A Personal Rant:
Chow Yun-Fat and the Hong Kong Film Industry
I'm very sorry indeed to hear that CYF isn't planning to make any more HK films any time soon ... but I'm beginning to be a bit baffled by the commentary. Hysterical headlines from the HK press are nothing new, but when a venerable and revered source like Wolverine himself gets miffed at CYF for personally dooming the industry (see the Top Ten report for July 8th), something is amiss. Do people really think that CYF has a personal responsibility for the film industry in Hong Kong?
Apparently so. But what, exactly, is their logic?
Let's start with defining the problem. (A) The HK box office has sunk lately (B) to the point that many American films have overtaken HK films. (C) Some would say, the critical quality of most commercial films has fallen and (D) the commercial viability of arthouse films has shrunk too.
Is it true? Well, nobody would dispute (A). Box Office receipts have fallen relatively steadily. Likewise, (B) is pretty clear. Relative to HK films, American films do much better at the box office than they used to.
[A digression: as a Canadian, I find it irritating when people fail to realise how unique HK's situation is. In very few film industries -- indeed, perhaps only in HK and India -- is the American dominance of the box office a topic of discussion. Even in strong cultures, like France and Germany, American predominance is taken for granted, while here in Canada we rarely see our films even *make the top 10, let alone dominate it (all hail Atom Egoyan!). Even in the worst case scene, therefore, that the top spot on HK film charts belongs to America hereafter, people should have respect for the fact that HK films compete. At least there IS a vibrant HK domestic film industry.]
(C,D) But aside from money, what about the quality of the films? Some people would say that most of the 1990s HK movies haven't compared to the 1980s films. I just don't agree ... And I think it would be very difficult to make that case. Admittedly, I'm not an officially accredited critic of HK film, but I thought THE ODD ONE DIES (which I saw this year at Fantasia) was hysterically funny and deeply compelling, and deserved its commercial as well as critical success. Or what about HAPPY TOGETHER? I don't really think that the ratio of dreck: good stuff has changed, over the last ten years, and to me it seems that the good stuff is as good as ever.
What about the argument that while the 1980s contained many critically-acclaimed movies, that seemed to break new cinematographic ground while simultaneously succeeding at the box office (like A BETTER TOMORROW (first at the box office in 1986), or PRISON ON FIRE (2nd in 1987), or ALL ABOUT AH-LONG (4th in 1989) the 1990s have seen a split into the critic's picks (box office mediocre) and the popular successes (critically dreadful)? That's more plausible, it seems to me.
Casting my mind back to try and generate a list of box office hits that were also critically successful, I find myself hindered by my ignorance of the HK box office lately. But MovieWorldHK provides a truly stunning box office site. So.... recent critical success from HK have been HAPPY TOGETHER (which finished 42nd in the 1997 box office), MADE IN HONG KONG (133rd), FULL ALERT (26th), LIFELIFE (11th -- the most commercially successful arthouse movie in 1997). Meanwhile, the top Hong Kong box office hits of 1997 were MR. NICE GUY, GOD OF COOKERY, and ALL'S WELL ENDS WELL 1997.
So here's my formulation of the problem: 1. The Box Office of HK films has fallen, in absolute terms. 2. The relative position of HK films and American films has changed in favour of American films. 3. The commercial success of critically-acclaimed films has declined (or, putting it another way, there are fewer critically acclaimed commercially-successful films). To the extent that it's true, what are the causes? To no-one's surprise, I don't have all the answers. But let's look at the idea that CYF leaving HK was a problem, and that his return is a possible solution.
The only plausible reason to say that CYF could 'save' the industry is by saying that he could bring into theatres an audience that is currently staying home. That would address point 1, and possibly point 2. Then if we argued that CYF would bring credibility and class to otherwise banal commercial movies, and box office weight to arthouse movies, we would address point 3 also.
Tempting though it is, for me as a Chow fan, to ascribe the putative decline in HK film solely to Chow Yun-Fat's absence, I am dubious about the logic of this association.
The strongest reason to question CYF's status as God of HK film is simply the question of age. 'New generation' actors, directors, and audiences are 15-20 years younger than CYF, or so it seems to me. CYF is only 43, but none of the new-style film is either aimed at or acted by that age group. Tony Leung C-W and Leslie Cheung (my picks for best remaining old guard actors) are constantly cast as 20-somethings. Jordan Chan, Lau C-W, Francis Ng (my faves of the next gen) likewise. I would back CYF in terms of acting caliber against those folks, but I don't think he looks like a 20-year-old, anymore. Meanwhile, the average age of the bright young fluff is in the 16-20 range, it seems to me -- when Dior Cheng is replaced in a Y&D movie with a younger actor, you know that HK film audiences are pretty damn pubescent.
So ... what kind of part is CYF going to get if he goes back to HK? Has anyone actually spotted any movies centering around adults, lately? What kind of space is there in the recent wave of HK movies for middle aged people? Is anybody making anything aimed at that group, at all?
Of course it's clear that there are plenty of remake ideas kicking around, and there's plenty of younger-generation appeal there. God of Gamblers 3 ? I admit, it might be a box office hit -- but I don't think even that should be taken for granted. It's been 3 years since Peace Hotel -- a modest success, only -- and 4 since GoGR. If TRK is anything to go by, mere remakes of CYF's earlier triumphs have lost their appeal in HK. And is it at all likely that four or five new CYF remakes would add anything to the quality of HK film? Anyways, even the 1990s copies of CYF's films now star younger or younger-looking actors. Think of the recent Shanghai Grand remake, or GoG3: The Early Years.
And on a different note, it's clear that CYF has lost his taste for HK recycling. His interviews, you know, have been the same for several years now. He wants to act in Hollywood -- it was a childhood dream, and he wants to achieve it, according to his interviews. He's signed on now for films in Hollywood until next year.
And if and when he does come back to HK, he really, really wants to do dramatic roles. He wants to do complex roles -- roles like Randle McMurphy, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. When he *was still talking about films in HK and China, it was Wong Kar-Wai and Zhang Yimou he wanted to work with, not Wong Jing. In a best-case scene, someone in HK will script a really gut-wrenching part for CYF, CYF will get to stretch his acting talent, and older audiences will come back to the theatre to watch him do so, causing a revival of the HK box office. It seems possible to me, but not plausible.
I'm a serious fan, I'd be the last to argue that CYF is not a God of Actors. I think that CYF brings a star caliber to any film he acts in, and that if he does make more HK films he'll bring charisma and talent to those movies. But CYF is not the answer to HK's box office woes. A brilliant movie is made out of the fit between a director, the actors, and the audience, it seems to me.
Isn't it likely that the fit has changed?