After some time away, I’ve decided to take the remaining shards of my talents back to the Kozo Entertainment Group.  Where have I been these past few months? Well, let’s just say I was, like Sung Chi-Ho in A BETTER TOMORROW, “in Taiwan … on business”.

With hopes for a better tomorrow in mind, let’s start this iteration of the House Where Words Gather on a propitious note by talking about “a better tomorrow”.  Namely, A BETTER TOMORROW (2010) aka MUJEOGJA (trans. INVINCIBLE) -  the South Korean remake of John Woo’s Hong Kong classic.

Directed by Song Hae-Seong (who some may remember as the director of the 2001 film FAILAN starring Cecilia Cheung Pak-Chi  and OLDBOY lead Choi Min-Sik), A BETTER TOMORROW 2010 is a serviceable action melodrama whose greatest service is to remind movie fans of the brilliance of John Woo.  For the remake, Song changes the setting from Hong Kong to Busan and the criminal enterprise of the main characters from counterfeiting to gun running.  In addition, the rift between brothers doesn’t stem from one being a cop and the other a thief.  Instead, it’s because one abandoned the other while escaping North Korea for the South.

While there are changes in setting and characters, the remake keeps the narrative structure of the original largely intact.  Like the original, the film begins with a nightmare sequence and ends with a shootout on a pier.  Because the storytelling adheres so closely to that of the original, sequence after sequence is the same and one can’t help but notice how flat and watered-down the remake is compared to the original.  All the counterparts to the iconic scenes in the 1986 film — from the Mark character losing his leg while getting revenge to him dying in a hail of bullets — pale in comparison as Song does not have the skill nor the flair of John Woo.

There is, perhaps, no better demonstration of Woo’s mastery of craft than the Wong Tai Sin Childrens’ Choir scene in A BETTER TOMORROW. With the choir singing 明天會更好 (trans. Tomorrow Will Be Better) in the background, Sung Chi-Ho (Ti Lung) bids farewell to Jackie (Emily Chu Bo-Yee) while handing her some evidence. He then glances at the children singing before turning into a dark hallway to head for the decisive showdown with Shing (Waise Lee Chi-Hung).  The scene takes less than a minute but in that short period of time, Woo moves the plot along while showing, with great artistry, Sung wistfully abandoning his desire for a life of sweetness and light because he is being forced back into a dark life of bullets and blood. No scene in the remake comes anywhere close to matching that level of exquisite depth and complexity. As a result, A BETTER TOMORROW 2010 suffers by comparison.

Taken on its own, A BETTER TOMORROW 2010 remains a thoroughly average film that’s competent but uninspiring.  It’s mildly entertaining though some may be turned off near the end when events take a melodramatic turn and tough guys become crybabies.   The film is worth a watch if you are a fan of cross-cultural remakes.  Otherwise, don’t bother turning the jet boat around.

MISCELLANEA:

- Song Seung-Heon is given the thankless task of playing the Mark 哥 role. Much like his director in relation to John Woo, Song suffers from the comparison to Chow Yun-Fat because he cannot match Chow in charisma and intensity. He puts forth a solid effort but, in the end, falls short.

- Song did, however, show some flashes of Stephen Chow Sing-Chi. Maybe it was the hair or maybe it was the sunglasses but some mannerisms felt familiar. Any South Korean re-make of SHAOLIN SOCCER or KUNG FU HUSTLE in the offing?|

- The music/soundtrack for A BETTER TOMORROW 2010 is also underwhelming when compared to the original. Many musical cues from the 1986 film - especially the ones for Kit at the shooting range, the shootout at the restaurant and Mark’s death - are embedded in memory. The music from the remake is entirely forgettable.

- A BETTER TOMORROW 2010 is superior to the original in one aspect: A great performance by Jo Han-Seon as the turncoat villain helps flesh out a comparatively thin plot thread from the original. Unlike the 1986 movie, we actually get to see the how and why of the heel turn in the remake.

- Also better: The Emily Chu flower vase/comic relief girlfriend character is replaced by a gruff yet caring auntie. No goofy scenes involving cellos, flowers or headphones in the 2010 version.

- Egads! A BETTER TOMORROW was released in Hong Kong on February 8th, 1986. It’s now a little over 25 years old! Twenty-five years! Egads! Eeeeeegads!

