Discovering the East: An Interview with Mhat Bernstein of HKFlix.com

By Rick Curnutte

Richard A. Curnutte, Jr. is the Editor of The Film Journal. He has studied English and Film at Ohio University and The Ohio State University. He is a founding member of the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and a member of the Online Film Critics Association.

Issue 2 sees the launch of a new partnership between The Film Journal and HKFlix.com. I conducted this email interview with Mhat Bernstein over the period of a week or so.

RC: First of all, I'd like to ask you about your background. What exactly is your creative interest in Asian cinema, and where did it come from?

MB: I suppose my interest in Asian films started in high school, when some Chinese friends of mine exposed me to my first Stephen Chow comedy. At the time I think it was too off-the-wall for me--especially considering I was watching a VHS tape in Cantonese with no subtitles--but it definitely stuck with me, and it was an immediate fascination for me. Although these films were truly kooky and unique, I only had access to a few selected films that my friends happened to own, so I didn't really pursue the interest very much other than to learn some actors' names and lines from the films. I didn't really get too deep into Asian cinema at all until I saw a film called The Deadliest Art, which was a USA-made documentary/compilation, which featured clips of various Asian martial arts films, mostly Jackie Chan films. At that time, I had no idea who Jackie Chan was--that was well before the USA studios began re-releasing his films here--but the clips I had seen in this compilation would not leave my mind. The action and fight sequences in these films were so far advanced beyond anything in domestic "action" films, I immediately began to seek out as many of the films from the compilation as possible. Unfortunately, most were simply not in print in the USA--never had been--and none of the retailers had heard of them. Eventually, some of Jackie's films started popping up in re-release from major US studios, but they were all dubbed, re-scored, edited, etc. Since the advent of the Internet and then DVDs, however, it became much easier to find uncut, imported versions of all these films, and I voraciously began buying and watching as many as possible. Of course, that lead to discovering many other Chinese films--martial arts films and comedies, mostly--which in turn lead to others. Since signing on at HKFlix, I've become exposed to films from all over the world. Only in the past few years have I become interested in Korean films and Japanese films... But you can safely say that I've got "the bug" now. I'm hooked on these films, and it's great to be able to see films from all around the world rather than to be limited by whatever Hollywood is regurgitating. The more films I watch, of course, the more I can appreciate film in general, and the more open-minded I become as far as what genres and styles of films I enjoy. So, overall, what began simply as a novel fascination with some screwball HK comedies has grown into a passion which has proved invaluable in helping me to better appreciate films from all over the globe.

RC: So, like most Western audiences, you came to experience Asian cinema through kung fu and slapstick cinema. Do you find that Western audiences, especially Americans, are less likely to accept a "straight" Asian film than one that, say, has action sensibilities?

MB: It depends on what there is in the film that they can identify with, I suppose. Different people come across Asian cinema from different paths. A film like King of Masks has no action or slapstick, it's basically a straight drama, but anyone who's seen it knows that it's stunning. Even if the story doesn't do it for you (though the story is beautiful, in my opinion), the cinematography and the acting and everything else in the film will make your jaw drop. In fact, I'd guess that many more people are introduced to Asian cinema through the straight, "art house" films than through the slapstick comedies--many westerners find Chinese humor off-putting at first, whereas an "art house" film like King Of Masks, Yi Yi, or In The Mood For Love can really capture people's attention and stir up their emotions in a way that perhaps they haven't felt before from an American film.

RC: I think that's true of more discerning types. But if you ask most people who their favorite Asian actor is, you'll get one of two answers: Jackie Chan or Jet Li...

MB: Agreed, but what I was saying was that more westerners find Asian cinema through the art house films that get major distribution than through the slapstick comedies, which are often hard to find and hard for western audiences to relate to.

RC: Hong Kong has certainly made the strongest impact on Western audiences, more so than Japan (with the exception of anime), certainly more than Vietnam or Thailand or Korea...

MB: I don't know if that statement is accurate. Hong Kong films have had an incredible impact, but Japan has brought us the films of Kurosawa, which have arguably been more deeply influential on western cinema--on cinema everywhere--than anything from Hong Kong. Though the volume of films from Hong Kong which have gained popularity in the states since the '70s is absolutely much higher.

RC: Lately, of course, we see American audiences getting as much exposure to remakes as their sources. This year will see a Hollywood remake of Japan's The Ring, which was also made in Korea as The Ring Virus. Dreamworks has optioned Korea's My Sassy Girl, the most successful comedy in Korean history. Do you think these Hollywood projects will help or harm the ability of Korea and other Asian nations to export their films here?

