Invisible Nation helps to make Taiwan (more) visible (Film review)

 

Seen on the fourth day of my most recent Taiwan trip

 

Invisible Nation: Extended Cut (USA-Taiwan, 2024)

- Vanessa Hope, director and co-producer (along with four others)

 

I first heard about Invisible Nation soon after its September 2023 debut at the Woodstock Film Festival.  But with things being the way they now are in Hong Kong (with not only a number of Hong Kong protest documentaries not being allowed to be screened in cinemas but, also, certain films from Taiwan and elsewhere that were apparently adjudged to have breached the national security law), I held little hope of being able to view this documentary about Taiwan that was shot for the most part during Tsai Ing Wen's presidency. (Filming of the documentary began in May 2017, one year after she assumed office.)

 

So imagine my surprise upon discovering earlier this week that that which is listed as the extended cut of the film (yet is 82 minutes long, in contrast to the 85 minutes listed length (on IMDB) of the original version!) made available on the PBS platform is available to view in Hong Kong (as well as the USA) sans VPN!  And to confirm that, as of a few minutes ago, this documentary remains available to view, and for free too!

 

Invisible Nation begins with beautiful, peaceful vistas of a green tropical land with seas and urban along with rural scapes.  It then proceeds to show a smiling Tsai Ing Wen meeting school students and telling them that she hoped to learn from them "what you hope your country can do for you."  

 

Right there and then, it's made clear that Taiwan is a distinct place, and most definitely a democracy.  So one feels quite the frisson when the film then follows up with a view of The Great Wall of China and the sound of Chinese leader Xi Jinping stating that "Taiwan is part of China".  The People's Republic of China, it is implied.  In other words: non-democratic, authoritarian, Communist China.

 

Over the course of Invisible Nation, one also learns of how, in addition to denying that Taiwan is an independent nation, the government over in Beijing does its utmost to deny Taiwan visibility in the world -- and how the world for the most part, including world organizations like the United Nations and International Olympic Committee and other international sports bodies, goes along with it; with Taiwan not being a member nation of the United Nations, and Taiwanese sportsmen and sportswomen having to compete these days in international tournaments under the name "Chinese Taipei" and the Taiwanese national anthem not being allowed to be played when Taiwanese athletes win at the Olympics.

 

Despite it looking to be a David versus Goliath battle, Taiwan -- especially during the presidency of Tsai Ing Wen -- is not taking all this lying down.  (Why would it?  Especially when we know that in the Old Testament tale, David beat Goliath!)  And what Invisible Nation also makes clear is that Taiwan's existential struggle is two fold: with one part involving Taiwan working to stay politically independent and democratic; and the other part telling Taiwan's story to the world.

 

With Invisible Nation helping to fulfill the latter task, it's easy to see that there are people who will accuse it of being a propaganda work.  And for sure, Vanessa Hope does present Taiwan in a friendlier light than the People's Republic of China.  Ditto with regards to Taiwan's first female president (who, after serving two terms, has been succeeded by her vice-president, William Lai Ching Te -- as an afterword in the extended cut points out) being presented in a more favourable manner than Communist China's "president for life" (who assumed the offices of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission back in 2012)!

 

At the same time though, Invisible Nation does present facts and figures, not just biases and vibes.  The documentary also does provide a historical perspective and portrait of a culturally diverse people that is helpful in allowing people to understand the overall situation and picture; one that, frankly, can come across as very complex and complicated, and overwhelm those who come into a viewing of this film with (next to) zero prior knowledge of East Asia -- though my own sense is that Vanessa Hope pitched this at just the right level, so that you don't have to be a complete East Asian political wonk to be able to comprehend and follow it all!

 

My rating for this film: 8.5          

We already knew that "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" is considered seditious -- but has "Five demands, not one less" been deemed to be so too now?!

Seen on a Lennon Wall in 2019

"A Hong Kong man was denied bail under the city’s new domestic security law after he allegedly wore a t-shirt with a banned protest slogan and a yellow mask".  Thus began a report in the Hong Kong Free Press about an individual whose arrest on Wednesday (June 12th) only came to be known by many yesterday (June 14th).

 

"Defendant Chu Kai-pong, 27, was brought to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Friday to face one count of “doing with a seditious intention an act or acts that had a seditious intention.” He was also charged with failing to show his proof of identity to the police and loitering with intent, the report continued.

 

"According to the charge sheet, Chu was intercepted by the police on Wednesday near Shek Mun MTR station. He was said to have worn a top and a mask printed with statements that were allegedly intended to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection against the “fundamental system of the state established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.”"

 

Note: Wednesday was June 12th -- the fifth anniversary of the day back in 2019 when the riot police fired over 150 cannisters of tear gas into a large crowd assembled at Admiralty with the intention of surrounding the Legislative Council complex to protest the anti-extradition bill. And also brutally beat up unarmed individuals in the crowd. In full view of media and other cameras.

 

"Local media reported on Friday that Chu’s t-shirt contained the 2019 protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” which was ruled as being capable of carrying secessionist connotations in the city’s first national security law trial in 2021." Arrests related to that particular slogan were first made in July 2020 -- very soon after the national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong being in effect.