BLOG POST EXTRA:

The 30th Hong Kong Film Awards are being presented tomorrow evening.  Putting my finger to the wind, I’m feeling a favourable breeze for IP MAN 2 walking away with the Best Film prize.  If I had a vote, I would have marked GALLANTS on my ballot as it was the most “Hong Kong” of this year’s nominees.  That said, if I was the General Secretary / Paramount Leader of HK films, I would appoint the title of Best Film to LOVE IN A PUFF.  There was no better film about Hong Kong than LOVE IN A PUFF in 2010.

Image credits: Cinema City (A BETTER TOMORROW); Formula Entertainment (A BETTER TOMORROW 2010)

It was a gorgeous morning last Sunday here in the capital of Canada.  Under glorious sunshine, it was a pleasant 18°C.  So, naturally, I spent it inside, in the dark, at the South Keys Cinemas taking in THE KARATE KID (2010) with my new Mainland pal Jerry and his 8 year-old kid Alex.

Regular readers will know that the James The Red Engine stink face pretty much sums up my attitude going into the movie.  To combat my prejudices, I brought along Jerry, who brings a fresh set of eyes because he has not seen the original, and Alex, who is in one of the film’s target demographics.  Alex was the reason we were at the theatre at 10:45 in the morning.  He had a soccer game at 3 pm and, with the movie clocking in at two hours and twenty minutes, the 8:10 evening show would have encroached on his bedtime.

After the show we went to lunch at Harvey’s where, thanks to my lavish Kozo Entertainment Group expense account, we all had fries with our burgers.  Actually, KEG bean counters be damned, I passed on the fries and went straight for the added extravagance of onion rings along with the most expensive item on the menu: the grilled chicken sandwich.

In between bites, I asked Jerry and Alex for their opinions of the movie.  Alex gave it a “thumbs up” but he complained that it was boring at times.  Indeed, Alex was noticeably restless during the Qixi Festival sequence and the Jackie Chan “Look At Me, I’m Doing Serious Acting” sequence.  He also flinched during the two scenes where Dre (Jaden Smith) got beat up by the bully and his henchmen.  For a movie that is somewhat geared towards kids, it’s hard to fathom why director Harald Zwart opted to show such surprisingly brutal fight scenes.

Unlike his son, Jerry gave THE KARATE KID (2010) a “thumbs down”.  Based on my description of the original, he said that he expected the movie to be “like ROCKY” - moving and inspirational.  Instead, he thought the film was flat and superficial.  A resident of Beijing for four years while he studied chemistry — or was it chemical engineering — at one of the city’s universities, he was bothered by the local inconsistencies that he noticed throughout the film.   Referring to the sequence where Dre and his young lady friend Meiying (the delightful Han Wenwen) have a day out in Beijing, Jerry said: “I don’t think the general public is allowed in some of those places”.

The Wudang Mountain sequence also bothered him. Jerry: “You can’t get there and back (to Beijing) in one day!”

In addition, he was irked by the fact that the Qixi Festival usually takes place in August yet, later in the film, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) marks a significant anniversary on June 8th.

While I’m confident that the incongruities Jerry noticed will not be an issue for most viewers, I do agree that THE KARATE KID (2010) does not pack the same emotional wallop as the original.  I’ll admit that I got a little verklempt during some of the Dre-Meiying scenes (What can I say? I’m a sap.), but other “emotional crescendo” moments left me cold.  The problem is that there isn’t enough setup for the payoffs so when the big moments happen (like Dre winning the tournament or Mr. Han reconciling himself with the past) they fall flat because they haven’t been earned.

Imagine a comedian who just reels off punch lines without any set up.  “No soup for you“, “not that there’s anything wrong with that” or “master of your domain” are meaningless bereft of context.  Without revealing any spoilers, there are many moments in the remake that are supposed to stir the emotions of the audience but end up leaving them bewildered because they haven’t been established properly.  I suspect that the powers-that-be were relying on people having seen the original because many of the “big moments” are call backs.  I think viewers were supposed to think “ah, this is like when Daniel-san found out about Miyagi’s wife and son” or “ah, this is like when Mr. Miyagi helped Daniel-san woo Ali”.  As a result, for people like Jerry who haven’t seen the original, the scenes do not resonate as much and the emotions seem shallow.

Having said that, I’ll cast my lot with 8 year-old Alex and give THE KARATE KID (2010) a “thumbs up”.  It’s a good time at the movies.  Two hours and twenty minutes breezes by as Jaden Smith and Han Wenwen deliver very likeable performances.  Also, the Wudang Mountain sequence yields some spectacular shots.  I still firmly believe that the remake was unnecessary but like the Russian Premier in that other 1980s classic, ROCKY IV, I stand up and applaud because I can appreciate the effort.

