2guys1box

I didn’t grow up with “Hard” science fiction, SF of the Isaac Asimov variety. On my bookshelf are ten-odd Star Wars novels – rather than disappointed with the Star Wars prequels, I was enthralled by them. The Phantom Menace was the second time I went to the cinema. I remember my ears hurting and George’s Lucas’ trademark Star Wars opening – a spaceship roaring into starry space. By 14, I was collecting the novels and reading Wookieepedia for trivia on all of Anakin Skywalker’s myriad flings with space-chicks. I committed John Williams’ score to heart. Then I bought Hard Contact (Karen Traviss), a game tie-in, a footnote against the sprawling mass of SW literature, and my view of what science fiction should be changed forever.

Instead of monks swinging laser swords and simplified hyperbole about the dark side like in the official Clone Wars novel series, it was about guerilla warfare, warfare that was less about colourful dicksabers and spouting one-liners and more about y’know, war. But what I really respected about the novel and its sequels was that it challenged the ethics of an army of cloned people bred solely to do battle. While George Lucas happily ignored this, Traviss came straight out and wrote the words “slave army” into canon.

Tarkovsky's Stalker is on my to-review list.

My definition of hard science fiction is simply this: it doesn’t pander. It doesn’t involve Ewoks or hot chicks or even a well structured narrative for the sake of netting a bigger audience. Hard SF is less about entertainment and more about purpose, be it art (Stalker, 2001), sociopolitical commentary (first half of District 9), or stretching imagination and possibility as far as it is reasonable (Primer). Wikipedia will tell you that it’s about conformity to real science, but personally for me its how uncompromising the creators are in service of their vision.

Were “hard” taken to mean “difficult to comprehend” or “highly scientific”, Primer would still qualify in spades. The setting is by comparison to the rest of the movie, childlike in simplicity: A small bunch of independent engineers, working out of a garage in suburban America, struggles to juggle day jobs and the side businesses they undertake together. Abe and Aaron, two members of this group, gather the materials for an experimental device, some sort of superconductor built to reduce the weights of objects. They argue in unfiltered engineer-speak about the project, salvage a microwave oven, exclude their friends, and on the big night, they turn it on.

It works, but there is a peculiar side effect: an object left in the machine gathers common fungus at an inexplicably fast rate. Subsequently, leaving a watch in the machine reveals that time passes differently in the box – it bounces between the times it is switched on and off. With an object in the box, this just means that it goes back and forth from the past to the future of the period during which the box is switched on, for a massive number of times – a time loop. But if the object in the box could choose to enter at the “future” end, and exit the box when time looped back around to the past… then you would have functional time travel, wouldn’t you?

"I wanted to see a story that was more in line with the way real innovation takes place."

Abe and Aaron build a bigger box and cautiously begin experimenting with sending themselves back in time every day, using their advantage on the stock market. Their traveling back in time gives them 36-hour days, and opportunity to glimpse their earlier selves – their doubles from the past who haven’t yet entered the box to go back in time. This presents new, mind-boggling questions. What if someone calls, whose phone would ring, the double’s or the original’s? What if you went back and stopped your earlier self from switching on the machine? If the machine is turned off how would you return to the past to switch it off in the first place? Recklessly, they eventually throw their caution to the time loop and plunge into the unknown.

I know it seems like I’m spoiling the whole movie for you, but Primer’s plot and dialogue becomes so utterly dense later, that trying to understand it without understanding it’s time-travel system first is as futile as teaching calculus to a brain-dead person. As if the multiple timelines and paradoxes that show up later in the film aren’t enough, this film was intended to to be increasingly incomprehensible; most people require upwards of two rewatches and a flowchart to get the final third of the film. First-time director Shane Carruth (who is a former engineer) justifies this by saying that if even the two characters who made the time machine know so little about how it works, why should the audience get off any better? Plot complexity issues ultimately come down to taste and tolerance – unlike Donnie Darko, it doesn’t even kinda make sense the first time – no traditional payoff for most of us staring dumbfounded at the screen. You may find it deep, you may find it pretentious. You have been warned.

You may have noticed I’ve neglected to name any of the crew except Shane Carruth, whom you’ve probably never heard of. This is because it was a first-time independent production, made with a mere 7000 USD, around 30k more to convert it to 35mm for Sundance. Yeah, that’s right, it went to Sundance. And won the Grand Jury Prize. Not impressed yet? Primer, all 77 minutes of it, was shot on Super 16 film. Get a person with experience in shooting film and he’ll tell you that that leaves your room for error very small, due to how expensive it is to shoot on film. For context, fellow indie darling Pi (83 min) was shot on the same film stock for 60k; The Daytrippers (87 min) was shot on Super 16 for 600k. Primer’s DVD commentary confirms that many, many shots were done in one take, with a heavy burden falling on planning. And plan he did – Shane Carruth is a self-taught filmmaker, and also got into grad-level physics just for this film.

This mostly one-take method of working becomes obvious in the numerous technical problems that pockmark the scenes like the freckles on your girlfriend’s otherwise pretty face. Framing goofs, film grain owing to a mix-up by the digital intermediate, focus issues, continuity, lack of coverage, poor location sound (mostly well-patched with dubbing). There’s a night scene at some fountains where the grain is everywhere and it is very difficult to hear what is said without the use of subtitles – epic fail in a movie that relies on dialogue. I forgave him even for these transgressions however, when Carruth points out the scenes that were shot guerilla style, in a few hours before passerby begin to interfere with the shot or the owners of the venue discover what is going on. Sometimes for scenes like this, he would shoot a line or two out of a character’s mouth and move on to the next line, neglecting master shots and running out of coverage during editing. I had the honour of making this mistake in one of my film projects in order to save tape, and trust me, I really really wish I hadn’t.

"I don't know why the first thing we shot had to be a long dolly shot that goes on for several minutes with action from all four of the lead characters, but we did it."

Then he has the audacity to shoot a heap of dolly shots, focus racks, and semi-long takes, month-long rehearsals notwithstanding. And have most of it turn out fine. Colour temperatures between shots seem to shift quite a bit between scenes, from greenish to blue to orange, some of it planned, but the constant changing works out in the film’s disorientating favour. And this wasn’t all luck. The DVD commentary – which I recommend very much to film students and indie professionals – gives you a sense of how much thought the director – also the composer, writer, actor, producer, and editor – put into Primer, how one shoots an experimental movie on film with an obscenely small budget.