 

"Chu was also wearing a yellow mask printed with the words “FDNOL.” The phrase is considered an acronym of “Five Demands, Not One Less,” also a slogan from the 2019 extradition bill protests which laid out the movement’s demands."

 

Note: If "Five Demands, Not One Less" is considered illegal, it's newly so -- and this would be the first time that someone was arrested with regards to it.  And, frankly, this is a "development" I find extremely disturbing as it represents a further level of restriction of free speech along with what appears to be a (deliberate) misrepresentation of a pretty moderate set of demands as ones that are inflammatory, even revolutionary.

 

Something else not mentioned in the Hong Kong Free Press piece (but was reported earlier in the year): Chu Kai-pong was previously arrested at Hong Kong International Airport  last November. At the time, he was wearing a T-shirt with the "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” slogan printed on it and found to be in possession of flags that bore similar slogans.

 

For this, he was sentenced to three months jail in January.  Which would mean that he was out of jail by April at the latest.  So it seems he's a repeated offender in this regard and the police appear to have targeted him. 

 

The former is something that could be said about the majority of Article 23 arrestees (who include "Grandma" Alexandra Wong this past June 4th) thus far while the latter is something that seems to be the case with all of them.  Which gives credence to my suspicion that in contemporary Hong Kong, it's a matter of "If they want to get you, they'll get you with some law or other".  So one can only hope that one's not among the "extremely small minority" that the national security laws are meant to target!

The 35th anniversary of the 35th of May

  

In memory of the victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre

 

Hong Kong still remembers.  We are no longer allowed to hold candlelight vigils in Victoria Park to commemorate June 4th.  But we still most definitely remember, and many of us still have lit candles and mourned this evening -- these days, for what has been lost in Hong Kong since China imposed a national security law on Hong Kong (on June 30th, 2020) as well as was lost in Beijing all those years ago. :(

The verdict has been delivered by the national security judges in the trial of the Hong Kong 47 but it ain't over yet by a long chalk!

  

Mood this week in Hong Kong

 

It's not yet over but here's stating all the same that it's been one hell of a crap week in Hong Kong.  Never mind the bad weather (which has included typhoon warnings getting issued -- thanks, Typhoon Maliksi!).  Though I must say that the gray days and weeping skies have felt reflective of many people's moods.     

 

The day after the first arrests under Article 23 were made, a seventh individual was apprehended -- also over "seditious posts" by and on a Facebook page known as the ChowHangTung club that appear to be nothing more than "daily posts in memory of the events in Tiananmen Square and the vigils held in Hong Kong until 2019 to remember them"!  ("The initiative", a P.I.M.E. Asia news piece explains, "is linked to Chow’s legal battle. She was arrested for her role in organising commemorations in Victoria Park. For this reason, she has been in prison since September 2021, and is still awaiting trial after almost three years.")

 

As Freedom House research director Yaqiu Wang observed in a piece in The Diplomat: "The fact that the authorities keep throwing new charges at Chow for the one thing she did – organize commemorations to honor those killed by their government for peacefully demanding freedom and democracy – only speaks to the insecurity that she inspires in her own government and in Beijing."

 

Something also worth point out -- which Wang does in her piece: "Beijing’s determination to crush Hong Kong’s freedoms and to erase history is illustrated by the multiple, years-long prosecutions against Chow. However, Chow’s courage and resolve in the face of this repression exemplify Hong Kongers’ collective determination to fight back." 

 

In a development that now passes for a "Thank goodness for small mercies" one, all of those arrestees -- bar for Chow Hang-tung, who was already behind bars at the time of her arrest on this (new) charge -- have been granted bail.  One way in which many of us found this out was by seeing a photo of one of the six, Lee Ying-chi (a dentist by profession), waiting in line to get into court to see and hear on Thursday morning the verdict being given of the Hong Kong 47.  

 

The day before the verdict of the largest political trial in Hong Kong's history was due to be handed out, an observer Tweeted that "If this goes the way GovHK wants it to go, they're never going to shake the optics of arresting/convicting political opponents for the crime of having a strategy to legally win an election they were never supposed to win that also stood a real chance of succeeding"; and "They can scream all they want about subversion and foreign forces etc, and maybe they even believe it, but to everyone else in actual democracies it's going to look like exactly what it is -- an authoritarian govt jailing political enemies who had too much public support". 

 

Sadly, that's what came to pass.  For more than three years and three months after 47 organizers and participants of a pro-democracy primary staged in 2020 were arrested on February 28th, 2021, the three hand-picked national security law judges decided that only two of the individuals concerned were innocent of the conspiracy to commit subversion charges laid on them.   

 

"In a summary of the verdict distributed to media, the court said the [other] election participants had declared they would use their legislative power to veto the budgets" -- ooooh, so bad!  Put another way: In the words of journalist Ryan Ho Kilpatrick, "they tried to win an election."  And, added a member of the diasporic Hong Kong Twitterverse, "In the most peaceful, democratic way."

