Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Yesterday Once More

Electronic data

  • Bettinson_Post_Hong_Kong_Cinema

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Chinese Cinemas on 16/01/2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

    Accepted author manuscript, 269 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Yesterday Once More: Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Yesterday Once More : Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization. / Bettinson, Gary.

In: Journal of Chinese Cinemas, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.04.2020, p. 16-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bettinson, Gary. / Yesterday Once More : Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization. In: Journal of Chinese Cinemas. 2020 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 16-31.

Bibtex

@article{1a4348058f3d4801aa3835d80f8045bf,
title = "Yesterday Once More: Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization",
abstract = "Since Ackbar Abbas theorized Hong Kong as a space of cultural {\textquoteleft}disappearance{\textquoteright} in the mid-1990s, critics have debated the extent to which local cultural forms have continued to recede, particularly as a corollary of Hong Kong{\textquoteright}s increasing subjection to mainlandization. For several critics, the region{\textquoteright}s cinema has already vanished from view, only to re-emerge in a brand new, distinctly Sinicized guise – that of {\textquoteleft}post-Hong Kong cinema,{\textquoteright} a mode of predominantly coproduced filmmaking that effaces traditional Hong Kong aesthetics and routines of film practice. So thoroughly has Hong Kong cinema been subsumed to China that its once {\textquoteleft}unique{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}singular{\textquoteright} identity is no longer discernible. The shackles of PRC censorship now stifle free expression; Hong Kong{\textquoteright}s classic genres have become obsolete; and the PRC{\textquoteright}s vogue for {\textquoteleft}main melody{\textquoteright} films and the dapian ({\textquoteleft}big film{\textquoteright}) has straitened Hong Kong cinema{\textquoteright}s range of storytelling options. Today, critics contend, Hong Kong filmmakers are severely constrained by Mainland bureaucracy and the exigencies of the China market. This article seeks to challenge these assumptions, contesting a set of apparent truisms concerning Mainland censorship, Hong Kong-China coproductions, and the dissipation or disappearance of Hong Kong{\textquoteright}s local cinema and identity. The theory of mainlandization, I submit, denies the durability of Hong Kong{\textquoteright}s standardized craft practices; its aesthetic traditions; and the facile ingenuity of its filmmakers.",
keywords = "Hong Kong-China coproductions, mainlandization, Hong Kong localism, PRC censorship, Hong Kong film style, film authorship",
author = "Gary Bettinson",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Chinese Cinemas on 16/01/2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436",
year = "2020",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "16--31",
journal = "Journal of Chinese Cinemas",
issn = "1750-8061",
publisher = "Intellect Publishers",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Yesterday Once More

T2 - Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization

AU - Bettinson, Gary

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Chinese Cinemas on 16/01/2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

PY - 2020/4/1

Y1 - 2020/4/1

N2 - Since Ackbar Abbas theorized Hong Kong as a space of cultural ‘disappearance’ in the mid-1990s, critics have debated the extent to which local cultural forms have continued to recede, particularly as a corollary of Hong Kong’s increasing subjection to mainlandization. For several critics, the region’s cinema has already vanished from view, only to re-emerge in a brand new, distinctly Sinicized guise – that of ‘post-Hong Kong cinema,’ a mode of predominantly coproduced filmmaking that effaces traditional Hong Kong aesthetics and routines of film practice. So thoroughly has Hong Kong cinema been subsumed to China that its once ‘unique’ and ‘singular’ identity is no longer discernible. The shackles of PRC censorship now stifle free expression; Hong Kong’s classic genres have become obsolete; and the PRC’s vogue for ‘main melody’ films and the dapian (‘big film’) has straitened Hong Kong cinema’s range of storytelling options. Today, critics contend, Hong Kong filmmakers are severely constrained by Mainland bureaucracy and the exigencies of the China market. This article seeks to challenge these assumptions, contesting a set of apparent truisms concerning Mainland censorship, Hong Kong-China coproductions, and the dissipation or disappearance of Hong Kong’s local cinema and identity. The theory of mainlandization, I submit, denies the durability of Hong Kong’s standardized craft practices; its aesthetic traditions; and the facile ingenuity of its filmmakers.

AB - Since Ackbar Abbas theorized Hong Kong as a space of cultural ‘disappearance’ in the mid-1990s, critics have debated the extent to which local cultural forms have continued to recede, particularly as a corollary of Hong Kong’s increasing subjection to mainlandization. For several critics, the region’s cinema has already vanished from view, only to re-emerge in a brand new, distinctly Sinicized guise – that of ‘post-Hong Kong cinema,’ a mode of predominantly coproduced filmmaking that effaces traditional Hong Kong aesthetics and routines of film practice. So thoroughly has Hong Kong cinema been subsumed to China that its once ‘unique’ and ‘singular’ identity is no longer discernible. The shackles of PRC censorship now stifle free expression; Hong Kong’s classic genres have become obsolete; and the PRC’s vogue for ‘main melody’ films and the dapian (‘big film’) has straitened Hong Kong cinema’s range of storytelling options. Today, critics contend, Hong Kong filmmakers are severely constrained by Mainland bureaucracy and the exigencies of the China market. This article seeks to challenge these assumptions, contesting a set of apparent truisms concerning Mainland censorship, Hong Kong-China coproductions, and the dissipation or disappearance of Hong Kong’s local cinema and identity. The theory of mainlandization, I submit, denies the durability of Hong Kong’s standardized craft practices; its aesthetic traditions; and the facile ingenuity of its filmmakers.

KW - Hong Kong-China coproductions

KW - mainlandization

KW - Hong Kong localism

KW - PRC censorship

KW - Hong Kong film style

KW - film authorship

U2 - 10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

DO - 10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

SP - 16

EP - 31

JO - Journal of Chinese Cinemas

JF - Journal of Chinese Cinemas

SN - 1750-8061

IS - 1

ER -