Today’s films, and it is unfair to only blame Hollywood, are things you watch once. Common wisdom says it is foolish to pay twice for the same movie – why watch it again? How many times really, can you watch actors with little investment in their characters spit out the stock words again and again? I think it is sad that films are no longer treasured and brought out again to be scoured like a good, dense novel, to appreciate and marvel at all the little bits you missed. To study (yes, I know that is a dirty word) and gain a deeper knowledge of all the effort and deliberation put into the details. Primer is a film like that by necessity; it’s the only way to enjoy it. You treat it like a really difficult novel. I don’t blame you if Race to Witch Mountain starts looking good.

-Chen Sing

Preface:

Since the 1920s, Hollywood has been dominating the film industry and in most cases, it is not unusual to find someone who has not watched a film that is produced by his own country. Thus, national films, especially those from the Asian region suffer as Hollywood films draw away their audiences.

In recent years however, there has been a rapid surge in international recognition of Asian films. Though this is partly due to them being more readily available on video and DVD, films from Asia are also increasingly winning top prizes at highly respected film festivals across the globe. As an Asian myself, I feel a strong connection to the current state that Asian film industry is in and the need to focus on Asia because of its potential growth in the global film industry.

With that being said, the primary focus of this study is to investigate the chances of Asian cinema ending Hollywood’s strong and lasting dominance in the world film market, and eventually achieving an equal status as Hollywood across the globe in the coming years. In this study, I will attempt to explore the standings of a few representatives of Asian cinema against the industry bully, Hollywood.

Introduction

Often considered as one of the youngest art forms, the motion picture industry is just over a century old with majority of its existence dominated by Hollywood.

“Hollywood films account for about 80 percent of the global market, American TV products occupy about 90 percent of worldwide airtime, American music makes about 85 percent of the profits in the music business: such a situation should be regarded as dramatic for the whole of mankind!’’ said executive director of the Korean Coalition Yang Gi-hwan (Bertolin, 2006, para. 8).

Despite occasional successes attained by non-Hollywood films within their own native countries as well as overseas, films produced by Hollywood ultimately dominates the international box office. Such a trend can be traced back to the 1920s, during which Hollywood and the studio system that it created came to dominate the movie industry across the globe (Ross, 2002, p. 68).

With its huge domestic base and its formal creation of a cartel, the major Hollywood studios began their worldwide film domination in full-fledged integrated fashion, producing, distributing and exhibiting natively and abroad. Its star system, publicity machinery and prestigious grand cinemas were placed into action and further expanded with the high returns flowing to the cartel. In simpler terms, it was a business strategy meant for a loaded cartel, forced into cinemas across the globe, which led to more profits and an even greater control over the world film market. Using its generous budgets to its advantage, Hollywood further made it impossible for other nations to compete on the same level (Segrave, 1997, p. 281). Today, the average cost that Hollywood sets aside for a film is $100 million (Jon, 2008, para. 2).

In most Asian countries, their national films suffer while Hollywood films continue to draw in more audience. In fact, Hollywood accounts for an astonishingly high percentage of the box office in several of its Asian counterparts – 96% in Taiwan, 78% in Thailand and 65% in Japan (Lee, 2005, para. 5).

It is then no surprise that the worldwide film revenue for Hollywood has soared from $34.9 billion in 2007 to an estimated $41.6 billion by the end of 2011 (Business Wire, 2008, para. 3). But even with such great success, Hollywood continues to fight even harder to maintain and expand their worldwide film domination by complaining of discrimination and lack of access to Hollywood products in countries where it has long controlled 80% or more of the screen time. (Segrave, 1997, p. 281). Along its path to worldwide domination, the Hollywood juggernaut has destroyed the glory of many local film industries like the Philippines and Singapore, while it continues to thrive in its success.

The Three Musketeers: Asian Cinema’s Hope

While there is no denying that this pattern of box office domination is evident in majority of the Asian film markets, there are exceptions. Paul Willemen, a professor of Critical Studies, reveals that “some countries (especially in Asia) have managed to prevent Hollywood from destroying their local film industry”. These countries worth noting are India, Hong Kong, and South Korea.

Located in South Asia, India’s motion industry continues to flourish as both Bollywood films and regional films dominate their nation’s box office, leaving no room for Hollywood films to penetrate through. Here, Hollywood fare accounts for a mere 8% in the world’s second most populous nation (Khanna, n.d., para. 15). A similar picture can be seen in South Korea whereby homegrown films of Hollywood standards receive a fair share of the box office with Hollywood. Finally, another exception who has escaped from the tyrant’s clutches is Hong Kong where films from the bully have failed to make an impact on the local film consumption. In fact, its national films outsell Hollywood’s by a factor of four to one (Williams, 2002, p. 35). Besides its formidable defence, Hong Kong has also exercised its own dominance within its region, filling up cinemas and video shelves of its neighboring audience like Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan (Cinema of Hong Kong, 2010).

India

Often considered by many to be the heart of the Indian motion picture industry, India is the world’s largest motion picture producing country, churning out nearly 1000 films annually and receiving positive receptions in Indian and in its neighboring nations. Even though the format of Bollywood films has undergone several changes over the years, the movies are typically melodramatic, 3-4 hours long, full of music and dance numbers, intensified with elaborate and brightly colored costumes and sets, and essentially revolve around traditional values such as family and religion. Amongst all these is usually a love story, where lovers overcome hardships in order to be together. But what makes the Bollywood films truly unique is the fact that most of them are musicals.

Indian film producer and director Bobby Bedi said that, “We are very optimistic that within the next five years a Bollywood movie will match the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in the global market.” Much like the Indian economy, the Indian film industry is also globalizing. As a matter of fact, the motion picture of India has prided itself as being the largest film industry in the world. As mentioned previously, India produces on average a 1000 films a year, compared to a relatively modest 600 films produced by the US. This figure, however, does not translate into an equally proportional figure in terms of revenue. In 2006, the seemingly high revenue of $2.1 billion brought in by the Indian film industry sadly matches up to what takes only 4 Hollywood films to generate. As for why there was a low income turnover, two factors contributed to the growth of it. Firstly, tickets in India were made as affordable as they could be for everyone to enjoy a movie. In fact, the price of a ticket is considered a lot way cheaper when compared to other countries. Secondly, growth in piracy has also prevented the filmmakers to earn their desired income from the home video market.

Hence, for Indian filmmakers, distributing their films abroad seems like a lucrative route to take as going global provides a promising opportunity to rake in greater sales, higher profit margins and much added visibility. Additionally factors like changing content, international avenues for financing, increased star power, and the popularity of satellite as well as other distribution channels has further induce India to enter globalization.

