Case Study: Hiding Under the dome
By many measures, China is a progressive nation. But as consumer-friendly and market-oriented as it may be, its government at times represses dissent and restricts dialogue.
In 2015, filmmaker Chai Jing made Under the Dome, a documentary film about China’s stifling air pollution. She was reportedly inspired to make the film when her unborn daughter developed a tumor in the womb, which had to be removed soon after her birth. Chai blamed the tumor on China’s stifling air pollution.
Under the Dome’s impact in the country stirred conversations about environmental protection on social media. Foreign media hailed the film as a breakthrough for its impact on citizens and the reaction it stimulated in the Chinese government.
Despite the fact the film openly criticized the state-owned industries and the inability of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to act against big polluters, the government gave the documentary a “vote of confidence.”
Then, two days after praising Under the Dome, the Chinese government changed its mind and disallowed further distribution of the film. At the same time, the Chinese government reinforced its environmental concerns and set specific goals for reducing vehicle and plant emissions.
Even though Under the Dome was stopped, the film’s message was heard and responded to by the Chinese people and their government.
1- Why do you think the Chinese government immediately endorsed Chai Jing’s film?
2- Why do you think the government reneged on its endorsement?
3- How would you assess the success or the failure in a public relation scenes, of under the dome?