I’ll be back next week with some spoiler-filled thoughts on the film.  In the meantime, I have to file an expense report with the KEG bean counters.  I can picture the conversation now: “You have just the one rear end and the one set of eyes, why did you need THREE tickets?”

With THE KARATE KID (2010) set to hit North American movie theatres in a week, the publicity machine for the film is starting to hit top gear.  Since it has yet to be screened for critics, the early press has been mostly positive because it’s just been the people behind the movie who have been talking.  Will Smith and his family appeared on Oprah last month and, earlier this week, producer James Lassiter spoke to The Los Angeles Times.

Last Friday, a review appeared on Ain’t It Cool News declaring THE KARATE KID (2010) to be a “worthy successor to the previous incarnation”.  On Monday, Todd Brown at Twitch said the movie was “better than good”.  Also on Monday, Gregory Ellwood at HitFix.com speculated on why it might be “June’s breakout hit”.

All of this positive buzz has created a bit of a conundrum for me.  Going back to February 1996 and the North American release of RUMBLE IN THE BRONX, the only Jackie Chan movie I haven’t seen during its opening weekend was THE SPY NEXT DOOR - and that was mostly because I wasn’t a 7 year-old kid.   However, I was going to skip THE KARATE KID (2010) next week in favour of THE A-TEAM.  Based on the trailer that I saw before IRON MAN 2, THE A-TEAM looks like it’ll be a whole lot of fun while my pre-conceived notions for THE KARATE KID (2010) are not compelling me to rush out and see it.  My pre-conceived notions:

1. There are only really two legitimate reasons to remake a movie.  The first is technology now exists to update it.  It’s like putting a new coat of paint on an old house.  There’s nothing wrong with the house but it just may look better with a new coat of paint.  See KING KONG (2005) and CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010).  The second is a remake set in a different culture than the original.  Keeping the premise but putting it in a completely different setting gives people the opportunity to explore the original themes and ideas from a different angle.  See DEATH AT A FUNERAL (2010), THE DEPARTED (2006) and TORTILLA SOUP (2001) - the thoroughly enjoyable Hispanic remake of Ang Lee’s EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.

Otherwise, remakes are usually just tepid versions of their originals because it’s hard to live up to the challenge of competing with the legacy of the originals while establishing a new identity, a new raison d’être.  See: THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009), THE INVASION (2007), THE WICKER MAN (2006), PLANET OF THE APES (2001), PSYCHO (1998) and THE PINK PANTHER (2006).

THE KARATE KID (2010) faces a similar problem.  From the fish-out-of-water premise of the “Joisey” kid moving to California to the “You’re The Best Around” montage to the over-the-top bad guys (”Get him a body bag! Yeeaah!”), the original KARATE KID is great because it has a unique combination of cheesy chemistry.  Re-creating that chemistry is a “lightning strike twice” situation, not impossible but highly unlikely.

2. Will Smith is producing the movie.  On the upside, “Big Willie Style” means a big budget and excellent production values.  On the downside, Smith casting his son Jaden in the lead screams “vanity project”.

3. I’m obviously not in the target demographic for this movie.  I’m not a child and I’m not a parent of a child.  The original had a 21 year-old Elisabeth Shue as the “compelling hot babe”.  The “love interest” for 11 year-old Jaden Smith is played by a similarly young Chinese actress named Han Wenwen.  Definitely not — unless you’re under 12 years old -  “compelling hot babe” material.

4. As I don’t want Skynet/the Cylons to keep track of my web surfing activities, I have my browser cache and cookies cleared before I shutdown my computer.  Consequently, I lost a link to an article from earlier this week where someone wrote that the Jaden Smith-Jackie Chan relationship in the movie serves as an allegory for how America needs China and China needs America.

“Child, please”, as Chad Ochocinco would say.

Before this week, all of these pre-conceived notions had me leaning towards going to see THE A-TEAM next weekend instead of THE KARATE KID (2010).  However, after being subjected to the Sirens’ call of the publicity machine, I started thinking that I might have to check out THE KARATE KID (2010) first.  Then, I read this whopper of a quote from producer James Lassiter in The L.A. Times article “‘Karate Kid’ update breaks down some Chinese walls”:

The people run the country.  So if people didn’t want you shooting in their neighborhood, there’s no authority that can tell them they have to. That’s why it’s called the People’s Republic of China.