While the route to globalization seems attractive, it does not come without its own set of problems. The evolving nature of globalization for Indian cinema also carried its own set of business implications. Indian filmmakers wonder if the future generations would one day flock to watch a Bollywood release as regularly as a Hollywood blockbuster while studio executives considers the big threats that Indian films pose to Hollywood. As these thoughts continue, one thing was certain: both Bollywood and Hollywood have no intention of destroying each other’s markets and losing the millions of audience they have garnered around the world in the process. Instead, both are tightening their film ties through film collaborations like Slumdog Millionaire and Kites and are becoming highly vested in each other’s markets (Lakshmi, 2009). With the hopeful mindset of “Bollywood versus Hollywood” now out of the way, we take a look at Hong Kong’s cinema.

Hong Kong

One can draw considerable satisfaction from the achievements of Hong Kong cinema and the influence it have had on filmmaking around the world. Be it film stars or directors, names such as Jackie Chan, Jet Lee, and John Woo have become household names headlining several blockbusters, including those from Hollywood. Along its path of success tag along numerous Western filmmakers who are exploring and employing the visual dynamics of Hong Kong movies, fusing their own film styles with hyperkinetic martial arts action, “wire-fu”, and graceful gun battles to the mainstream audiences through films like The Matrix and Kill Bill.

However, despite attaining such accomplishment overseas, the luster on Hong Kong’s native motion picture industry has faded quite drastically as the Hong Kong film industry is met with crisis. Within the homegrown market, Hong Kong’s market share has reduced significantly by 40% with a decrease in box office earnings as well. As mentioned previously, Hong Kong is one of the countries that managed to thrive in the face of Hollywood dominance. This, however, no longer stands true as its famous predominance in the homegrown market has been increasingly diluted with Hollywood products. For the first time in nearly 30 years, the Hong Kong cinema has given way to its western counterpart who managed to gain a secure foothold in its market. Such phenomenon can be first observed in 1993 when Jurassic Park became the highest grossing film of all time in the Hong Kong box office (Teo, 1997, p. 253).

The downfall of Hong Kong’s film industry has been due to a number of reasons even though the biggest culprit to blame is the handover of Hong Kong by the British back to the People’s Republic of China, which brought with it its own set of problems for the film industry, not least among them stricter censorship (Carter, 2007, p. 61-62). Spurred by the uncertainty that aroused during the handover back to Mainland China in 1997, the best and brightest players have also jumped on the bandwagon as these valuable human resources have been drawn into the bright lights of Hollywood, resulting in a considerable “brain drain” in Hong Kong’s film industry (Yoon, 2006, p. 63). Adding on to this loss is the deaths of two of its most popular performers: Leslie Cheung and Anita Mui.

Similar to India, Hong Kong’s industry is also threatened by the widespread of piracy, which puts films out onto the streets at a fraction of a cost of a movie ticket as they get released into theaters (Leong, 2002, p. 1). Year 2003 proved to be particularly disastrous for the industry. In addition to the already prominent economic woes, the SARS outbreak made people even more reluctant and afraid to go cinema. Film productions also came to a halt for 4 months. In fact, only 54 films were made that year. Efforts made by the government to promote investment in films by banks have also been futile as banks still see films as a high risk investment (Carter, 2007, p. 62). Moreover, the “shoot fast and cheap” mentality of Hong Kong’s film industry has not helped either, with studios producing bad quality and disposable offerings.

Indeed, there are films that have helped to brighten up Hong Kong’s current film industry, such as the recent success of Stephen Chow’s Kung Fu Hustle and Johnnie To’s Election (Cinema of Hong Kong, 2010). But on a wider scope, the magic of the so-called “Hong Kong New Wave”, Hong Kong’s golden era, is all but gone.

South Korea
Just as all hopes seem lost for Asian cinema when two of its biggest players, India and Hong Kong, have been removed from the façade of Hollywood’s domination, South Korea’s film industry has been gradually climbing its way up into success. Accustomed to fighting for survival, South Korea seems like Asia’s only hope in propelling Asian cinema to greater heights, thus bringing Asia’s glory back in the process. When that day comes, only then will Asian people be able to rejoice as the sun rises from the East again.

Over the last decade, the motion picture industry of South Korea has transformed remarkably. Since the 1970s, the native motion picture industry of South Korea was already considered quite strong, even though Hollywood films dominated 80% of the market until recently whereby South Korea’s national films have increased their stakes to slightly over 50% of the film market. Though not dominant, this figure is definitely considered far greater than what most Asian countries could occupy combined (Yoon, 2006, p. 63 – 65).

The roots of Korean cinema, the melodramas and exploitation films have given rise to a new generation of filmmakers. Educated aboard and heavily influenced by the contemporaries across the globe, this new wave of Korean filmmakers is molding the industry with daring art films, big budget action flicks, thought provoking dramas and subversive satires. In some places, South Korean is speculated to being the next new “Hong Kong” and even the “Hollywood of the East” with its indigenous film industry on the verge of propelling onto the world stage (Leong, 2002, p. 1-2). Indeed, this is strikingly similar to the “Hong Kong New Wave” that managed to launch Hong Kong and its groundbreaking directors into international spotlight and recognition in the past. In fact, some Korean films like Shiri have already found success in the world market, including its rival’s market through limited release. The filmmakers behind the success of the films are also being wooed by Hollywood studios for lucrative remake rights, such as the recent deals for Joint Security Area and My Sassy Girl (Cinema of Korea, 2010).

Part of the reason behind the success is because of the vast improvements in quality as well as quantity recently. A wide range of genres has also been developed to cater to the masses. The size of investment placed on its national films has also dramatically increased. Also, the industry structure is undergoing reorganization as it arms itself for globalization (Yoon, 2006, p. 65).

Over the course of reform, Korean filmmakers have closely followed the Hollywood model and it took only a while before the Korean film industry transformed its distribution and exhibition system to match that of Hollywood’s. South Korea used to have small scale locally owned cinemas and distributors. Today, that has evolved into two big distributors that control 70% of the local market, and 4 big multiplex owners that occupy most of the screens. The production system of South Korea is the last aspect that the film industry wants to change. In South Korea, directors are given autonomous control over creative decisions in film productions rather than the producers. Crew members and engineers are trained by masters and paid very little. Now, the film people are mobilized for restructuring by contending the adoption of Hollywood’s system. As a result, producers are getting more authority in film production. Additionally, Argent Web, which was just set up recently has a close partnership with CAA, one of Hollywood’s biggest agencies.

Today, the film industry of South Korea is actively involved in the course of globalization and it does so not only by exporting of films and human resources, but also the reformation of its native film industry. Its rival, Hollywood has been getting more interested in Korean films as they attain success natively and internationally (Yoon, 2006, p. 66).

