In the paper “Cuts through Hong Kong”, the author discussed Wong Kar-Wai’s 2000 film In the Mood for Love, which masterfully captures a moment of transition in 1960s Hong Kong through its intricate spatial and temporal collage structure. What captured my attention is the film’s reflection on the inevitability of change. I think setting the background of the movie in the 1960s is very important because it showcases how much Hong Kong has changed since that time period. Landscape, economy, politics – none of these escape the fate of transformation. In my view, change in most scenarios is a good phenomenon as it represents improvements and reforms. However, not all changes are positive; landscape and culture are particularly vulnerable.
Under the guise of “globalization”, Hong Kong has experienced a tremendous transformation in its landscape and culture. For example, most of the eye-catching unique neon signs in Hong Kong have been removed due to “safety concerns”; street vendors and “Dai pai dong” are fading due to constant pressure from the government hoping to improve hygiene standards; the increasing influx of tourists is causing more and more shops to cater towards tourists; new malls with all the international brands keep being constructed. Instead of perpetual change, is preservation also a solution? This so-called “globalization” leads to homogenization of landscape and culture, and I doubt if it is still truly “Hong Kong” after all this change.
The film offers transitory freedom—a nostalgic glimpse of the good old past, though the inevitable transformations it sought to memorialize have only accelerated in the two decades since its release.
I appreciate your reflection on the inevitability of change, which connects with the film’s idea of capturing the moment of transition in 1960s Hong Kong. You also unpacked the idea of transformation after the 1960s in the context of Hong Kong. However, your response directly focused on the film rather than responding to Seng’s piece. Since you are writing a response, you should concentrate on Seng’s piece, e.g., how and why the author raises the main arguments and present your own understanding regarding them.
Thank you for the feedback. As this is one of my favourite films I was too excited when writing a reflection about it so my focus was lost. To answer your point, maybe why the author raise this argument is because she wished something could be preserved? She mentioned this film provides a “transitory freedom”, which might imply that she have a nostalgic feeling towards the past, and through this film she have the freedom to explore old Hong Kong, where most real life evidence of that era have gone.