Like a splash of cold water to the face, that quote snapped me out of the stupor created by the publicity machine.   Yes, GeekPadre and Todd Brown gave positive reviews but, like early returns on election night, that doesn’t mean anything.  I’ll wait until other critics get a chance to see the movie but unless reviews are overwhelmingly positive, I’m probably waiting until a cheap night Tuesday or a second-run discount theatre or possibly even a video rental before I see THE KARATE KID (2010).

Only my brain, with its bothersome thinking and dilemmas and conundrums, is compelling me to see the remake.  My heart is telling me I’ll have a much better time at THE A-TEAM.  “Don’t think! Feel!”, noted 20th Century philosopher Bruce Lee said in ENTER THE DRAGON.   THE A-TEAM it is.

RELATED LINKS:

• Review from Variety
• Review from The Hollywood Reporter

Images credits: Samuel Goldwyn Films (TORTILLA SOUP poster); 20th Century Fox (THE A-TEAM publicity image)

A special Mother’s Day edition of Old Cake Cantopop today as the blog joins in on the celebration of mothers and motherhood.  Try to remember the sentiments of the day if you ever find yourself in a tiff with your mother.  Try thinking: “This woman gave me life so … ultimately, she has no one to blame but herself for this predicament!”

Performed originally by Josephine Siao Fong-Fong in the 1960 release NOBODY’S CHILD (苦兒流浪記; trans. TALES OF THE WANDERING ORPHAN), the song 《媽媽好》 (Mom Is Great) has become a lullaby/nursery rhyme in Chinese culture. It’s been covered by the likes of Teresa Teng and versions of the song have even been done in Japanese and Vietnamese. Since 1960, various incarnations of the song have appeared numerous times in many films and television projects.  If you saw the 2004 film PAPA LOVES YOU, you may recall the song being played in the background when rambunctious schoolgirl Ellen (Charlene Choi) thinks about the sacrifices her father (Tony Leung Ka-Fai) has made for her.

What follows are my rudimentary translation of the lyrics for the song, a link to the Hong Kong Film Archive page for NOBODY’S CHILD, a YouTube clip of Josephine Siao performing the song in the film and other related links.

Happy Mother’s Day everybody!

… and, yes, I realize the song isn’t sung in Cantonese so it isn’t exactly “Cantopop”.  Just get in the spirit of the holiday - OK?

RELATED LINKS:

• Clips of Josephine Siao in NOBODY’S CHILD (Siao starts singing the song at the 1:58 mark)
• Full version of the song as sung by Josephine Siao
• Hong Kong Film Archive page for NOBODY’S CHILD
• Teresa Teng covers the song
• Japanese version of the song by Rimi Natsukawa

While watching the Ronald Cheng - Charlene Choi controversy unfurl late last month, it was hard not to think of the great speech by the Hyman Roth character in THE GODFATHER, PART II.  Lamenting the death of his partner in organized crime, Moe Green, Roth said:

Someone put a bullet through his eye. No one knows who gave the order. When I heard it, I wasn’t angry. I knew Moe, I knew he was headstrong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he turned up dead, I let it go.

And I said to myself, this is the business we’ve chosen. I didn’t ask who gave the order.

The matters of a marriage, for the most part, should be dealt with privately by the couple.  If some sort of abuse is taking place, then the authorities, quite rightly, should intervene. But, for the most part, what goes on between two people in a marriage should stay between the two people involved.  It’s a part of common human decency to respect the privacy of a married couple.  After all, some form of the Golden Rule (”do onto others as you would have done onto you”) exists in most of the World’s cultures.  Among the circle of Chinese people that I know, uncharitable things are often said of people who gossip about the marriages of the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker.  We’ve all seen those types of characters in TVB dramas.  They’re never played by the beautiful TVB fa daans. They’re invariably played by lower profile supporting actresses.  Why, then, was the secret marriage of Ronald Cheng and Charlene Choi such a hot topic?

Simple, because of the business they’ve chosen.  The business, according to multiple Chinese media reports, that made Charlene Choi millions last year in accumulated fees, royalties and endorsements, provided her with enough money to buy three properties that generate rental income and will allow her and Cheng to avoid a nasty dispute over alimony.  “I can afford my own lifestyle and he can afford his,” Choi declared on March 29th at an event promoting her Twins reunion concerts.

While wealth and prosperity does certainly soften the blow of having your private life dragged through the mud, the public intrusion into the marriage of Charlene Choi and Ronald Cheng feels worse than the public intrusion on Sexy Photos Gate protagonists Gillian Chung and Edison Chen.  At first blush, it seems an insane notion.  After all, Ah Gil and EDC had their most private of parts laid bare.  The difference, however, is that in one case a private secret was revealed while in the other a lie was exposed.