 

Still, lest barrister (and ex-cop as well as district councillor) Lawrence Lau and former district councillor (and registered social worker) Lee Yue-shun, who made history by being the first two people tried under the Beijing-imposed national security law to be cleared of their charges think it's all over, "Director of Public Prosecutions Maggie Yang on Thursday afternoon said that she had received instruction from Secretary for Justice Paul Lam that the justice department would seek to appeal the acquittal of Lau and Lee." Of course!  

And with mitigation hearings and appeals by at least some of those found guilty also still to come, this case is set to run through the summer; with sentencing not taking place for some months yet.  During which, the stress and misery for many, if not all, of the people involved will continue.  (Reading the piece of AP's Kanis Leung on the toll of Beijing's national security law on Hong Kong's activists before the verdict was already heartbreaking.) 

  

Adding to the tragedy and/or farce of it all, five members of the League of Social Democrats (including Chan Po-ying, the group's head and spouse of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, one of the Hong Kong 47) were arrested after attempting to stage a protest outside the courthouse on Thursday afternoon.  In another "Thank goodness for small mercies": they were released a day later (i.e., yesterday). 

More than by the way, Chan Po-ying is the subject of a piece by AFP's Xinqi Su which appears on the Hong Kong Free Press' website today with headlines that emphasize that she's spent decades fighting for democracy with Long Hair -- and has continued to do so after his national security law arrest.  The following is how the piece concludes -- and I think is a good way to conclude this blog post:

Chan said it was important that people keep speaking up.

“What we have been trying to emphasise is that we don’t want society to be voiceless,” she said.

“When there is no other narratives than the one and only official version, I think as a humble citizen and resident, it’s our duty to history that we shall not let others alter our history and memories,” she added.

 (My emphasis.)

The first six Article 23 arrests get people thinking all the more of June 4th (and this even while it's still only May)!

  

Victoria Park one week before the 35th anniversary

of the Tiananmen Square Massacre

 

I had a dream last night in which Lee Cheuk-yan, was walking around talking to people at an event I was attending; prompting to wonder to myself, "Wait, isn't he supposed to be in prison?"

 

For the record: I don't normally dream about public figures/political prisoners.  But I guess my subconscious turned my being all too aware that we're just one week away from the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre into a dream about the former chair of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China: that is, the organisation behind the (once) annual June 4th candelight vigils in Victoria Park -- the last of which I was at in 2019.   

 

One reason why I may have been thinking of the upcoming Tiananmen Square Massacre anniversary last night was because yesterday afternoon, as the bus I was taking passed by Victoria Park, my attention was caught by a greater police presence than usual on an edge of the public park.  It's nothing compared to what I imagine will be the case come June 4th (or probably even this weekend -- the weekend leading up to it) based on what's happened in recent years.  

 

And this on top of the now usual "refurbishments" being made at this time of the year to the football pitches where the June 4th candelight vigils used to take place.  Oh, and this year, there's also a very "red" looking event scheduled to take place in the area too -- one whose advertising mentions the dates 6/1, 6/2, 6/3 and 6/5 but not 6/4!  (For those who didn't realize: the Chinese way of writing dates is like the American one in placing the month before the day.) 

 

And after today's events, I'm thinking I'll be dreaming tonight of Lee Cheuk-yan's erstwhile Hong Kong Alliance comrade and fellow poliical prisoner, Chow Hang-tung -- who was one of the six people arrested today by the Hong Kong national security police "on suspicion of acting with seditious intention", marking the first apprehensions under the city’s new security law, which was enacted this past March.  (And yes, here's confirming that she, who already is behind bars, was arrested again... and for an alleged crime involving social media posts... even though she does not have access to a computer while behind bars!)

Somewhat bizarrely, "Secretary for Security Chris Tang confirmed... that the arrests were made in connection with a Facebook group that called for support for barrister and human rights activist Chow, who has been detained under the Beijing-imposed national security law since September 2021. The group was created on May 18, 2023, and the primary location for those that managed it was the UK.

 

It was also reported by the Hong Kong Free Press that: "The posts were said to have made use of an “upcoming sensitive date” to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong governments, as well as the Judiciary. Police also alleged that the posts intended to incite netizens to organise or participate in illegal activities at a later time."

 

As Eero Kivistö, a self-described "guy from Finland posting random political ramblings", incredulously Tweeted in reaction to the news of Chow Hang-tung's further arrest: "Let me get this straight: an activist that has been detained since 2021 was arrested under a law that took effect in March? Seriously?"  Sadly, yes.  Also, this time around, the police arrested Chow Hang-tung's mother too!  (No, I am not kidding.  I wish I was but I'm not.) 

By the way, mention of Chow Hang-tung's mother got me thinking, of course, of the Tiananmen Mothers, the Chinese democracy activists promoting a change in the government's position over the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre led by the now 87-year-old Ding Zilin, a retired university professor whose teenage son was shot and killed by government troops during the protests. (What can I say?  That's how my brain works!)  

 

It's pretty incredible that they've sought justice and change for some 35 years now.  And while it's incredibly sad that their pursuit has thus far been in vain, they really are to be admired, if not supported, for their persistence throughout the three and a half decades.

