A middle-aged delivery rider stumbles into a Shanghai nightclub. He is bleeding, limping, and suffering from concussion, but he only has one thing on his mind. He scans the crowd, desperately searching for his customer.

Finally, a young man gestures him over. The rider hands over a bag filled with barbecue skewers, then raises his arms in triumph. Tears of joy mingle with the dirt and blood on his cheeks.

This is one of several controversial moments in “Upstream,” a new drama about life inside China’s gig economy that has sharply divided the country’s moviegoers.

Created by Shanghainese star actor and director Xu Zheng, best known for his comedy roles, the film has aroused widespread discussion by offering a portrayal of the economic insecurity many are experiencing as China slowly recovers from the pandemic.

In the film, the middle-aged protagonist Gao Zhilei — played by Xu — suffers a string of disasters: losing his job as a programmer, seeing his savings wiped out by a peer-to-peer lending crash, and facing crippling medical bills after his father falls ill.

Unable to find a new tech role, Gao starts delivering takeout in a desperate bid to meet his mortgage payments. But gig work proves to be a harsh world, with drivers forced to work 14-hour days and take life-threatening risks on the road to earn a decent income.

It’s a story that many in China can relate to in 2024, as many turn to gig work to make ends meet. Several viewers have praised “Upstream” for tackling such a potentially sensitive issue, helping the film earn an average rating of 6.8 on the review platform Douban.

But others have slammed Xu for not being even bolder. For its critics, the movie ultimately shies away from directly confronting the systemic issues it identifies in the gig economy, such as the riders’ lack of labor protections.

Instead, the final act shows Xu triumphing over adversity through sheer hard work — a feel-good denouement that many viewers have ridiculed as jitang, or “chicken soup for the soul.”

Days after the film’s Aug. 9 release, the debate about “Upstream” continues to rage on Chinese social media. Hashtags related to the movie have racked up over 1.4 billion views on the microblogging platform Weibo, with the discussions often spilling over into wider arguments about class and representation in Chinese film.

Uphill battle

The controversy over “Upstream” began to swirl weeks before the movie even came out.

Expectations for the film were initially high. In recent years, Xu has shown himself to be a rare figure in China’s film industry: a celebrity who is willing to explore hot-button social issues in his work.

To most viewers, he is mainly known for starring in and co-producing the 2018 smash hit “Dying to Survive” — a drama about Chinese cancer patients’ struggle to access affordable medication that was widely credited with pushing the government to reform its drug policies.

With China’s food delivery platforms employing millions of people but notorious for its harsh labor conditions, the gig economy looked like fertile ground for Xu.

Riders often have to deliver orders to brutally tight deadlines, with platforms imposing fines for delays. In 2017, a report estimated that in Shanghai alone, a delivery rider is killed or seriously injured in a road accident once every 2.5 days on average.

But public opinion began to turn against “Upstream” as soon as promotion for the movie began. In the poster, Xu and his co-stars — dressed in bright-yellow uniforms similar to those worn by riders for the Chinese tech platform Meituan — stand grinning outside a delivery depot as real gig workers stream in and out of the building behind them.

The image left a damning impression: that the actors weren’t taking the project seriously. On social media, a narrative began to take hold that the filmmakers were exploiting gig workers for profit rather than standing up for them.

“The rich film the poor, then get the poor to pay to watch,” one Douban user quipped.

That accusation has cast a long shadow over “Upstream” ever since. One reviewer commented that they had “never seen a film attract so much online attention before its release.” The movie’s critics appeared to have begun “sharpening their knives” weeks ago, they added.

Riding into trouble

The mood changed slightly after “Upstream” finally hit theaters. Many viewers said they were glad to see a film try to reflect current social realities, and some even said Xu had done well in presenting the challenges faced by gig workers. One critic hailed the movie as “very advanced in terms of both ideas and technique.”

“Upstream” certainly covers plenty of ground. After Gao signs up as a delivery rider, we see him grapple with rude customers, ultra-tight delivery times, and the fierce competition among riders to secure orders. The physical danger gig workers face on a daily basis is vividly captured in several scenes. 

But the movie’s ending sparked an avalanche of criticism, with many viewers pointing out that it undercut earlier scenes highlighting the problems in the industry.

In its second act, “Upstream” explores how competition among gig workers damages all their interests. Several riders ask the team’s top performer, Big Black, to drive slower, as the platform will use his ultra-quick driving as a benchmark for delivery times.

“I can’t make those times without running red lights,” one rider says. But as the action continues, this exchange appears to be forgotten. Gao throws himself into becoming the team’s top rider, while also creating a navigation app incorporating Big Black’s secret shortcuts to help the rest of the team improve their performance.

Gao’s efforts end up paying off. He manages to earn a monthly performance bonus — brushing off a serious car accident to make the winning delivery — allowing him to make a crucial mortgage payment. Meanwhile, the company appears impressed by his app, suggesting that the former programmer may be granted a route back to white-collar work.

“Upstream” presents this as a happy ending, but many reviewers have perceived it differently. The platform would surely use Gao’s app to tighten delivery times for all the riders, just as they had feared. Gao had seemingly sold his colleagues down the river to secure his escape.

“I believe that any sane person who saw this scenario play out would be disgusted,” read one highly upvoted review on Douban.

On social media, some took the jarring finale as another sign that “Upstream” wasn’t truly on the side of gig workers — leading to another round of accusations that Xu was exploiting the suffering of the working class for profit.

However, others were more understanding, arguing that Xu likely felt he needed to end the movie on a positive note. 

In an effort to calm the outrage, Xu responded directly to criticism of “Upstream” at a press event on Aug. 14. “I think it’s hard to make a movie because you can’t make a movie that satisfies everyone,” the director told reporters. “Different audiences will see different details, and different audiences have different expectations.”

Despite the controversy, “Upstream” has continued to enjoy modest success at the box office. The movie ended up taking just over 166 million yuan ($24 million) on its opening weekend, according to data from ticketing platform Maoyan.

That puts it on track to become profitable, though the total is a far cry from the 1.2 billion yuan hit comedy “Successor” — a film about tiger parents who create a rural Chinese, “Truman Show”-esque world to instill a strong work ethic in their child — generated during its debut weekend earlier this summer.

But many Chinese movie fans appear worried about the implications of the growing populist backlash against directors like Xu. While acknowledging that “Upstream” is far from perfect, several commenters argued that it was important for filmmakers to continue trying to document the struggles of ordinary people.

“I don’t understand the current public opinion environment,” read one highly upvoted comment on Douban. “If people stop making films about the working class, then the working class will completely disappear from screens, and this group will become invisible. Would that be better for ordinary people?”

Editor: Apurva.

(Header image: A still from the movie “Upstream.” From Douban)