, and despite the fact that his parents disapprove of the nature of his life, they condone the fact that at least he has a job! One gets the feeling from the amount of dialogue that goes untranslated in the subtitles that there is a lot more to the movie than what is here outlined. It would be helpful if someone who spoke the language reviewed the film. To this viewer there are some surprising aspects of the film: coming from Communist China it is amazing that there is so much emphasis on Christianity and Capitalism, on social classes in a country whose premise is total social equality (socialism), and a view of the fashion-driven, money conscious activities of the youth.There are many flaws in FEEDING BOYS, AYAYA (whatever 'ayaya' means): the camera work is pedestrian, the editing is choppy, the flow of the film is confusing, the music borders on ambient noise, the actual life of being a hustler is never truly explored(unlike the cover photo, the only shadow of sexuality is in over-guarded bathroom scenes of boys showering and brushing teeth!), and the messages of the story are so mixed that it takes much work to follow the threads. Yet given these problems, this viewer came away with some better concept of current life in Beijing - at least from the vantage of social studies.Grady Harp

The cover notes on the HK DVD release describe the writer and director of this film, Cui Zi En, as probably China's most independent and daring filmmaker. On the evidence of this work, I have to disagree. You will have to go a long way to find another film that offers so little. An amateur cast delivering stilted dialog and filmed by a hand-held camera, made almost unwatchable by the lack of anything but ambient lighting, plus long, long scenes where nothing happens. In particular, it is this last aspect that highlights the fact that this filmmaker has little to say; there is no justification for having scenes where characters just wonder round a park for 2 or more minutes for no particular reason. This film has a running time of 80 minutes. Watch this and you'll swear that time has stood still. Avoid like the plague.