 

As are the likes of Lee Cheuk-yan and those Hong Kongers who have sought the same -- and for many, the same amount of time.  And have been persecuted for doing so.  A Hong Kong Democracy Council Tweet noted that: "[With] today's 6 arrests there've been in all 76 arrests in #HongKong for commemorating #June4 #TiananmenMassacre since candlelight vigil was banned in 2020. Chow Hang-tung's been arrested 4 times for marking June 4 & is awaiting trial on remand for her role as organizer of the vigil".

 

I'm willing to bet that before 2020, no one in Hong Kong was arrested with regards to commemorating the Tiananmen Square Massacre. This not least because the annual candlelight vigils in Victoria Park were peaceful affairs; with the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who took part in them being there to mourn, remember and honour the dead doing so in a thoroughly respectful and respectable manner.

By the way, the authorities can't seem to bring themselves to actually name the "upcoming sensitive date".  I trust that I've written the date enough times in this blog entry so that there's no mistaking which date is the one that is in question and at issue here.  Also, to be clear: despite their efforts to make it so, I sincerely doubt that Hong Kong has become part of the People's Republic of Amnesia -- or will anytime soon.  This not least because all their attempts to stop people commemorating June 4th only get people remembering it all the more!

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom tries to keep the spotlight on Hong Kong (even) in 2024 (Film review)

  

Poster for a documentary, not anime

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom (U.S.A.-Hong Kong, 2024)

- Sean Fleck, director, writer and co-producer (with Alan Parks)

 

Back in 2020, Hong Kong protest documentary short Anders Hammer's Do Not Split was nominated for an Oscar.  One year later, Kiwi Chow's Revolution of Our Times had its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.  Five years on from the anti-extradition bill-turned-pro-democracy protests that captured the world's attention, films continue to be made about Hong Kong and its protest movement.  And while I've not managed to view James Leong's If We Burn (2023) and the anonymously made She's In Jail (2024), about imprisoned lawyer-activist Chow Hang-tung, I've managed to view Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom here in Hong Kong.

 

Made by American documentary filmmaker Sean Fleck, Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom is so newly made that it includes information about the passing of Article 23 into law, something which took place barely two months ago.  Incredibly, the pretty comprehensive work also has some coverage of such as the Article 23 protests of 2003, the National Education protests of 2012, the Occupy phase of the Umbrella Movement in 2014, the bookseller abductions of 2015 and Causeway Books' Lam Wing-kee's post-escape revelations before getting to its main subject matter: the 2019 protests and what's happened to, and in, Hong Kong since.

 

Although its poster may make it seem otherwise, Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom is a seriously legit work that takes a far from cartoony approach to Hong Kong, and the anti-extradition bill-turned-pro-democracy protests that raged on the streets for much of 2019 and into 2020 before Covid (then known as Wuhan coronavirus) woes got Hongkongers fixating on the pandemic over protests.  Witness, for example, its coverage of the peaceful -- and very large number of -- Hong Kong protestors (known as the wo lei fei who were "peaceful, rational and non-violent") as well as the frontline protestors known as "the braves" (that such as Do Not Split had focused -- I'd even say fixated -- on).

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom also includes interview footage with a number of political personalities like exiled dissidents Frances Hui, Joey Siu, Samuel Chu and Jeffrey Ngo --  and Lee Cheuk-yan, a Tiananmen Square Massacre survivor and former trade unionist, activist and politician who's been behind bars ever since he was arrested and denied bail on February 28th, 2021.  By the way, it was somewhat disconcerting to see the senior man in the documentary -- especially those sections of it that spoke in what might be termed "the ethnographic present" -- since he's not appeared in public (excluding his court appearances) for more than three years now.

 

Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom also has interviews with a number of Hong Kong protestors whose faces and actual names are not revealed.  This is understandable since those people were taking a risk by appearing in this documentary -- even if they were only providing personal accounts and factual information about the pro-democracy protests.  (And, frankly, I'm also possibly putting myself at risk/in danger by revealing that I've seen the film and in reviewing it.  Such is the state of -- and life in -- national security era Hong Kong!)

Sean Fleck's documentary additionally contains interviews with a number of American politicians (including Republicans Mike Gallagher and Michelle Steel but also Democrats Raja Krishnomoorthi and Jake Auchincloss).  Although they come from, and represent, both sides of the ideological aisle, my sense is that this might weaken whatever messages that Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom seeks to make -- on account of the documentary being perceived as (primarily/wholely) targeted to Americans.

 

This is a pity since I actually think that Hong Kong: Final Days of Freedom tries hard to be even-handed even while also being largely on the side of pro-demcracy Hong Kongers; something the way it chooses to conclude makes pretty clear.  Also, the quote from George Orwell's 1984 that the work chooses to open with it is says so much: i.e., "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.  It is their final, most essential command"; this all the more so due to it having been superimposed over a Maoist propaganda poster!