MB: As long as Hollywood keeps remaking these films, they'll keep remaking them poorly. In fact, with regards to your example, The Ring, I would be amazed if Hollywood could do anything with it. I haven't seen a scary Hollywood movie in so many years, I don't think that the Hollywood system is capable of scaring anyone right now. Their system is designed to crank out slick, homogenous films. What all these remakes will accomplish, however, is to stir up more interest in the original Asian films, which is great. I mean, which would you rather see, "the most successful comedy in Korean history" or "a remake of the most successful comedy in Korean history"? With most films, what makes the originals so great is the mood and acting and the film's more intimate personality traits. When you remake a film, every scene almost always loses that charm completely and focuses instead on a basic idea or a plotline or a line of dialog... Gus Van Sant remade Psycho in 1998 and copied Hitchcock's original composition nearly frame for frame. But Van Sant's remake was entirely disposable, as it had nothing original to offer and missed the mark in its every feeble attempt to emulate the original.

RC: Without question, Hollywood has a history of homogenizing foreign originals. They can't even remake their own stuff properly, let alone getting the nuances of foreign cultures and languages correct. Also this year, Miramax is releasing in America Stephen Chow's import Shaolin Soccer. They've gone back and forth with the title. Now it will be called Kung Fu Soccer. Apparently, changes will be made with dialogue as well, most likely removing the somewhat screwy humor. Is the problem less with the audiences, than with the corporate mindset that has taken over the studios? Are American importers underestimating their audiences?

MB: I would not necessarily say that the problem is with the audiences... The first problem is that western audiences--for the most part--don't usually know what they're missing when they see (for example) a Miramax re-release. They won't know how brilliant the original film is if they only see it in its Pasteurized Americanized format. And companies such as Miramax are very careful to ensure that it stays that way. If people knew that they were missing out on all the jokes, the original score, the original vocal performances, the original title, the original actors' names, and often up to 30 minutes of footage, there's no way they'd be happy. The US studios buy these films as a brand name. They simply want to exploit them and make as much money as possible by changing them so they appeal to every possible moviegoer in the country. Unfortunately, the decisions about "what appeals to every moviegoer in the country" are made pre-release by executives and the audiences are never exposed to the real experience of watching a foreign film, with all its quirks, flaws, and nuances.

Admittedly, when a film is released in the states in its original language with subtitles, it appeals to more of an "arthouse" crowd. Little Jimmy isn't going to rush out of his 7th grade English class after school and run to the theater to see an obscure Michelle Yeoh film in Cantonese with subtitles. And perhaps Jimmy's dad won't want to "go to a theater and read" when he could just see Spider-man instead. But regardless of that, these films do have an audience waiting to be tapped in the states, people who do want to explore world cinema and see something different. The studios don't want to just appeal to those people, however, they want Jimmy and his dad to see their film too. So they edit and dub and advertise and promote their product so that it will appeal to everyone in some way. Jimmy will get to see some fight scenes "with that chick from Supercop" and won't have to sit through some of the slower dialog scenes which have been edited out; Jimmy's dad won't have to "go to a theater and read" since it's been dubbed in English; and the "arthouse" crowd can go and see the film because they realize it's an important little slice of foreign cinema, perhaps justifying the trip to themselves thusly: "Even though it's been edited and dubbed, this is the only way I'll ever get to see it."

There is really no black and white answer here. American studios may or may not be underestimating their audiences, but we may never know since they don't really want to give us a chance. They're more concerned with bottom dollar profits than with preserving a work of art or exposing people to something new. The measured "success" of a film in the USA unfortunately often has little to do with the film's merits and more to do with the advertising, distribution, and ticket sales. It's not as important to the US studios if people come out of the theater liking their film as it is that they went in in the first place. You and I and everyone reading this are hopefully dissatisfied with this state of affairs and would like to see more Asian films released domestically as their original creators intended. You can make a difference if you let the studios know your opinion and back your opinions up with your dollars when you go or don't go to the theater. In fact, a group of Asian film fans from all over the world has put together a brilliant petition to this end. This petition--this entire effort-is directed at Disney (and its subsidiaries: Miramax, Touchstone, Dimension, etc.), due to their "mishandling" of some of our favorite films. I'd encourage everyone reading this to stop by http://www.hkfilm.net/disney and read and sign the petition, which has over 7000 signatures at the time of this writing.

RC: I've actually come across that survey before, and it's a noble effort, but the root of this problem is exactly what you said, that the studios are only concerned with one thing: money. But who determines box office receipts? We do, the moviegoing public. It's a chicken and the egg conundrum. We take whatever is force-fed us by the studios, but they wouldn't be forcing them if we weren't such willing participants in the complacency. Then there are the forks in the road, the exceptions that no one can predict. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon made $100 million plus at the box office. It surely wasn't because of its martial arts alone, as the fights are sporadic and more lyrical than kinetic. What do you think was the secret of that film's success?

