Vulgaria, a locally produced comedy filled with hilarious satire. The focus of this movie is about “how hard it is to be in the movie industry” – behind the glorious surface of the entertainment industry, it is actually very tough.
For some reason and not sure when, swearing is no longer accepted in Hong Kong movies. Since when thugs speak without swearing is beyond me, but this is how ridiculous the censorship in Hong Kong has become – one step closer to China, perhaps.
This movie won a lot of support from the Hong Kongers because characters in this movie seem much more alive and real than many Hong Kong-China joint productions. Hong Kongers can relate themselves and believe that those characters actually exist! It may not be an Oscars grade, according to netizens and commentators, but very real Hong Kong story, a hysterical mocking/reflection of the movie industry and, most importantly, funny.
Hong Kongers think that nothing is wrong for locally produced movies targeting the locals. Many also agree that swearing exists in every corner in the world, and shouldn’t be made a huge fuzz about such – swearing is quite common in movies made by the West. Many audiences said they enjoyed the laughs and find it a unique movie in the current market, which is dominated by well funded movies targeting the China market, meaning censorship (nothing bad about China and there are cases whereby movies have to “change” history to praise China) and not “real” enough.
A Peking (Beijing) young woman wrote a critic piece about this movie, slamming how “vulgar” this movie is (the movie is called “Vularia”). Hong Kongers think that she’s using a very political view on her critic piece instead of approaching it from an art appreciation/critic point of view. Her piece won her the Gold ADC Critic’s Prize (cash award of HK$50,000) – the judge panel was found to be closely connected to the China government and the writer. Bottom of this blog post is an English report for your reference.
Her prize caused massive public discontent in Hong Kong, mainly against her not-art-critic view point on the movie, and fuels Hong Kongers’ worry about China’s propaganda and plan to colonise Hong Kong by penetrating into Hong Kong – legal system (recent prosecution of protesters who joint a rally approved by the government), education (national and moral education), clean government (Chief Executives and many other influential figures in Hong Kong are alleged to be underground Community Party members), the influx of China immigrants, the increasing use of simplified Chinese characters in the public, the use of Putonghua (Mandarin) in school instead of Cantonese (the native language of Hong Kong – for the record, Cantonese is recognised by the UN as a language and over 100 million people in the world are using it) etc. This time, is the arts space and movie industry.
According to some, this kind of penetration programme is a technique the China government has been using in the past 60-plus years since it was established.
The freedoms in Hong Kong, a land with a history of over 170 years, is being eroded ever since the handover of sovereignty back in 1997.
Critique of Critic’s Prize Award
Written by Alice Poon (潘慧嫻)
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
The Hong Kong Arts Development Council’s award of a Gold ADC Critic’s Prize (the first of its kind) to a local journalist Jia Xuanning for her critical essay on the film “Vulgar Comedy” (“低俗喜劇”) has stirred up much controversy. The essay itself is under caustic attack from liberal-minded Hong Kongers.
Here are translated excerpts from another retort article by an InmediaHK writer:-
“I have commented from a cultural viewpoint. Now let me give a critique on the latter half of the essay from a social viewpoint. The essay points out [the Mainland may well act as Hong Kong’s benevolent master, but it has not won Hong Kongers’ heart. On the one hand Hong Kongers bow to the Mainland’s economic prowess, while on the other refuse to let go of their residual sense of superiority on the mental level. This paradoxical mentality is like the psychological struggle of the film’s character played by Du: he shows an obsequious smiling face, while at heart he feels he’s being raped; they feel alienated from the mainlanders’s ‘inferiority’, yet they are being naturalized and glossed over. In the face of the Mainland, Hong Kong senses a loss of self-esteem and a collapse of the last line of defense with no power to retaliate, and in the end the already sickly relationship between the two places will only exacerbate.] (I’ve quoted this from the original essay, to avoid being accused of taking remarks out of context.) Jia’s essay smacks of imperialist mentality, full of condescension, insinuating that Hong Kongers are subservient to money, that being rich is almighty (as implied by ‘benevolent master’). Yet, Jia does not have a clear perception of reality. To say that Hong Kongers are jealous of mainlanders’ wealth is pure conjecture. According to IMF data, Hong Kong has a GDP per capita of close to US$36,000, while the Mainland’s figure is around US$6,000. Hong Kong is the Mainland third largest export partner (the first two being the European Union and the United States). The PRC’s Commerce Department data shows that Hong Kong’s investment in Mainland China amounts to US$600 billion, i.e. 46 percent of all of its foreign investment. As is apparent from data of different sources, the Mainland has to rely on Hong Kong.”
“Even without mentioning the mutually beneficial economic co-operation, the Mainland is still indebted to Hong Kong from the historical standpoint. During the Great Leap Forward when 30 million Chinese were starving to death (I do not know whether Jia has read about this part of Chinese history?), Hong Kongers selflessly extended help to the Mainland. More recently, whenever there were natural disasters like floods and earthquakes, Hong Kongers, apart from donating money generously, were involved in a series of rehabilitation hope -projects. On the other hand, the so-called tourism benefits brought about by the individual travel scheme are only concentrated in sales of luxury goods and local properties, to the detriment of local small and medium businesses. The real effect of that scheme is to enrich the few conglomerates; it does not benefit the average citizen at all. Indeed, citizens have had to bear the negatives, like street congestion, bad behaviors of travelers, parallel trades and a whole lot of resource distribution problems. I would urge Jia to take a fuller view of facts before writing, and would beseech the award panelists to use their common sense in making judgment.”
“On another issue, the essay mentions that the film ‘Vulgar Comedy’ discriminates against mainlanders because one of the characters in the film played by Cheng mocks at mainlanders, which reflects a fear that Hong Kongers harbor. First of all, the film is not discriminatory towards mainlanders, as that character is a nouveau-riche plebeian and is not representative of all mainlanders. What the film tries to mock are the philistine habits of some nouveau-riche commoners – it does not amount to discrimination. However, what Jia says about Hong Kongers’ fear is correct, but for the wrong reason. Starting from the day of the handover, the Central Government has constantly been chipping away Hong Kongers’ freedom, trying arrogantly to domesticate Hong Kong with the Mainland’s officialdom way of handling things. It even mentions co-operation of the three powers. Now Hong Kong enjoys less and less freedom. Dissidents are suppressed. A society attuned to lies is in the making, thanks to the Central and Hong Kong SAR governments. The freedoms that we enjoy are a natural endowment – they are not granted by the Basic Law. We are being robbed of those freedoms. Certainly we have good reason to fear.”
“What should have been an arts critique essay turns out to read more like a social commentary, full of political motives. I cannot but be baffled as to why such an essay could be selected for an award. Is it proper for the Arts Development Council to be thus politically charged? Why has this Council in Hong Kong become so like the Propaganda Department in directing ideology? If such an essay is worthy of an award, then participants in the next competition will probably slant their essays towards ideology. I would rather watch vulgar films than read a work of venomous lies.”