With Hollywood continuously buying distribution and remake rights from Korean films, international recognition of Korean films is bound to rise in coming years. And as people around the world starts to open themselves up to Korean cinema, there will definitely be more export opportunities for the Korean film industry, which will in turn lead to greater international sales for filmmakers to leverage to ensure a smooth flow of returns on their products, thus promising a overall good condition of the Korean film industry.

Conclusion
There is almost no doubt that South Korea is following in both Hollywood’s and Hong Kong’s footsteps. However, one question remains and that is whether South Korea will be able to better Hong Kong and India in parts where they have failed by sustaining its native industry’s extraordinary growth through perseverance, innovation and emphasis on quality, or crash into the same walls that have befallen what were once Asia’s hope of standing up against the industry bully. Only time can tell.

Written by Jacky Yen Zi Shyun

References

Bertolin, P. (2006, May 21). Koreans, French fight Hollywood domination. Retrieved January 24, 2010, from http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4796

Business Wire. (2008, May 20). U.S. Major Studio Film Entertainment Revenue Will Approach $42 Billion By 2011, According to New AMR Report. Retrieved December January 24, 2010, fromhttp://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/10512814-1.html

Carter, D. (2007). East Asian Cinema. United Kingdom: Kamera Books.

Cinema of Hong Kong (2010, January 27). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Hong_Kong

Cinema of Korea (2010, February 3). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Korea

Gi, H. Y. (2008, September 12). Why UNESCO Should Adopt a Convention on Cultural Diversity. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.coalitionfrancaise.org/actus/doc/yang.pdf

Jon. (2008, March 8). Average Hollywood Movie Now Costs over $106 Million [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.romow.com/entertainment-blog/average-hollywood-movie-now-costs-over-106-million/

Jones, Arora, Mishra, & Lefort. (2008, July 9). Can Bollywood Go Global?. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://jis.pe.kr/road/attachment/1265646572.pdf

Kerrigan, F. (2010). Film Marketing. United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.

Khanna, P. (n.d.). Next Bond movie opening in India before premiering in the US. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.masala.com/7396-hollywood-fare-fairing-well-in-india

Lakshmi, R. (2009, March 7). Bollywood, Hollywood Tightening Film Ties. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603060.html

Lee, D. (2005, December 1). Hollywood’s Interest in Asian Films Leads to Globalization. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://uniorb.com/ATREND/movie.htm

Leong, A. C. Y. (2002). Korean cinema: the new Hong Kong: a guidebook for the latest Korean new wave. Canada: Trafford Publishing.

Ross, S. J. (2002). Movies and American society. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Segrave, K. (1997). American films abroad: Hollywood’s domination of the world’s movie screens. United States of America: Mcfarnland & Company, Inc., Publishers.

Teo, S. (1997). Hong Kong Cinema. United Kingdom: British Film Institute.

Williams, A. (2002). Film and nationalism. United States of America: Rutgers University Press.

Yoon, S. (2006, November). Asians in Hollywood: Globalization or localization. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.eptic.com.br/arquivos/Dossieespecial/espacoeidentidades/CulturaePensamento_vol%201%20-%20SunnyYoon.pdf

Geishas were depicted fairly often in Mizoguchi’s films. Perhaps this stems from his humble background, which played a major role in the development of geisha themes in his films. In 1905, his father went bankrupt after a failed business venture at the end of the Russo-Japanese war. Film historian Le Fanu (2005) states that “the failure necessitated a childhood move from a relatively middle class area in Tokyo to a more plebian district close to the theatre and brothel quarters” (pg.22). This move coincided with the birth of his younger brother and the disappearance of his elder sister, Susumo, who was a drain on family finances. It was shortly discovered that she was sold intogeishadom. However, Susumo continued to play a huge part on Mizoguchi’s young life, enabling him to acquire his first job through her professional contacts,and bringing Mizoguchi and his brother under her shelter when their mother passed away. There is a “parallel between the trajectory of Mizoguchi’s adolescent life and the plots of numerous melodramatic shimpa dramas” (LeFanu, 2005, p.23), which recount the sacrifices made by geishas on behalf of the men they are involved with. This aspect of Mizoguchi’s adolescent life is extremely apt because the subject of women’s suffering is fundamental in all his work; while “sacrifice – in particular, the sacrifice a sister makes for her brother” –has a ubiquitous presence in many of his films in the 1930s. (Le Fanu, 2005,
p.25)

Osaka Elegy and Sisters of the Gion are two Mizoguchi films worth a mention. Although the milieus depicted in the two films differ greatly (only Sisters of the Gion is specifically set in the world of Geisha), their spiritual affinity is obvious when observed closely. Both films are centrally concerned with what it means to scrabble for patronage. In the pre-war Kyoto Geisha world depicted in Sisters of the Gion, Omocha and her sister search for an elderly rich client to
support them financially. This search for patronage is not quite as formalized in Osaka Elegy, where Ayako, the heroine is a lowly company employee, rather than a “bird in a gilded cage” (Le Fanu, 2005, p. 71). But in a way, she is a bird in a cage too as her quest is the same. In these two films, Mizoguchi explores circumstances, which force beautiful yet desperate women to exchange freedom for money. Mizoguchi thus seems to possess a fondness for revealing the true nature of distressed women in times of turmoil in a male-dominated society, main
reason being that his sister herself fell victim to family circumstances and societal norms.

To many critics, Mizoguchi is an impassioned defender of women’s rights who feels that women have little choice under the Japanese patriarchy but to sacrifice themselves. Their only way out is to “develop spiritual strength to transcend their oppression” (Noletti & Desser, 1992, p.32). One such film, in which this occurs, is The Life of Oharu. The heroine, Oharu, falls from a high position in society and eventually becomes the lowest type of street prostitute. In accordance to authors Noletti, Jr. and Desser (1992), critics have frequently asserted that Oharu has “attained transcendence by the end of the film” (p.33). It is interesting to note that because of Japan’s deep-rooted patriarchal system, Mizoguchi could explore the repressed plights of women compared to Japanese men, as men’s plights could never be as inherently piteous.

Ozu Yasujiro is another famous Japanese director whose films often encompassed the role of average Japanese women. His most acclaimed film, Tokyo Story, examines the disunion between a stereotyped “traditional”Japanese female and the characteristics that embodied the “modern” Japanese women in the early 1950s. The film’s main theme centers on the disintegration of the family spurred on by post-war urbanization, demonstrating how this shaped the demeanor of the female protagonists, complex in their intricate fusion of Japanese and Western, emotional and pragmatic, modest and independent.
(Sato, 2003, pg.3)

One example of this complexity of the feminine is Shige, the eldest daughter and impudent wife. She fits the stereotype in some ways, but in other ways she does not. Working at home as a hairdresser, her “domestic occupation has been practiced by women since pre-modern times”. (Sato, 2003, pg.6). However, her casual behaviour around her parents indicates the blase attitude frequently associated with latter-day womanhood.