My rating for this film: 7.5

Snow in Midsummer gets critical acclaim and screened outside of Malaysia -- but will it get what it deserves in its home country? (Film review)

  

Poster for Snow in Midsummer on display

at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre during

the 48th Hong Kong International Film Festival

 

Snow in Midsummer (Malaysia-Singapore-Taiwan, 2023)

- Chong Keat Aun, director, scriptwriter and co-music composer (with Yii Kah Hoe)

- Starring: Wan Fang, Pearlly Chua, Pauline Tan, Lim Koet Yenn

- Part of the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Firebird Awards: Young Cinema Competition (Chinese Language) program

 

In my previous blog post (and review of Hollywoodgate), I mentioned there being a number of Hong Kong films that cannot be screened in national security law era Hong Kong -- yet my (still) being able to view many works from elsewhere that are banned in their home territories.  Snow in Midsummer may be one more such cinematic effort.  At the post screening Q&A I attended, its director-scriptwriter, Chong Keat Aun, said that he had submitted his drama about what he's called "a hidden wound in Malaysian history" to the Malaysian film censorship board -- but, as yet, had not heard back from them.

 

The same day that it screened at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, Snow in Midsummer was named as the winner of the Firebird Award in the Young Cinema Competition (Chinese language) section of the fest.  And it is set to begin its Hong Kong theatrical run tomorrow -- four days before the 55th anniversary of what's now known as the May 13th Incident (which I used to remember hearing about as the May 13th race riots -- since, in the Malaysian worldview, Malays, Chinese and Indians are different "races" (as opposed to ethnic groups) -- for what seemed like the longest time).   

 

Snow in Midsummer begins on May 13th, 1969. Ah Eng (played by Lim Koet Yenn) is a young girl of ethnic Chinese parentage who's a bullying victim at her Malay language (and presumably majority ethnic Malay) Kuala Lumpur primary school.  Her Nyonya mother, Su Mei (portrayed by Pauline Tan), wants her husband Kooi (essayed by Peter Yu) to get Ah Eng blessed by a medium of Datuk Kong -- but he chose to have a ritual performed on their son Yeow (played by Teoh Wei Hern) instead.

 

The relationship between Su Mei and Kooi appears on the strained side. So it came as no surprise that when Kooi gets two tickets to go watch a movie at the Majestic cinema that evening, he elects to take Yeow with him. The snub ends up saving Su Mei and Ah Eng's lives. Because, the Majestic cinema ends up becoming a massacre site that night -- while Su Mei and Ah Eng, who had contented themselves with going and watching an open air Cantonese opera performance by the temple where the medium of Datuk Kong had effectively held court, were saved by members of the Cantonese opera troupe (whose leader is played by Pearlly Chua) who let them hide backstage with them while others ran riot and murdered or were murdered.

 

Fast forward 49 years and Ah Eng (now portrayed by Wan Fang) is now a middle-aged woman living in Penang. After she learns about a soon-to-be demolished "513 cemetery" on the Kuala Lumpur outskirts, she decides -- over the objections of her husband (who comes across as rude and domineering as her father) to go there on the anniversary of the riots -- to see whether she can find the graves of her father and brother; something her grieving mother had been unable to do all these years. 

 

Snow in Midsummer's director, Chong Keat Aun, spoke about the difficulties of finding Malaysian actresses for his film on account of the continued sensitivites over the May 13th Incident.  And I can't help wondering if the character of Ah Eng would have been more loquacious  if she had been played by a Malaysian actress as an adult rather than a Taiwanese whose lines were largely in Mandarin (despite the film being multi-lingual -- using Hokkien, Cantonese and Malay (as well as English? I forget!) dialogue (whose English subtitles don't quite do them justice).

 

Alternatively, it might have been Chong Keat Aun's intention all along to get the audience figuring a lot of things out for themselves via visual and other cues.  Frankly, I think this is a big ask of Snow in Midsummer's audience since there really are a lot of things that require prior knowledge: of not only Malaysian history but Malaysian ethnic relations, local ethnic traditions and Cantonese opera.  

 

As an example: The movie's title refers to the Cantonese opera performed in the film whose theme concerns a grave miscarriage of justice -- something that Chong Keat Aun clearly believes has taken place not only with regards to what happened on May 13th, 1969, itself but, also, the neglect of its victims over the years. (On a perhaps related note: I also felt that Ah Eng and Su Mei were women who their husbands sought to control -- even oppress -- them, yet were actually strong characters in their own way, even while being much put upon!)

 

In any case, the work does appear to have struck a chord with film festival programmers and audience members at such as Venice (where it had its world premiere), Taiwan (where it was nominated for 9 Golden Horse Awards) and now also Hong Kong.  Still, I do believe that it's in Malaysia where Snow in Midsummer would most resonate.  We can but hope that it will be allowed to be screened there at some point in time -- and without the damaging cuts that removed its essence, the way that has happened to Cannes award winner Tiger Stripes!  

My rating for this film: 8.0

Hollywoodgate reveals much more about Taliban-ruled Afghanistan than they may have thought was possible (Film review)

  

Director-cinematographer-co-producer Ibrahim Nash'at and 

co-editor Atanas Georgiev at the post-screening Q&A

 

Hollywoodgate (Germany-U.S.A., 2023)

- Ibrahim Nash'at, director, cinematographer and co-producer

- Part of the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Documentary Competition program

 

In recent years, film censorship has become more of a thing in Hong Kong than previously was the case.  Probably not coincidentally, we've seen a decrease in the number of Hong Kong films screened at the Hong Kong International Film Festival.  (After all, I can think of a number of Hong Kong films that, while screened overseas, no longer can be screened in Hong Kong -- including one that had its world premiere at Cannes in 2021.)      