Consider it this way: Ah Bing has a drug problem.  He’s still able to function but he’s addicted to drugs and it’s affecting his life.  He’s trying to shed his addiction but, because he wants to keep his job, he keeps his problem a secret.  Some people suspect that he’s an addict and have started to question him.  He denies the speculation because he wants to keep making a living.

Ah Mou also has a drug problem.  He’s still able to function but he’s addicted to drugs and it’s affecting his life.  He’s trying to shed his addiction but, because he wants to keep his job, he keeps his problem a secret.  Only thing is, he’s an anti-drug advocate who makes his living decrying drugs.  One day, a photo of him doing a line of cocaine is published in the newspaper and his career is ruined.

It’s a fine distinction but it’s why it’s easier to feel sorry for Charlene Choi than it is for Gillian Chung.  Ah Sa didn’t exploit her marital status for professional gain.  Her denials were about keeping her private life private.  She didn’t do it to sell more tickets and albums.  She didn’t do it to get more endorsement deals.  For at least two years, it had been an open secret that she and Ronald Cheng were together in some form.  It probably wasn’t a shock to most fans when Apple Daily revealed their marriage certificate.

On the other hand, in the face of the Easy Finder scandal, Ah Gil protested too much about how the pictures of her bare shoulder shattered her fragile, virginal, clean-cut sensibilities.  The peephole pictures were indeed despicable but, considering what they showed, it was not a proportional response.  As a result, when the Sexy Photos Gate images surfaced, most of her fans felt betrayed because it showed that she exploited the Easy Finder scandal for professional gain.

In Charlene Choi’s case, she was trying to keep the door closed on her private life.  Gillian Chung opened the door to hers by overplaying her reaction to Easy Finder.  The situations that the two Twins members found themselves in were caused by gross invasions of privacy but the fine line between a secret and a lie is why Choi will likely just keep moving on with her career while Chung had to spend the last two years in exile.

Public intrusion into the private lives of celebrities is the natural byproduct of fame.  Celebrities get paid because they have created an interest in themselves so they have to live with it when that interest manifests itself in distasteful ways.  Vicki Zhao probably isn’t enjoying the speculation about her baby and her Baby Daddy but the interest in her and her private life is part of why she’s in projects like MULAN and 14 BLADES.  The interest is why she’s able to do endorsements for clothing lines, shampoos and cell phones.

Most of the time, the attention is harmless and does not amount to more than an annoyance.  Most of the time, people can tell the difference between a private secret and a lie so no real damage is done unless a celebrity is caught in a lie.  People can respect secrets.  No one held it against Leslie Cheung for not revealing his sexual orientation with a “Yep I’m Gay” cover on Ming Pao Weekly.  No one held it against Anita Mui for keeping her fight against cancer private until three months before her death.

People, however, do not tolerate lies. Jackie Chan’s popularity in Hong Kong has never recovered from the Dragon Seed scandal of 1999.  His “good guy, say your prayers, drink your milk, take your vitamins” image was dealt a serious blow by news of his affair with Elaine Ng.  Chan has five of the top 20 highest-grossing Hong Kong films of all-time yet, since making HK$27.5 million with GORGEOUS (his last pre-Dragon Seed release), he hasn’t broken the HK$25 million mark.  In fact, his latest film, LITTLE BIG SOLDIER, made a desultory HK$1.8 million.

In the end, because Charlene Choi and Ronald Cheng were just trying to keep their marriage private, it’s hard to imagine their careers being damaged in the long-term.  This is why this particular intrusion into the private lives of celebrities feels more repulsive than other instances.  It feels like Choi and Cheng were forced to hold a press event announcing the dissolution of their marriage for mere weekend entertainment.  Sadly, it seems most people didn’t recognize that a tragedy was playing out before their eyes.  Two people who used to be in love were breaking up.  Two people whose lives had to have been diminished because they felt like they had to hide that love.  Tragic novels and plays could be written from these circumstances.  Instead, it was consumed as fodder for the entertainment news cycle.

It’s a sad situation and you can point the finger at multiple culprits: the over-heated HK media, the celebrity-obsessed culture, the way EEG markets its talent and the general nature of the HK entertainment star-system.  Ultimately, though, Choi and Cheng have no one to blame but themselves.  This is, after all, the business they’ve chosen.

Image credits: Paramount Pictures (THE GODFATHER, PART II screen grab), Time Magazine (Ellen Degeneres cover), Sina.com (Twins, Ronald Cheng & Charlene Choi)