MB: There were many factors that helped to make that film so successful, I'm sure it didn't hurt the marketing efforts that director Ang Lee had already had several successes in the states with his previous films. Plus, it was simply a very good film. On that, most people will agree. That, combined with the fact that Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat are both relatively well-known among American audiences--as is brilliant action director Yuen Wo Ping--and the film's $15 million budget... And the timing... It was made and marketed with American audiences in mind and the whole enterprise just worked out very well. The studios got a lot of money and publicity (and credit for exposing people to Asian cinema), and we all got a great film. We may never know if other Asian films would be able to reach that level of success in the states unless the studios give them a fair chance in their original formats.

RC: There are quite a few Asian directors gaining a bit of recognition lately...Wong Kar-Wai, Takashi Miike, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Takeshi Kitano, Kinji Fukasaku, Kim Sang-Jin, Im Kwon-Taek. Many of these names are beginning to be recognized outside of the strictly "arthouse" circles. Working with a company that specializes in the Asian market, what types of films to do find American audiences gravitating towards?

MB: Things always go in waves. Japanese and Korean films are gaining incredible popularity right now. The directors you mentioned are of course some of the most highly visible, and their films are in demand. Innovative films like Battle Royale and Avalon from Japanese directors, and the consistently high-quality films coming out of Korea recently are enticing to film lovers of all ages and tastes. But aside from a general trend towards Korean and Japanese films recently, the biggest trend has been towards the "old school martial arts" films from the '70s. Thanks to the success of films like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger..., western audiences are hungry to see more brilliantly choreographed and performed physical action. Younger people want to see what they've been missing all this time, and slightly older people may want to re-watch these films they may have caught on "black belt theater" TV shows in their youth. Consequently, the Hong Kong films from this era, especially those produced by the legendary Shaw Brothers Studios, are in very high demand right now. And rightly so. These films aren't big on plot, but the physical action is simply breathtaking; and witnessing it is such a rich experience in and of itself that the films suffer not at all for their lack of "substance".

RC: Certainly, the appeal of the old-school martial arts films is immense. Quentin Tarantino is even shooting part of his upcoming kung fu/exploitation picture, Kill Bill, on some of the Shaw Brothers original production lots. Celestial Pictures has spent nearly $100 million to acquire the entire Shaw Brothers catalog, including all video, remake, sequel and theatrical production rights. There are even rumors of a 24-hour a day Shaw Brothers Kung Fu television channel. This must mark the biggest effort by a production company to introduce a catalog of Asian titles to American audiences. While the Shaw Brothers films may not get Oscar nods like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, there must be an enormous potential here for a lucrative franchise, albeit one that is over 20 years old.

MB: Regarding the Celestial Pictures information, all there really is now is a lot of rumors about what they might or might not do with the Shaw Bros. catalog. Of course, it is our hope that they have good film prints of these movies and that they will be doing some significant restoration work on them and releasing them on DVD worldwide. It would be very exciting indeed to see clear widescreen prints of these films. Also, it would be incredible to have the option of hearing these legendary actors speak in their own voices, since most of us have only heard the English dubs. Of course, the English dubs are now historically important to western audiences as well, as these are the versions people here grew up listening to. So, ideally, Celestial will release these films with both language options. Time will tell, I suppose, we can just cross our fingers until then.

As for Quentin Tarantino's film, who knows... He's a talented guy, and he seems sincerely reverent of the genre films he grew up with. So, hopefully he'll be able to create something special for us here, something that pays appropriate homage to the genre rather than just mimicking it poorly.

RC: Exactly. I mean, after all, what's most important is to realize the importance, culturally and socially, of these films and their impact, both when they were initially released and now, when we look to them for some glimpse of a past mindset. Asian cinema has certainly had a unique impact on the world as a whole, and perhaps the West in particular. Any final thoughts as to where trends in Asian cinema might be headed?

MB: Hopefully we will continue to see independent-minded, innovative films come out of Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea. There will always be plenty of Hollywood films coming out of Hollywood, so no one else needs to try and emulate those. The most important thing will be for Asian cinema to remain Asian, and to develop autonomously. Asian film companies also must remain vigilant when licensing their films for overseas distribution, and do everything they can to make sure their films reach foreign shores intact, without allowing the big Hollywood studios to butcher them as they have been.

RC: Well spoken. So often films' success are determined by their success in America. Such a U.S.-centric ideal is defeatist and destructive to the medium in general, because international filmmakers' best chance at artistic success must always be, at the end of the day, maintaining their own unique cultural voice. I want to thank you so much for your time, and thank HKFlix.com for making this Asian Focus Series a reality.

MB: My pleasure, Rick.