A clear example of this would be in one scene where Shige deliberates with Koichi, her brother, concerning an imminent visit to their debilitated mother. Shige, still unsure of the critical state of their mother’s affliction, placidly asksKoichi whether they ought to pack mourning garments. Surprised at her insensitivity, Koichi hesitates before replying unenthusiastically. Shige immediately responds with “Settled. Let’s pack them in case”. Despite her purported filial piety, her judgment of the circumstances disturbs the frequently expressed perception of Japanese women. (Sato, 2003, p.7).

Film Historian Sato (2003) states that Shige’s unembellished servitude of family claims to the demands of her work makes Shige a “disquieting image of domesticity” (p.7). In spite of that, Shige occasionally embodies a hybrid of ‘old’ and ‘new’, and partakes in an effort to place herself within broader social customs, such as those of urban and professional working women. It is the working daughter-in-law Noriko who ostensibly reveals the attributes of an
independent woman, professionally industrious in a broader society, and not Shige herself. And yet, Noriko complies with befitting female traditions within the family. While Shige and Koichi are too self-absorbed to perform family-related activities, Noriko prevails as the personification of filial piety, uncomplainingly leaving work in order to entertain her parents-in-law during their Tokyo visit.

Subsequently, also staying by the father’s side after his wife’s death, long after the rest have paid their desultory respects and left. Noriko’s image as the “prevailing stereotype of the modern single woman” (Sato, 2003, p.9), contradicts her behavior, as it is she who resides independently in a modern apartment, traveling daily to her desk-bound clerical job. Ultimately, Ozu wanted to show the conflicts that Japanese women faced as they emerged from the traditional and rigid old-world customs to the more liberal emancipation of working women.

In conclusion, the portrayal of women in Mizoguchi’s and Ozu’s films are starkly different, both carried out in a different fashion, with different stylistic devices and different approaches in different circumstances. However, one similarity between the two directors lies in the need to showcase the plight of Japanese woman in a patriarchal old-fashioned society, and also as not just an object of desire and subservience, but also what it means to possess an indomitable spirit.

Written by Suzie Knight

List of References

LeFanu, Mark. Mizoguchi and Japan, Londo: Cromwell Press, 2005.

Mizoguchi, K. (Director) Fujiwara, T. (Writer) & Osaka, S. (Writer) & Yoka, Y. (Writer) (1938)

Osaka Elegy. [Film DVD]. Japan: Daiichi Eiga.

Mizoguchi, K. (Director),. Kuprin, A. (Novelist) and Mizoguchi, K. (Writer). (1938).

Sisters of the Gion [Film DVD] . Japan: Daiichi Eiga.

Noletti, Jr. & ;Desser,D. Reframing Japanese Cinema: Authorship, Genre, History. Indiana University Press, USA, 1992.

Mizoguchi, K.(Director), Ihara, S.(Novelist) & Mizoguchi, K. (Writer). (1952).

The Life of Oharu [Film?DVD]. Japan: Koi Productions

Sato,B. The New Japanese Woman: Modernity, Media, and Women in Interwar Japan. Duke University Press, USA, 2003.

Ozu,Y.(Director), Noda,K.(Writer) & Ozu,Y. (Writer).? (1953).

Tokyo Story.[Film DVD]. Japan: Shochiku Kinema Kenkyûjo

Singapore censorship begun in 1910 as a Theatres Enactment that had all films screened approved by local authorities. In 1923 this evolved into the first censorship office of Malaya, which practiced strict censorship till World War 2. The Cinema Ordinance Act was laid down in 1953 and the Board of Film Censors (BFC), which would subsequently be known as the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA), was formed. The gaining of self governance in 1959 was a turn towards even tighter censorship with the 1953 act changed into the Cinematograph Films Act. All through the 1960s a large number of films were banned; 60 fell to censorship in 1960 alone compared to the 10 just a year before that and only in the 1970s did censorship begin to loosen. (Uhde & Ng, 2010, pp. 174 – 179).

In realizing the need for a system of rating films and media, a film classification system was born in 1991 along with the formation of the Censorship Review Committee (CRC); a body which would convene every decade to review and keep the country’s classification and censorship system up to date with the changes in society. The initial rating system with General (G), Parental Guidance (PG), and Restricted 18 (R), slowly evolved into the multi-rating system we know today. Most recently, 2009 and 2010 mark important times for Singapore’s censorship. Due to the rapid changes of the media and social world, the CRC has formed at a mid-term point to access the need for change in the area; the results of which will only be known mid this year. (Siew, 2009).
The role of censorship has always been about preventing media that could “put ideas into the heads…” of the people. (Uhde & NG. 2010. P. 175). Simply put, censorship has always been about thought control. In the 1960s, when the country was experiencing “political changes, social turbulence and general uncertainty with the Malaysian Federation, separation from the Federation, and communal riots”, the justification for having stringent censorship so as to not allow “unwanted” and “undesirable” influences that distract from the goal of industralisation and nation building could arguably be valid and necessary. (Uhde & NG. 2010. p. 176).

Today however, with Singapore being one of the more developed countries in Asia, more focus has been placed in arts, media and culture. Yet despite having taken a significant turn towards a more “liberal” stance in terms of censorship by adopting classification, films in Singapore still seem to have trouble getting past the censors when it comes to certain themes or issues. This is especially true for local films because of the suggested double standard, which will be discussed later in the paper, that local censorship authorities practice.

In general, films that fall within the classification system tend to have little trouble in this regard, it is when films end up beyond the R21 mark and fall within the “out-of-bounds” area that the issues arise. When this happens, films are either asked to make cuts in order to fit in to one of the existing categories or are outright banned altogether. The result of this is that some are led to think that this change that MDA has made in moving to classification is merely cosmetic while the conservative mindset inherent within the body still remains unchanged.

According to Tan (2007), in reference to the latest released 2003 report from the CRC, censorship is necessary today in order to maintain social order, to safeguard moral values of society, to protect multiracialism and to protect the vulnerable like the young. Apparently, censorship is given this role because the large majority of Singaporeans are still too conservative to accept such content and this “majority” looks to the government to regulate and control the flow of such content within the society. The problem with this justification is that the constitution of material that is deemed unsuitable seems arbitrarily decided based on the authorities’ benchmark on suitability contrary to what they claim.

