What Hong Kong cinema can take away from a popular Chinese war film

In late August, the author took their parents to see a popular Chinese war film, Once Upon a Time in the Middle East. The film, centered around an unnamed conflict reminiscent of the US-led Iraq war, has been a commercial success, projected to generate 2.5 billion yuan (US$372.5 million) through word of mouth. Its release in Hong Kong and internationally will spark discussions about Chinese commercial films entering narratives typically associated with American power and war.

The film's impact goes beyond geopolitics and historical responsibility, offering the author's parents a more personal connection to the conflicts they had previously only encountered through television news. This experience has prompted the author to question why some films can reach global audiences while others remain confined by their origins.

The author reflects on the decline of Hong Kong cinema, attributing it to co-productions, filmmakers chasing mainland money, and the pursuit of local authenticity. While these factors may explain the struggles of some films, they do not fully account for the success of others, such as Once Upon a Time in the Middle East. The author argues that local identity is not an industrial policy and that treating it as such conflates an industry issue with an identity problem.

Historically, Hong Kong cinema has been a significant player in the Southeast Asian Chinese-language market, with studios like Shaw Brothers financing and distributing films across the region. However, geopolitical shifts and language preferences have fragmented this market, making it challenging for Hong Kong films to maintain that level of success.

Mainland cinema, on the other hand, operates on a larger domestic scale, faces greater pressure to affirm national identity, and operates under stricter content controls. Despite these challenges, some recent commercial hits have achieved mass audiences in China by setting their stories in foreign settings. This strategy not only evades censorship but also loosens the assumption that a Chinese film must have a geographically Chinese setting.

The author cites examples of successful films like A Better Tomorrow, which is unmistakably a Hong Kong film but was filmed in sound stages rather than Hong Kong streets. This approach has allowed Hong Kong filmmakers to create a commercial language that transcends geographical boundaries.

The author draws a parallel between Hong Kong cinema and the Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Chow Yun-fat eras, where Hong Kong films gained international recognition without relying on local landmarks or language as proof of their identity. They argue that Hong Kong cinema should embrace this pattern, recognizing that its films have been shaped by Cantonese and English, Shanghainese capital and talent, as well as Southeast Asian audiences.

The key is to allow the authenticity to emerge from the story itself, rather than demanding it from the filmmakers. The least authentic thing Hong Kong cinema can do now is to insist on authenticity as a prerequisite for viewers to engage with the narrative.