 

At the same time, many films (still) can be screened in Hong Kong that can't be screened in the countries that their filmmakers hail from and/or they were shot.  I think of offerings by such as Iranian auteur Jafar Panahi (two of which -- This Is Not a Film (2012) and Closed Curtain (2013) -- I viewed at previous editions of the Hong Kong International Film Festival); and, among those screened this year, the likes of Tatami, and this documentary work by Egyptian director-cinematographer Ibrahim Nash'at chronicling daily life in Afghanistan after the Taliban returned to power there.

 

Hollywoodgate takes its name from a complex on the outskirts of Kabul previously occupied by the American military (or, it is speculated, CIA operatives).  Soon after the last American forces left Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban go in to see what's there -- and do so accompanied by Ibrahim Nash'at and his camera.

 

Granted permission to film in Afghanistan, albeit on pretty restricted terms, Ibrahim Nash'at's camera is officially trained for the most part on Mawlawi Mansour, a bushy-bearded Taliban commander who gets named as the Commander of the country's air force.  At great risk to his personal safety (threats to kill him if he misbehaves can be heard being issued by more than one Taliban member), Hollywoodgate's director-cinematographer also manages to capture a lot of other subjects in his frame.

 

Amazingly, Ibrahim Nash'at ended up managing to stay and film for a year in Afghanistan.  Over this time, one is able to see the Taliban evolve from guerillas to a more conventional military force; thanks in no small part to their reappropriation of an estimated US$7 billion worth of military equipment and supplie that the American forces left behind at complexes like Hollywood Gate.  (And while attempts were made to destroy equipment by the Americans, quite a bit of it were found to be repairable by the Afghans, including a rather alarming number of pretty impressive military aircraft -- transport helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, etc.)

 

Somewhere along the way, Ibrahim Nash'at also gained permission to film one of Mawlawi Mansour's junior soldiers, an officer named M.J. Mukhtar who, if anything, appears to have a stronger thirst for violence than his commander.  And also a looser cannon.  Yet the Egyptian documentary filmmaker stuck to spent time with him, including when M. J. Mukhtar drives around Kabul.  In so doing, he manages to film scenes from the car of everyday scenes, such as of people going about marketing -- which may be among the most chilling segments of Hollywoodgate thanks to the glimpses one gets of the terrible lot of women in the Taliban-controlled land.   

A the post-screening Q&A, Ibrahim Nash'at was asked if the Taliban had seen his documentary.  He replied that they had expressed no interest in doing so.  So the chances are that Hollywoodgate will never be screened in Afghanistan, and that probably is for the best.  As I could well imagine some members of the Taliban regretting his having been granted as much access as he was to film -- for what he managed to do is reveal a lot, a good bulk of which is chilling and also tragic indeed.

 

My rating for this film: 8.0.

Cinema Strada puts Law Kar left, right and centre (Film review)

  

Cinema Strada director Donna Ong and subject Law Kar

at the world premiere of the film

 

Cinema Strada (Hong Kong, 2024)

- Donna Ong, director

- Part of the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Filmmakers and Filmmaking program

 

The man known to Hong Kong film fans by his pseudonym/penname Law Kar (but whose actual name is Lau Yiu-kuen) is the subject of this documentary directed by Donna Ong.  He also is the producer and narrator of Cinema Strada -- so most definitely is left, right and centre of it.

I'll come right out and say it: I'm not sure whether this is a good thing.  For one thing, Law Kar may be too familiar with Law Kar!  By this, I mean that he -- and thus, Cinema Strada -- may have assumed that audiences of the documentary will already have known a lot about him prior to going into a screening of it.  For even while it does pretty much tell the story of Law Kar from the beginning, chronologically speaking, it also can feel like some of the more basic and obvious information we should know about this veteran Hong Kong film critic is missing -- or only mentioned by the by.

 

As an example: Law Kar was the programmer for the Hong Kong Film Archive from 2001 to 2005 (and a guest programmer for a number of years after that).  He also programmed the Hong Kong International Film Festival's Hong Kong film retrospectives for a number of years.  In doing so, he shaped opinions and views on Hong Kong cinema for decades -- particularly, it might be argued, in the 21st century.  And yet, the bulk of Cinema Strada focuses on events that took place in the 20th century, and selective decades of that century at that.

In particular, Cinema Strada spends a lot of time on the 1960s -- covering not only Law Kar's time as editor-in-chief of popular youth magazine, The Chinese Student Weekly, which he used to introduce world cinema and film theory to readers, critiqued non-mainstream art films from overseas, and shone a light on local moves in Chinese films, but also his reactions and thoughts about such as the Hong Kong Riots of 1967 and Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film, Blow-Up!  

 

Given its surprisingly extensive coverage of the 1967 Hong Kong Riots, you might think that there would be mention too of more recent political upheavals in Hong Kong.  But that's not the case.  And I have to admit that I got to wondering whether this constitutes self-censorship on Law Kar's part.  Something that would be... understandable, given the times we now live in. (A reminder: Article 23 came into effect days before this year's Hong Kong International Film Festival got going.  This on top of Hong Kong already having a national security law imposed on it by China on June 30th, 2020.)  But disappointing and sad all the same.