Ironically, the recommendations made by the Censorship Review Committee of 2002 provided some interesting results regarding censorship. The report shows through surveys done, that 53 percent of participants wanted less censorship. Half of the participants also felt that homosexual related content was fine as long as it was not exploitative in nature and apart from the religious bodies, most people felt that such content could be shown in public under an adequate rating; echoing the opinion voiced by certain groups that homosexual themed films should see the light of day in the commercial world. (Au, 2003).

However, despite such results, homosexual related content remains largely excluded from the film industry in Singapore with numerous such films like “Solos” and “Blind Pig Who Wants to Fly”, banned entirely. In relation to such content, MDA has apparently placed the terms exploitative and promoting homosexuality under such large all encompassing umbrellas that render almost any homosexual content as such. As stated by Au (2009), it seems like any content that depicts homosexuals as normal human beings who experience happiness is deemed as a promotion of homosexuality.

An example given by Au (2009), deals with the issue of a film “Devotee” in which there was a scene that MDA had claimed to be explicit in nature. In fact, the scene merely consisted of implied sexual intercourse through depiction of the position of two male bodies and involved absolutely no frontal nudity; a method which is commonly seen in many heterosexual movies.

In considering the facts, one cannot help but question if the censorship authorities are truly acting out the will of the majority or is it that these supposed “heartlanders” are merely an idealistic entity and clever political move to make people think the way they want them to think, resulting in people following and accepting such ideals in fear of being “different” than the rest of the community?

A closer look into the other reasons given for the necessity of censorship renders them to seem unsound as well. In terms of social order, although to a lesser degree, the censorship body finds issue with what they deem to be overtly violent films in fear that they may instill violent behavior amongst the people. The debate in regards to the effects of violence in media has been ever ongoing but according to Hill (1997), a study that was carried out showed that most people who watch violent films can fully distinguish between real violence and fictional violence. In fact, people who enjoy watching violent movies all tend to abhor actual violence.

Contrary to MDAs reasoning, violence in films tends to instill stronger emotions from audiences because they grow to care and feel for the character. Instead, it is violence that is viewed in news reports that desensitizes the viewer because of their “out of context” nature. To simply say that the films depicting violence influence the individual beyond mere thought and motivates acts that threaten social order is as Tan (2009), puts it, an exaggeration motivated by paranoia. (p. 82)

“Party political films”; that is, “films that are made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore”, have long been banned without hesitation as well. (Uhde & Ng, 2010. p. 181). Numerous films such as “Vision of Persistence” (2002), “Singapore Rebel” (2005) and “Zahari’s 17 Years” (2006), all of which revolve around members of political opposition in Singapore come under this umbrella. However, in 2005 a political documentary series by Channel News Asia managed to fall outside of what constitutes a party political film. The interesting thing to note here is that what is different in this case, is that the show was about Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party and its ministers instead of any other opposition members. The show was called to be a depiction of current affairs and was hence permitted. This contradictory episode further backs up the claim of the subjectivity and ambiguous nature of the arbitrary decision making of authorities when it comes to what falls into what category of censorship.

It is a known fact that films like the animated film “Princess”, which deal with racial or religious issues are as likely to fall from the ban hammer in Singapore as those that contain content mentioned above. In claiming to protect multiracialism, Singapore has always done so by avoiding the subject altogether instead of actively engaging it and developing understanding between the races. The method of maintaining multiracial harmony is reflected here in the way race and religion related content films are censored. What this effectively does is that instead of protecting multiracial harmony, authorities have deprived the chance for people to address existing issues in Singapore’s society that have long been swept under the carpet. It disallows them to engage in critical thinking therefore making the so called democratic society a “dead society” as expressed by Tan (2009) in reference to “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie, which has also been banned in Singapore.

Swedish film “An Extraordinary Study of Human Degradation” was made to cut its sex scene by the MDA before allowing its screening in the 22nd Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF). Excessive sexual content goes against what authorities claim to be moral values of society and have to be censored. As Tan (2009) explains, an individual’s moral standards are highly ambiguous and can hardly be ascertained as a definite truth more so with the moral standards of an entire society. Whose standards then are we talking about? The subjectivity of the censorship body here is unquestionable. But the most contradicting part is that these moral values, were instilled in the people by things like thought control through censorship, and to now have censorship authorities claim that censorship is necessary to protect the very same moral values is certainly an irony.

The protection of the young might be the only reasoning that holds up against scrutiny. The young are extremely impressionable and easily influenced by whatever they come into contact with. Hence, it is necessary to watch over them to ensure that material unsuitable for their age group is either held back from them, or viewed under the appropriate guidance. The problem however is that this is a role that does not belong to the censorship authorities. In one of the surveys conducted by the 2002 CRC, the results reflected that 71 percent of participants felt that parents were the ones responsible for what children are exposed to. Add to that is the fact that the classification and ratings system exist for this very reason. Once again, the facts show that despite all their reasoning for the necessity of the current censorship system, when placed under scrutiny what it points to is a draconian and arbitrary act of thought control and political safeguards in regards to content that challenges the conservative mindset of the authorities rather than what is claimed. As Davies (2004) puts it, “Censorship is a basic form of thought control, thought control is a basic form of dictatorial government.” (as cited in Tan, 2009, p. 83)

So it seems the authorities practice somewhat draconian methods of censorship while claiming to act in line with the will of the people. But how is that a hindrance to local filmmakers? Strict censorship laws are nothing new in Asia. However in countries such as Hong Kong and Korea; two of the more prominent Asian film industries, it has been shown that the relaxation in censorship laws factor in as a major reason for the success of their respective industries.

