Made in Hong Kong VS. Sleeping Man
Fruit Chan is an interesting director. He is lauded as being crucial to Hong Kong independent cinema, and 'Made in Hong Kong' is the main reason why. It is the film that launched him to fame, being made with non-actors, a shoe-string budget and left over stock footage. Having been an AD for years prior, this was his big break, and it's no wonder that this is what triggered his success and elevated to be one of Hong Kong's most promising film makers.
It tells the story of Moon, who is an aimless youth in Hong Kong. He spends most of his days hanging around public spaces like the basketball courts with his mentally challenged friend Sylvester. His family life is falling apart and he can't hold a job and is turning to a the life of crime. He works part time for a Triad group collecting debts. It's during one of his assignments that he meets Ping, who he falls for and he starts to rethink his purpose in life.
This feels like a movie made from the directors passion. It's packed with little tangents and unique moments. The camera is restless, almost constantly moving. It felt like Chan had been building up shots he wanted to put in a movie for years and it all came spilling out here. Sometimes to success and sometimes it came off messy and erratic. He tries to put style into every frame, and for the most part is successful.
It's a very uneven movie. There are some moments of sheer brilliance, and other times amateurish. The overall mood conveyed is what makes the movie work. The feeling of abandonment and angst is consistent even when the film making falters. In Fruit Chan's Hong Kong, its the youth who rule. Adults are flaky, selfish, dishonest and cowardly. The young people are shown in charge, being bold and taking charge. Even if it means they go out before their time, at least they have convictions.
This was the first movie in the '1997 Trilogy', and I have also seen the last, "Little Cheung". I specifically did not like Chan's directing style or choices in that film and it ruined it for me. While his erratic camera, naturalistic style and overly vulgar imagery are present in both, they work to much more success here. It's not without its significant flaws, but it never let up in its pace and left an overall impression of being significant.
I fell in love with this movie in the first 15 minutes. It is absolutely beautiful and poetic. Scenes are immaculately framed, and the lighting and movements are stylized. How did I not know about this gem before? Not too far in there is a wonderful scene of a woman singing in a bar and the lights go out. It's almost at this exact moment where the movie comes to a screeching halt. I sat bored through the rest of it and realized why it's not a beloved classic.
There is almost no plot to speak of. It takes place in an unspecified small town in Japan nestled between large mountains and sea. At some point before the movie begins a man has gone into a coma. People the town are fascinated with him and care for him and gossip about him. Thats it. That's the entire movie.
I want to highlight and underscore how gorgeous the movie is. The camera is almost entirely static except for a couple of scenes midway through. Each shot is meticulously constructed and framed with stunning lighting. The actors move incredibly slowly and speak incredibly slowly. The film is more a visual poem then anything. An incredibly slow, low energy poem.
The static shots are drawn out with little happening. Even when someone does talk, it's not about anything interesting or even insightful. This struck me. If the movie was to be lyrical could there at least be meaningful dialog. I cannot stress enough the lack of anything happening. Locations are not set up, characters are hardly introduced and their relationships not established. It was incredibly challenging to stay focused.
I feel like a film can be anything it wants to be. I once watched an experimental film that was a literally a static shot of a room over the course of time. This movie is not much more interesting. Shots in this film could be used in lectures about framing and composition, but it doesn't lead to it being a meaningful experience.
Verdict: Both movies have a very distinct style, but completely opposite approach. Where one is lethargic and stationary, the other frenetic and the camera almost never stop moving. One had a somewhat cohesive point and one I nodded off a couple times watching. It's quite possible I'm missing the hidden genius in 'Sleeping Man', but I do see the obvious appeal in Made in Hong Kong, and it moves on.