Hong Kong loves Ghost films. There is a certain lingering sentiment of what was lost in the collective psyche in this city, something amiss but one cannot quite put their finger on it, in light of the towering skyscrapers and modernised economy. This was the deep impression I got after reading. The exploration of social issues within ghost films.
One such theme is homelessness. Since, like ghosts, the homeless linger in places that they supposedly should have a share in yet do not. They’re invisible in the grander context of the glamourous city, but if you look closer you will see that they were always there. This resonates with a lot of ghost films, as they hope to demonstrate how they are not wanted, yet due to certain fault of the characters they have remained.
Furthermore, these ghost films are often shot in public housing estates (e.g., Made in Hong Kong). Which further exemplifies Hong Kong’s structural issue. In which such a fundamental resource has been commodified, to be traded and invested in. Hence, ghost films has become an ideal way to critique such phenomenon. There remains this certain social aspect to such prominence of ghost films in Hong Kong.
Lam Chun Wai
UID: 3036050556
The ghost films in Hong Kong, to some extent, demonstrate the “disappearance” put forward by Abbas and the uncertainty/anxiety towards the political and cultural hybridity. I would suggest framing your analysis based on Abbas’ writing since the ghost films (handover trilogy) analyzed by Cheung is firmly related to Hong Kong’s identity and political transition. Figuring out how ghost serves as a metaphor for highlighting Hong Kong’s “stay” and “gone” would be very fascinating.