In the case of Hong Kong cinema, its general freedom from governmental censorship has for a long time allowed it the breathing room to create wonderful films that contain depiction of violence, sex and that involved controversial topics like homosexuality, religion and even politics. It is without a doubt one of the reasons why Hong Kong’s film industry was able to flourish. But more significant to Singapore’s situation, is the case of the film industry of South Korea. From Japanese invasion to Communism to Militarism, South Korea has always had to deal with political interference in regards to the arts, which of course included films. Held back by censorship the country used to produce films that ranged from propaganda material to films that failed to capture the hearts and attention of the Korean public. It was only during the 1990s that saw a drastic change in the way films were allowed to tell stories. The breaking free from military rule and into democracy saw the lifting of censorship which gave unprecedented freedom to filmmakers to weave their films around culture, modernization, the nation and even politics. Robinson (2005) states that this was what effectively led to the now commonly known Korean Wave. This freedom is also what brought Korean cinema to new heights with movies such as “Shiri” (1999) and “Joint Security Area” (2000), both of which had characters revolving around the political division of North and South Korea and both of which were huge successes in the Korean box office. (pp 25 – 29)

By using Korea’s evolution in the film industry with the liberalization of censorship as an example, the possibilities of the direction that the local film industry can go upon a similar lifting of censorship is clear. Yet despite Singapore proclaiming to be a democratic society and despite the so called “liberalization” of its censorship system, the control in content by the authorities remain dogmatic and strict due largely to what director to “Outsiders” 2004, Sam Loh calls a “Double Stardard” practiced by censorship authorities. In an interview with him, Sam Loh who withdrew his film from the 2004 SIFF due to MDA insisting that cuts had to be made, laments how the MDA would be doubly strict when dealing with local made films. When given some thought it is not difficult to see where that there is truth in the statement. Films such as “Da Vinci Code” and “Brokeback Mountain” which deal with religious and homosexual themes respectively would not be able to pass the censors if local counterparts were made. This added strictness to the already conservative boundaries of the censorship system leads to one undesirable effect in local filmmakers – Self Censorship. Because filmmakers here are consciously aware that numerous kinds of content may render their film unsuitable as deemed by the censors, most of them practice self censorship before the film is even made. By ruling out what they think cannot be done they effectively remove possibilities to potential stories, and that is ultimately a factor that kills off what may otherwise be potentially good films. Tripathi (2002) aptly expresses, “Singapore’s leadership bemoans the lack of creativity among its people, and exhorts them to dare to be different. But when some do, the establishment comes down upon them, because it fears spontaneity.”

In conclusion, the censorship in Singapore has certainly come a long way to reach where it is today but despite the claims of moving from cutting to classifying, the basic mindset of MDA in dealing with censorship remains very much subjective and arbitrary; seemingly still based on politics and thought control. The only difference is having the responsibility of cutting shifted to the distributors or filmmakers themselves. In placing the justifications for such censorship under scrutiny, the reasons for its necessity fall apart and make it seem to truly be a hindrance that limits local filmmakers. With Korean and Hong Kong Cinema as prime examples of the possibilities, in order for any hope of having the local film industry go anywhere from here, censorship authorities need to stop thinking of Singaporeans as immature, ignorant, narrow minded and intolerant and implement changes that go beyond a mere facelift in the censorship system that reflects the democratic society that Singapore claims to be. Though certainly not the sole factor that determines the success of local cinema, a lifting of dogmatic censorship and the moving towards a more refined classification system to let viewers actively choose what to view will certainly prove to be a great step forward in the right direction. After all, censorship should be a matter of choice not to mention the impracticality of it all in today’s internet age. With the government openly stating they wish to head towards more freedom in censorship and with the CRC currently holding a review as this paper is being written, there is at least some hope that things may turn for the better…

Written by Tan Quancai Eugene

References
Books
Hill A. (1997). Shocking Entertainment: Viewer Response to Violent Movies. United Kingdom: John Libbey Media.

Robinson M. (2005). Contemporary Cultural Production in South Korea: Vanishing Meta-Narratives of Nation. Chi-Yun S. & Stringer J. (Eds). New Korean Cinema (pp. 15 – 31). Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press.

Tan K.P. (2007). Censorship in Whose Name? Tan K.P. (Ed). Renaissance Singapore? (pp. 71 – 94). Singapore: NUS Press

Uhde J. & Ng Y.U. (2010). Latent Images: Film in Singapore. Singapore: NUS Press.

Web
Au W.P. (November 2009). Censorship Review – A Bit More Loosening for the Wrong Reasons. Retrevied 31th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-343.htm

Au W.P. (August 2009). Film Censors Behaving Like Bullies. Retreived 30th January 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Au W.P. (September 2009). Film Correspondance Part 1. Retrevied 30th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Au W.P. (November 2009). Film Correspondance Part 2. Retrevied 30th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Board of Film Censors. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from MDA website: http://www.mda.gov.sg/Industry/Films/Classification/Pages/BoardofFilmClassification.aspx
Censorship in Singapore. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Singapore

Classification Ratings for Films and Videos. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from MDA website: http://www.mda.gov.sg/Industry/Films/Classification/Pages/ClassificationRatings.aspx

OB Marker. (2010). Retreived 31st January 2010 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OB_marker

Philips R. (April 2000). Film Festival Director About Censorship in Singapore. Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Window: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021214af.htm

Pravda (2007 April 23). No homosexual movie to be shown at Singapore film festival. Posted to: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/04/23/no-homosexual-movie-to-be-shown-at-singapore-film-festival.html

Ratnala T.N. (November 1997). Film Classification for Restricted, [Restricted] (Artistic) Category Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Infopedia: http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_15_2004-12-27.html

Siew S. (September 2009). Censorship Review Committee. Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Infopedia: http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1571_2009-09-18.html

Tripathi S. (December 2002). Artistic Ambitions Don’t Play Well in Uptight Singapore: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021214af.htm

Wee S. L. (April 2007). Singapore Censors two films under Sex, Religion. Retrieved 31st January 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN22266420070420
Wisekwai (2009 April 10). Singapore Fest Drops Six Titles Over Censorship. Posted to: http://thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com/2009/04/singapore-fest-drops-six-titles-over.html

He is famed for stringing together disjointed stories in which everything was semi-coherent until the very end, where a crucial piece of information was given to help make sense of the story. He has a foreboding sense of atmosphere that is still influencing the directors of today, and his original approach to editing resulted in some of the most groundbreaking sequences in film.

Discover Nicolas Roeg and watch the podcast by Charissa Khor.

28 Days Later is a 2002 British post-apocalyptic film starring Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson and Christopher Eccleston, and is directed by Danny Boyle. Yes. Danny Boyle – the man who also directed the award winning Slumdog Millionaire. 1Now, returning to 28 Days Later. The story opens with a group of animal rights activists breaking into a primate research facility to free the caged chimps. Unfortunately to them, the chimps are infected with a virus, known as RAGE. Of course, the virus spreads around and all hell breaks loose.

Listen to the podcast made by Gan Jia Yi.

“Children of Men” is a British science fiction film based loosely on the novel, of the exact same name, by Phyllis Dorothy James. Co-written and directed by Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón, the film includes several acting heavy weights like Clive Owen, Michael Caine, and Julianne Moore.