 

Let's put it this way: I came out of Cinema Strada wondering what this film would have been like if it had been made just five years earlier -- the same way that I rue the biopic about Anita Mui having come out in 2021 rather than, say, 2011, 2016 or even 2019.  I also wondered if Law Kar the subject would have been better served if he had been less "hands on" with regards to this documentary.

 

To be sure, it was interesting to learn about such as Law Kar's youth in Macau, his time in Italy (when he went to study for a time and met Fellini, even being an extra in one of the Italian auteur's films) and also his views of 1950s Hong Kong after he moved here from Macau.  It also was fun to see snippets of his time with TVB (which he joined in 1974), where he scripted and co-directed drama series for and with then up-and-coming directors including members of the Hong Kong New Wave such as Patrick Tam Ka-ming, Ann Hui, Yim Ho and the late Alex Cheung. 

 

 Still, I can't shake off the feeling that, ultimately, what I got was an incomplete, uneven, skewed maybe too, portrait of Law Kar -- that was incredibly detailed in parts but basic in others -- and feel that it's a pity that this was so.  This not least as I think Law Kar, the man, could be as interesting a film subject as Harry Odell, the impressario that Dora Choi and Haider Kikabhoy's  To Be Continued (which had its world premiere at last year's Hong Kong International Film Festival) did such a great job of introducing its audience to.

My rating for this film: 6.0

Article 23 has come into effect, and already been wielded

  

The kind of bookstore I wish could flourish in Hong Kong

 

Article 23 came into force last Saturday (March 23rd, 2024).  Even before it came into effect, yet another wave of fear had swept Hong Kong -- and with it, announcement of store closures and such.  Although pro-democracy/free speech Mount Zero bookstore announced its upcoming closure (at the end of March; i.e., this Sunday) some weeks back, it clearly is a victim of the double whammy that's Article 23 and the National Security Law China imposed on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020.

 

Over the weekend, I visited another of Hong Kong's remaining independent bookstores.  Even while some books that clearly showed its pro-democracy/free speech credentials remained on display, a staffer told me that they were other books that they had removed some others from their shelves while they waited to see where the new "red lines" were being drawn.  Put another way: they were anticipating that the "red lines" would be further tightened and there be less space for free speech and such in the city; and also waiting, like other Hong Kongers, to see Article 23 being wielded against people.

I must admit that a part for me was imagining horrors like mass arrests taking place at the stroke of midnight or pre-dawn on Saturday -- and was already counting my blessings later that day and Sunday that nothing directly Article 23 related had happened over the first 48 hours or so.  On Monday evening, however, I heard rumblings that something untoward had happened involving a jailed activist-protestor; and confirmation came along yesterday that Ma Chun-man had been denied the early release from prison that his family and friends who went to wait for him to come out of the Tong Fuk Correctional Institution on Monday thought he would be given.

 

Known as Captain America 2.0 (because he often dressed up as the Marvel superhero during the 2019 pro-democracy protests), "Ma was convicted in 2021 for inciting secession and was initially sentenced to five years and nine months.  He appealed and the sentence was reduced to five years due to good behavior, earning him a one-third remission".

 

All this was before Article 23 came into effect, however.  And "While the city's law stipulates eligible prisoners can be released before their term ends, the new security law allows the government to deny such rights."  Which is what happened; making Ma the first known case of an individual denied freedom and penalised under Article 23.

Some further details from the Nikkei Asia article reporting this: "Ma Chun-man, a former delivery man who was found guilty of inciting secession on at least 20 occasions in public and on social media between August and November 2020. Ma was accused of chanting slogans advocating independence from China." Read that again: he CHANTED SLOGANS. (In other words, we are talking about speech crimes.)

 

Quoting again from the Nikkei Asia piece: "The new security law is more comprehensive than one that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020 to punish secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external forces that endangered national security. The new law includes treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage against public infrastructure, including computer systems, and external interference in domestic affairs."  

 

At the same time, it's worth noting that Hong Kong's Basic Law also includes the following Articles:

Article 27:  Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

 

Article 28:  The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

Article 29:  The homes and other premises of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. Arbitrary or unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a resident's home or other premises shall be prohibited.

Article 30:  The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.

It remains to be seen though how strongly they will be upheld, especially vis a vis Article 23.  So, please, don't look away from what's happening in Hong Kong -- the original title of Humans Right Watch's Acting China Director Maya Wang's piece in the New York Times which bemoans, among other things, that "visitors to Hong Kong often fail to recognize the transformations taking place beneath the enduring glitz of the city", and cites a recent Pew Research Center survey having found that "more than 80 percent of Hong Kongers still want democracy, however remote that possibility looks today".

On the eve of Article 23 coming into effect

 

Poster seen in Hong Kong back in October 2014

 

This past Tuesday, Hong Kong's homegrown national security law (known as Article 23) was fast tracked through the territory's Legislative Council.  "With unanimous support from all 89 lawmakers, the bill is now set to take effect on March 23 — nearly a month earlier than many observers had expected,"  DW's Yuchen Li (in Taipei) and Phoebe Kong (in Hong Kong) reported.

"The specific laws will introduce a range of new offenses including treason, espionage, external interference and disclosure of state secrets – some of which are punishable by up to life in prison.  Following the first passage of a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, the latest bill is widely believed to further undermine the city's freedom and autonomy promised by Beijing after the region returned from British colonial rule in 1997," they continued.

In the days since, I've felt a range of emotions.  On Tuesday evening, I was much calmer than I thought I would be.  I'm not sure if it was because I was feeling numb, this news was very much expected (once Hong Kong Chief Secretary Eric Chan announced in early January that work on Article 23 would be completed this year) or still trying to process the news last Saturday that a Hong Kong court had sentenced 12 people (including popular actor Gregory Wong, activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, and former University of Hong Kong student union president Althea Suen) to between 54 and 82 months in prison over the storming of the city’s legislature council building during a pro-democracy protest in 2019.

 

While they already had been found and/or pleaded guilty earlier, the fact of the mattter is that their sentences are incredibly harsh.  For comparison, contrast and context, as was observed on Twitter: "Seven cops caught on camera beating a zip-tied protestor got 15–18 months; man who stabbed activist politician “Long Hair” with a metal chisel got 3 months; attacker of three at a Lennon Wall, incl a reporter who lost some lung and could’ve died if not hospitalized, got 45 months." 

 

Small wonder, then, that "Right after the court dismissed [for that case]," DW reporter Phoebe Kong witnessed "relatives, friends & supporters weep[ing] in each others' arms outside the courtroom. The sobs of an elderly woman had echoed & lingered for so long that she could barely stand."

 

As it so happened, I spent last Tuesday evening in the company of a friend who had been in that court.  I think being with that friend and similar minded people helped me to stay calm.  Meeting up and being with other friends in the days since has helped too: to, among other things, remind one another that we are still here, we still support one another, and we all still really f**king love Hong Kong.

 

So, here are the words and mantras I plan to live by for today and the coming days: Keep calm and carry on.  Live in truth.  Figure out what you can still do, and ga yau!

Thoughts triggered by reports that Article 23 will be passed (very) soon

  

Spotted in Hong Kong yesterday

 

Sharing some things I wrote on Twitter late last night after seeing the news that Article 23 would be gazetted today (with typos there hopefully corrected here):

 

Something many people outside of Hong Kong (still) don't seem to realise is that: People went on protest marches because Hong Kong didn't have democracy but they still felt the government would listen to over 500 thousand protest marchers. But when Carrie Lam didn't listen on June 9th and then 16th, 2019... 

 

Put another way: if we had genuine universal suffrage, there probably would not have been those mega protest marches. And what REALLY killed off the will to have those mega marches wasn't the national security law but the feeling/knowledge that the government WILL NOT LISTEN.

 

 Those people lamenting that Hongkongers have lost their courage and don't want to comment (on camera to the BBC, etc.) about Article 23: why should we risk arrest, jail, etc. when we knew/know what we say will just fall on deaf ears?

 

I mean. Think about it: 2 million people out of a population of some 7.5 million went out on the streets on June 16th, 2019. Young, elderly, some pregnant women, people on wheelchairs, etc. And still our message was ignored. And we -- non-violent protestors -- were derided as rioters. How insane is that?!

 

And for those who say 2 million is less than one third of the population: think of the people who couldn't attend that day -- who were working that day, in hospital, who happened to not be in Hong Kong that day, etc. And, also, that the majority of the voters on November 24th, 2019 voted for pro-democracy candidates.

 

And when you look at just 2019 (not even 2020, 2014, every July 1st from 2003, etc.), with protest rallies and marches taking place weekly (with some weeks and days having more than one event): we are talking about A LOT of (committed) people.

 

In sum: there were/are lots of people who wanted democracy, who didn't want Article 23 to be passed, who really f**king love Hong Kong. And that's what keeps us going (and the majority of us here): the knowledge that We. Are. Still. The. Majority. In. Hong. Kong!

 

And for the record: As Anna Kwok (yes, that Anna Kwok), noted: "Article 23 will likely pass next week"; with her Hong Kong Democracy Council noting that "the [Legislative Council's] Bills Committee will host special sessions on Saturday & Sunday to go through every provision of Article 23."

 

Today, I saw someone Tweet that after Article 23 is passed, he will delete his Twitter account.  And, sadly, I think he isn't the only one who will do so.  We saw this happen after China imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong back in 2020 after all -- and what's been described as Hong Kong's own national security law is threatening to be quite a bit harsher and thus scarier.

 

I would be lying if I said that I've not thought about deleting my social media accounts and also this blog.  But I also got to thinking that if the Hong Kong government wanted/wants to go after me, they'd already have copied those of my writings they found/find offensive.  So if I delete this blog or Tweets, etc., it just means "the public" won't be able to read them -- as opposed to the authorities.

 

Consequently, they will stay.  Though for how much longer I will update them... well, let's see how it all goes (or not, as the case could be), shall we?  If nothing else, I learnt a long time ago to: a) never say never; and b) to not try to predict the future -- because so much has happened and can happen, both bad but also good, that we just really couldn't envisage or imagine until it all did!