Set in the year 2027, in a world of chaos, women of the world have mysteriously gone infertile and there hasn’t been a single childbirth for 18 years. A former activist, Theo Faron, played by Clive Owen, agrees to escort a miraculously pregnant refugee to the scientists of a mysterious organization called the Human Project.The birth of the child may help the scientists find a cure to humanity’s inability to procreate, and possibly save humans from extinction.

Ryan Wong analyzes the cinematography, mise-en-scene and editing of the film.

Children of Men

Memoirs is a 2005 film adapted from the novel of the same name, directed by Rob Marshall, and the film stars Zhang Ziyi, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li and Ken Watanabe.

The podcast will be discussing the artistic arrangement of visual details in the film: Memoirs of a Geisha. This includes settings, props, costumes, and make-up. Also, we will be exploring some of the crafts of making moving pictures in the same film, such as lighting and framing.

Nigel Soh Chee Hng

So, just who are the best villains? Hear our very own SGNewWave members share their opinions!

Ou Yang Feng (Eagle Shooting Heroes)

We’ve always seen Tony Leung Chiu Wai as the suave and charming guy who take on sentimental and chivalrous roles…is there one time we remember him playing the bad guy? Yes, that’s him as the baddie Ou Yang Feng from Eagle Shooting Heroes, a parody of Louis Cha’s martial arts novel. Tony plays a villain who wants to usurps everyone’s power and become the invincible one in the martial arts realm. He also owns one of the most ridiculous skill himself – the Toad Style Technique where he literally acts like a frog each time he does the attack. He plots to kill and doesn’t really love his lover, only using her to help him succeed his goal. Nonetheless, a charming baddie beneath the moustache.

- Winnie Tan Lay Hian

Chucky (Child’s Play)

My best movie villain? None other than…CHUCKY from the 1988 movie, Child’s Play. The freakiest, meanest, horrific doll that ever existed! His husky voice, the scar on the face and the nasty grin are enough to send a chill running down my spine. After watching Child’s Play when I was younger, I still remember how this character has impacted me so much – I became so afraid of dolls. Remember those baby dolls which can open and close its eyes depending on the way you hold it? Well, I used to sleep with them, but then, I start having imaginations that this doll will try to kill me when I sleep. Because every time I woke up, I realize that the doll will be in a different position. I ditched away that doll with no regrets, but still, Chucky continues to haunt my mind. “Hi, I’m Chucky, and I’m your friend till the end. Hidey-ho!” *shivers*

- Nurul Ain Muzlan

Tom Ripley (The Talented Mr. Ripley)

Movies, are usually completely idealistic. The good guy gets the girl and defeats the bad guy. However, Mr Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) from The Talented Mr. Ripley is the sort of villain that wins at the end. He kills and gets away with it. However, what is truly most harrowing about the character is the method he employs. Firstly, he is introduced to the lavish and decadent lifestyles of the Greenleafs, and he falls in love with that lifestyle, and the charming Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law). In pursuit of the dream life, he then murders Dickie and steals Dickie’s identity then lives Dickie’s wealthy life by building up a web of deceit and expert forgery. He then murders more people to protect himself and to keep the identity he stole. When the charade is finally up, his brilliantly orchestrated crime is completely oblivious to the Police and Greenleaf’s father. The latter even gives him a sum of money. Excellent crime, but Tom is not spared of the consequences.  The extent of the depravity of his mind and morals caught up with him and he continues to murder people in the paralyzing fear of being found out of his wrongs. In the end, he has truly become a beast, and by all means a true villain even to himself.

- Rachel Chong

Joker (Batman)

The Joker. When played by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger.

He’s been tormenting Batman for a whole half century and is recognized as one of the most prominent bad-guy figures. The Joker is a sadistic lunatic bent on nothing more than vindictive malice, sure he gets caught every once in a while by Batman, but he always seems to find a way back out and onto the streets of Gotham.

- Winona Hwang

John Doe (Se7en)

Despite not seeing him killing anyone in the film, his victim usually die in gruesome methods that are linked to the Seven Deadly Sins. An obese man who dies by force feeding, an attorney who dies bled to death by cutting off a pound of his meat, a street thug who got his hand cut off, tongue chewed off and rotting like a zombie yet weirdly alive, a prostitute who got killed by having sex with a man who is forced to wear a strap-on with a blade at its tip and many more gruesome killing methods. He is so sick that he cut off the fingerprints at the tip of the fingers so he leaves no clues behind for the detectives, yet at the same time letting them use unconventional means to find him in a well devised plot to fulfill his cycle of seven killings.

- Fong Chan Teng

Have you ever seen a movie where you think the bad guy’s action is justifiable? No? Meet John Doe.

Nothing much is known about this guy except that he is sick of people committing sins on a daily basis. So, he starts killing people who commit sins such as Sloth, Greed, Pride, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony and Lust.

His weapons of choice vary from the usual knife to wait for it… spaghetti meals.
Appearing for less than an hour, you may think this guy is overreacting and looking for attention but his last move will make you pause and rewind your DVD again while you gaze at your TV screen in disbelief.

- Muhammad Afiq Jaafar

Anton Chigurh ( No Country For Old Men)

I was torn between him and Keyser Soze (Kevin Spacey) in The Usual Suspects, but I just went with him as he was much more creepy and… unpredictable. Javier Bardem just oozes coldness and creepiness in the way he talks and kills. He maintains tension throughout the whole film, being a calm and calculated murderer. The scene where he confronts a shopkeeper is outstanding. Give you the chill. Anton Chigurh IS the best villain.

- Foong Yan Qiu

Mrs Ganush (Drag Me to Hell)

The most evil villain I can think of is Mrs. Ganush from the movie “Drag Me To Hell”. I was so traumatized by her scary look until I could not sleep for the whole night after watching the movie! Just because Christine Brown never approves her extension on her mortgage payment, she cursed her?! Mrs. Ganush even pulled Christine Brown’s hair when she was already dead!

- Serene Tang

“A Christmas Carol” is both written and directed by Academy Award winning filmmaker Robert Zemeckis (“Back to the Future,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Forrest Gump,” “Contact,” “The Polar Express,” “Beowulf”). The movie is based on Charles Dickens’ classic story.

Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) begins the Christmas holiday with his usual miserly contempt, barking at his faithful clerk (Gary Oldman) and his cheery nephew (Colin Firth). But when the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come take him on an eye-opening journey revealing truths Old Scrooge is reluctant to face, he must open his heart to undo years of ill will before it’s too late.

Jim Carrey stars as at least four different characters in the film. The movie also stars Gary Oldman, Robin Wright Penn, Colin Firth, Cary Elwes and Bob Hoskins.

Keep an eye out on A Christmas Carol, opening 19 November 2009 in theaters. Trailer follows: