Shaw Brothers & the 1970s
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:44 pm
Table of Contents (in progress...)
Vol I: The Wuxia Pian (1971-1974): Introduction / Selected Films / Further Suggestions
On the Kung Fu Film (Brief Notes on Genre): Intro / Definition / Sidebars / Bashers / Shapes / Comedies / New School
Vol II: Shaw Kung Fu: coming soon
Vol III: The Wuxia Pian (1975-1979): coming soon
Vol IV: Shaw Crime: coming soon
Vol V: Shawsploitation... and Beyond: coming soon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So to get this ball rolling... this overview is meant to be in conjunction with the 1970s project. As it has quickly ballooned past what I thought it'd be, I've decided to make it its own thread. I'll roll it out gradually in seven parts, this "introduction" being the first. Before I continue, some notes:
1) Other than this introductory essay and a later one, these pieces will follow a similar pattern. They'll each be focused on a specific genre. They'll begin with a brief essay outlining their development at Shaw during the decade. They'll be headed by two or three Essential Films, painfully pared down from the grand list of potential films. Then a handful of Distinguished Reccomendations, capsule reviews of films that particularly strike my fancy. Then a section called For Further Investigation, where I try to broadly outline the remaining films of said genre. If you're not interested in the outline of genre or studio history, feel free to skip to the capsule review and pick out the recommended films.
2) I've tried to make these write-ups and capsule reviews SPOILER-FREE. As the genre project taught me, in depth analysis doesn't lead to new viewers. This project is for the layperson, a primer for those who don't know anything about the genre. References to events and scenes remain, I hope, suitably vague so as not to ruin anything. So, please, read away with any conscience... and if something seems spoiler-worthy, it's probably not, or it won't hurt your enjoyment.
3) If you want to discuss genre or studio history, please discuss it here. If, however, a particular film strikes your fancy, and you feel it's worth it, try to post it in the 1970s thread. Preferably, there'll be a lot of back and forth going on between these two places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Shaw Production: A Biased and Reductive Overview of a Major Hong Kong Studio During the Seventies.
“Another Shaw Production”. It emblazoned the end-title cards of the 800-plus films that emerged from the studio, the seal impression of an empire that briefly ruled the screens of Southeast Asia. Perhaps it’s redundant: one was never mistaken when watching a Shaw Brothers production. For in a Shaw Brothers production, you find the uncanny and uneasy mix of adventurous modernity and bullheaded traditionalism: of startling new techniques and strategies which lifted the action film to unprecedented heights, and of an unwavering commitment to old-fashioned studio-magic, imitative of the great Hollywood studios which were already splintering when the studio began its ascension. This is as apparent from the opening of a Shaw Brothers film as its ending: the distinctive drum-roll and triumphant fanfare, the assuring promise of Shawscope, the studio emblem unapologetically swiped from the brothers Warner. For perhaps the great appeal of Shaw Brothers Studio is that it was the last of the old-school studios, with its contract stars, favored genres and in-house-style, its massive Movietown complex ceaselessly in production. It’s an emblem they wore proudly as the studio slowly dominated all competition… and which they refused to rub or scratch off, even as their output seemed more and more archaic with the surrounding world.
But, before their fall, the studio spent two decades rebuilding Hong Kong cinema from the ground up, a legacy which is still felt. Above all else, Shaw recreated Hong Kong cinema as an industry of action-packed, populist entertainments, made with a craft and ingenuity that has become increasingly rare in the Western equivalents they once openly imitated. David Bordwell (in his similarly-titled, well-recommended essay) goes as far as to say they created an aesthetic of film to rival “Soviet Montage, German Expressionism, and other stylistic schools.” Reliant on “constructive editing” and “segment shooting”, it’s an aesthetic of constant movement that would soon bleed to all facets of production, constituting the verve and energy which is still the signature of modern Hong Kong cinema. While Hong Kong may have been late in introducing widescreen and color, Shaw compensated by enacting an across-the-board adoption of Anamorphic Widescreen and Eastmancolor as early as 1962. With their usually ornate costuming and large lavish sets, nearly always brightly and evenly lit by studio technicians, the Shaw studio-look emerges. It is a cinema of vivid colors in wide panoramas, the palette taking on a second-hand velvet texture imitative of old Hollywood Technicolor, unrelenting right up into the 1980s, long after film technology had changed to favor photogenic-realism. This is never more vivid than in the globs of tomato-red blood that was increasingly streaked across the screen, as if it was the actual sacrificial lifeblood needed for Movietown to sustain itself, and whose glow envelops the studio’s excesses in a warm unreality.
For Shaw’s greatest success and its greatest folly was that it thrived on this unreality. A Chinese friend, once in a conversation of Chinese cuisine, made the declaration that if one seeks quality and authenticity, one shouldn’t travel to Shanghai nor Hong Kong nor Taipei. Rather, one should pilgrimage to Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia, or to Singapore. For in these cities, created by the progeny of expatriates, cut off from their native culture, fidelity bears a special privilege. Whether this theory holds any truth I’ve never had the pleasure to investigate… but the basis of the theory is reflected in Shaw Brothers aim, to cater not to a specific Cantonese or Nationalist niche, but to make films for the Chinese diaspora at large. How appropriate, then, that Shaw’s pre-HK headquarters should have been in Singapore, its earliest successes in Malaysia. Their output, then, is not based in contemporary stories or socio-political realities of the ever-fractured Chinese world. Instead, Shaw Brothers based their tales in Chinese history, in a collective and romanticized Chinese past that could be shared by someone in Singapore or Thailand alike. There are exceptions – such as their attempts to woo the Nationalist Taiwanese market – but in general, Shaw films were only intermittently set after WWII, and statements on class and politics, if visible at all, are always carefully buried within the construct of genre cinema. They found the perfect vehicle, then, in the mythical world of Wuxia, which in one form or another dominates all the studio output. Yet, it was this decision which would prove their undoing: it was an expatriate’s fantasy of “authenticity”, and it could only sustain the studio so long. As the pendulum swung back to a focus on social reality and local identity, Shaw seemed to unable to escape the ancient dream-China of its own making. Ultimately, Shaw Brothers were the witnesses, harbinger and, ultimately, victims of the unlikely Hong Kong success story, the way this inconsequential colonial-port, buffeted by politics beyond its controls, was transformed overnight into one of the world’s great metropolises.
It is funny that now, thirty years later, the situation is now backwards, that Shaw is long gone, but now Hong Kong film stands the risk of being sacrificed at the altar of a potentially unified China. Perhaps this is why I suffer from this sudden fixation to catalog the films of Hong Kong’s Golden Age, to relive some sort-of second childhood by revisiting these films which once meant so much to me, bottled lightning which may never come again. Hong Kong may still persist as an “autonomous zone”, but it often looks as if the film industry hasn’t been extended the same privilege. The decision, at the start of the millennium, to count Mainland co-productions within the quota of “local” films has had the insidious effect of corroding the Hong Kong film industry, absorbing it as a satellite of Mainland productions. A recent decision, to lift quota bans on Hong Kong films in certain parts of Cantonese-speaking South China, is a positive development, but it still raises the question on how much of a distinct identity can Hong Kong films maintain if it’s transformed simply into a “dialect cinema”. It’s a complete reversal of what happened a half-century ago. Then, the ban on Cantonese film and closing of the Mainland gutted local productions in the colony and left a void for “high-quality” Chinese films. For better or worse, it was Shaw Brother’s express purpose to fill this void. Perhaps, then, the studios ultimate closure, less than three decades ago, was unavoidable, its success inevitably fleeting. Remember, kiddies, it’s a changing world, and things don’t last forever.
A Brief Synopsis of the Studio’s Rise and Fall:
The 1970s should have been Shaw’s decade. It was an ascension decades in the making, since the brothers Shaw created their first production company, Tianyi Films, in 1925. Like China itself, the company was scattered to the wind by the various troubles of the mid-century, troubles complicated when the Mainland essentially closed itself off to outside film studios in the 50s, and very soon, closed itself off period (come the Cultural Revolution, they essentially stop making narrative films). The fundamental problem arises for any aspiring film studio: how do you carve out a Chinese audience when you can’t access China? Run Run Shaw finds himself at an opportune moment, the backbone of the family business at this point being a series of theater chains throughout the “nanyang”: the various Southeast Asian countries with large Chinese populations (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.). There, in the midst of the golden age of Malay cinema, he also runs the successful Malay Film Productions; but the bubble on that industry is set to pop, and the potential money to be made filling their theaters with Chinese films is far too enticing. So, he buys a large tract of land in Hong Kong’s Clearwater Bay, christening it Movietown. As the story goes, the land was close enough to the Mainland, and its owners paranoid enough of a potential invasion, that Run Run buys it for a steal. There, he takes over his brothers’ fledgling Shaw and Sons Studio, consolidating it along the lines of the studio system, vertical integration, and sets out to make high-quality, color, Mandarin-language films for an audience scattered across the Chinese Diaspora.
This immediately puts them at odds with many Hong Kong studios, still trying to make localized films for the relatively limited Cantonese audience, like the social-realist Union Film Enterprises or its urban-and-urbane successor Kong Ngee. As a studio striving to be apolitical-to-the-point of conservatism, it was also at odds with leftist studios, like their Mandarin-rivals Great Wall/Feng Huang. But their true arch-nemesis at the end of the 1950s is Cathay/MP&GI. They were Shaw’s rival theater chain in the “nanyang”, their rivals in the Malaysian film industry, and they got a three-year head-start on Shaw in establishing a Hong Kong presence. What’s more, Cathay had great P.R.; they were the sophisticated, stylish and youthful film company, whereas Shaw was seen as stodgy and traditional. But Shaw used that image to their advantage, tapping into “stodgy and traditional” Taiwan, which was then opening up after a period of military isolation. Cathay may have made the hipper, contemporary films, but Shaw’s Huangmei Operas allowed them to open up this lucrative and conservative new front of the Mandarin-language market. When Cathay’s millionaire mastermind, Loke Wan Tho, unexpectedly died in a plane crash in 1964, taking several executives with him, Shaw had Cathay on the ropes. The next year, they made the studio-wide decision to begin making action-orientated wuxias, christening the start of the “wuxia century”. It was an unprecedented move for a Mandarin studio, and it was practically a knock out. For the next five years, they watched as Cathay’s relevance slowly slipped away; by 1973, the studio would shutter. Their other Mandarin-rivals, Great Wall and Feng Huang? Their politics ostracized them from the reactionary Taiwan, which gossiped that they were secretly funded by the PRC, and the Mainland had enough problems of their own to sustain them. Even the Cantonese studios suffered from the growing popularity of the “new wuxias” and then the sudden emergence of Hong Kong television. This decline was so steep that during the three years between 1971 and 1973, only two films were made in Cantonese.
Mandarin-language cinema was at a high, and Shaw was making up to half of Hong Kong’s output. By 1970, they had conquered all their rivals in the small island colony. The character and direction of Chinese cinema were practically being dictated on their terms. But when fate closes one door, it opens two others… and it was usually Shaw themselves who inadvertently turned the knob. Ultimately, the studio was the unforeseen victims of its own success. Their authorial control, both of the box office and their own studio, bred discontent. At the start of the decade, two of their producers left the studio, disenchanted with its creatively-stifling and penny-pinching ways, to create Golden Harvest, a studio built along the United Artists model, eschewing centralized productions for contracts with independent producers. As Shaw had beaten every rival into an “independent”, they had no trouble finding collaborators. If Shaw opened up the Taiwanese market, they also woke the island up to its potential. Soon, Taiwanese studios had no trouble luring away talent, and the late 60s and early 70s were marked by constant defections, none more embarrassing than the loss of their then-biggest star, Jimmy Wang Yu, right at the beginning of the decade, contracts-be-damned. As Taiwan enacted quotas and tax policies to protect their industry, it was the indie-studios that proved more flexible in collaborating with the country. Shaw’s response was to essentially make a studio-within-the-studio, beginning their Chang’s Film Co. experiment, where Chang Cheh was sent to the island to produce a series of lavish epics meant to catapult the studio to new heights, as well as extricate some much coveted funds. These epics, however, proved unsustainable, barely breaking-even or losing money, and the studio closed the company in 1976. It was a damaging blow to Shaw’s reputation and their coffers, and it pretty much ended Chang’s status as the most prestigious director at the studio.
If Shaw were innovators, they had a major problem in following up their innovations. If they made many films that set the standard for the Kung-Fu craze of the 70s, they always reverted back to the increasingly outdated wuxia pians, leaving the further innovations to Golden Harvest and unaffiliated rivals. Things got so out-of-touch that, by decades end, the prestigious studio was openly imitating the low-budget, fly-by-night indie-productions that were littering theaters. Remember how they beat back Cantonese language film to oblivion? That one lone Cantonese made in 1973? It was a Shaw Production. House of 72 Tenants unexpectedly became one of the biggest Hong Kong films ever, making twice as much as Enter the Dragon, and bringing back Cantonese cinema from the dead. Despite this, Shaw decided not to follow up on the Cantonese market, outside of a few token films. But it was this market that revolutionized the Hong Kong industry in the following decade, spelling doom for Shaw. And lord knows they had chances! During the middle of the decade, they made several successful crime films, set in contemporary Hong Kong and acknowledging the social conditions there. The Hong Kong Crime Film, of course, would soon overtake the martial-arts film in popularity and be one of two genres (alongside Cantonese Comedy) responsible for the transformation of Hong Kong back to a localized industry. But, except for a few too-little, too-late entries in the early eighties, Shaw never placed enough emphasis on this new and adventurous genre. Oh, and Cantonese Comedy: Shaw briefly had the TV comedian Michael Hui under contract. The three films he made at the studio were wildly successful, but Shaw a) refused to give Hui any creative input, although his wildly popular show proved he was no slouch, b) kept him away from the Cantonese language so crucial to his shtick and his primary audience, c) chose not to cast him with his brothers and comedy partners, despite having one of them under contract. After three films, he bounced to Golden Harvest, becoming the most beloved Hong Kong star this side of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan. The Hui Brothers’ comedies were so successful that many people credit them with keeping the industry afloat during its transition away from the diasporic legacy built by Shaw. And that’s without touching the fact that Bruce Lee, on arriving in Hong Kong, approached Shaw Brothers before any other studio, only to be given an offer he considered beneath his talents. By the end of the decade, Shaw fell to second place in box-office receipts, behind Golden Harvest. At some point in 1982, they were also surpassed by Cinema City, the young upstart emblematic of the Hong Kong New Wave. By 1985, they essentially ceased production, and two years later, officially called it quits, divesting their attention to their more lucrative TV and theater chain businesses.
The Guide to the Guide:
Ultimately, were not here to dissect where Shaw went wrong, but to look at what the studio made right. In short, making some of the most entertaining and plain bad-ass genre films in a decade that, elsewhere, mostly settled for moody realism, art-house detachment or schlocky prurience. My goal is to essentially divide the studios output by genre, outlining the general flow and characteristics of each movement. Then, I’ll attempt to spotlight some of the essential films of each category, as well as some worthy follow-ups for the more adventurous viewer. To accomplish this, I have broken down Shaw’s output this decade to five (or six) main umbrellas.
The first is the wuxia pian, the studio’s signature and most enduring genre. To put things into perspective, I’ve broken this genre in half: Wuxia Pian (1970-1974) will highlight the films from the first half of the decade, largely holdovers of the “New Wuxia” aesthetic of the late 60s. Buffeted by changing audience tastes and new freedoms in screen material, this period finds an uneasy mixing of the old and new, the romantic and the provocative, and it should be no surprise that the genre reaches a decline mid-decade. The genre slowly regains its footing during the second half of the decade. Wuxia Pian (1975-1979) is largely categorized by the emergence and popularity of the “Swordplay & Intrigue” film: wuxias which were distinguished by mystery-plotting, baroque and macabre atmospherics/stylization, and bizarre and lurid thematic elements which emphasize the genre’s pulp-roots as much as it’s more classical-literary precedents.
The third category is the much more famous Kung-Fu Film, which starts literally at the beginning of the decade. Shaw’s relationship to the genre is complicated: one moment their its chief innovators. The next, they’re openly imitating their rivals. It is however the genre that brought them international attention, and a genre much of their legacy in the West is built on. To better define this oft-ridiculed genre, I have accompanied this section with a more general study of the genre – On the Kung-Fu Film – which I hope will bring some clarity to defining its particular elements.
From here, things get trickier and more muddled. For the sake of time and thoroughness, the next two sections may have to wait until after the ‘70s project. But as they stand, I’ll focus on the Shaw Crime Film, an ultimately minor genre that nonetheless would prove to have large ramifications for Hong Kong’s film future. Its focus on modern settings and brief glimpses of social realism would briefly open up the studio to the Hong Kong world they’d been largely ignoring. Lastly, I’ll attempt to sum up and briefly outline the sundry of other genre under the last section, Shawsploitation… and Beyond! From sizzling sex comedies to raucous horror films, patriotic WWII actioners to lavish tales of historic court intrigue, Shaw always kept their hands in various genres beyond their famed martial-arts films.
The Shaw Brothers’ “Auteurs”
But before we proceed, let me put my Andrew Sarris hat on, and distinguish the directors I consider to be the most interesting and significant auteurs at the studio this decade. I have pinpointed 13 “auteurs” during this period, as well as a few directors worth further consideration or mention. Discussion of individual films will wait until the later guides, but be rest assured you’ll see these names again, multiple times even. Nonetheless, as I’m trying to par my recommendations down to the barest of essentials, this may prove fruitful for further investigations.
Up front, the three most popular and crucial directors are also those most responsible for the direction of martial-arts cinema. This is what I call the “Master Class” of Shaw auteurs: CHANG CHEH, LAU KAR-LEUNG and CHOR YUEN. Chang Cheh (I refuse to call him Zhang Che) starts the decade off as the studio’s “wonder boy”, his violent, macho yanggang-style films setting the stage for the kung-fu boom. Making 54 films this decade, he practically is a studio onto himself, transitioning from early gangster films to mid-period epics, and closing the decade out with a deluge of kung-fu cheapies. His ethos of “heroic bloodshed” and “blood brothers”, his mixing of extreme violence and macho melodrama, his bloody tales of male camaraderie and struggles for justice… all these essentially set the tone for the martial-arts film made in his wake. Lau Kar-Leung (or Liu Chia-Liang) spends the first half of the decade as the uncredited backbone of Shaw’s entire martial-art output. With partner Tong Gai, these guys choreograph and help develop countless films, including much of Chang’s above. When he transition to directing, he brings a special emphasis to authentic kung-fu. His films are either comedies celebrating the ethos of marital-arts, or brooding dramas about those very same ethos being despoiled by revenge and violence. He doesn’t make as many films as his peers, but every one of them is considered a classic. Chor Yuen (or Chu Yuan), however, focuses entirely on the wuxia pian. Making his name as a Cantonese filmmaker before coming to Shaw, he makes several films in various genres (many of them quite good), before becoming the proponent of the aforementioned “Swordplay & Intrigue” film, making 15 entries into the sub-genre before the decade was up. A highly stylized and baroque filmmaker, his films would pretty much define the wuxia pian during Shaw’s final years.
Shaw Brothers didn’t just automatically clean house at the start of the decade. Other than Chang, this is what could be called the “Old Guard” class: CHENG KANG, HO MENG-HUA and LI HAN-HSIANG, who all deserve mention for their longevity and adaptability at the studio. Cheng Kang (or Ching Gong) was a former screenwriter who was well known as being a hot-tempered perfectionist on set. Despite his often troubled production methods, Run Run Shaw soon promotes him to the upper echelon of A-list directors. He perhaps has the mistake of making his name at the studio just as the “New Wuxia” bubble starts to burst, but before it goes, he makes several big-budget epics which are among the best the studio ever made. Afterwards, he transitions into one of the studio’s more interesting Exploitation directors. A similar fate awaits Ho Meng-Hua, who starts the decade at a stride, with several of the last great female-centric wuxias. As fortunes change, he turns into one of the studio’s most variable directors, something like their Swiss-army knife, working in horror, crime, fantasy and exploitation capacities. Li Han-Hsiang is an even more interesting case: the most prestigious director at the studio during their Huangmei Opera phase, he was their most famous defector during the mid-‘60s (outside of maybe King Hu). He returns at the start of the seventies, and is immediately assigned to Shaw’s various sex-comedies. As opposed to slumming, Li takes to the genre with gusto, making several of the most successful and beloved films of the period. Despite the sordid material, he always maintains his lavish attention to detail and elegant directorial style. His brand of historical erotica proves successful enough that he is soon able to make several straightforward historical dramas, which he continues even after leaving the studio. Although lacking the durability of the three above, GRIFFIN YUEH FENG is worth distinction as a consistently strong director. Another of the studio's top directors in the '60s, with a propensity for both the huangmei opera and yenyi melodrama form, he made his mark in the wuxia pian with the seminal Bells of Death (1968). Outside of a few late melodramas, he works exclusively in this register, defined by a grim outlook, shocking violence and tight, muscular direction. He leaves the studio sometime around 1974.
While the above directors carry plenty of weight, Shaw proves more troubling in bringing and developing new directorial talent. Many of their most promising directors simply come and go after a film or two. Many contract players never rise above the level of competent journeymen. During the first half of the decade, of the many “New Directors”, I’d identify three as worth special emphasis: CHANG TSENG-CHAI, CHENG CHANG-HO and PAO HSUEH-LI. Chang Tseng-Chai was one of Shaw’s great hopes, and in the end, perhaps a great disappointment. His From the Highway (1970), for rival studio Cathay, was one the defining successes of the era, leading him to being offered a contract at Shaw. It makes him one of those rare things at the studio: a young director provided with unprecedented freedom and massive resources. None of his films end up becoming the commercial or critical hit Shaw was hoping for, but he makes several ambitious, genre-bending features during his brief tenure. Even briefer is Cheng Chang-Ho’s stay, which only lasts about three years. An established Korean filmmaker (real name: Jeng Cheong-Woh) he quickly makes a name for himself with his quirky, stylish, fast-paced wuxia pians. Despite the massive success of his seminal King Boxer and the entreaties of Run Run Shaw himself, he chooses to leave the studio in ’72, making several indies before returning to South Korea. Formerly the top cinematographer at the studio, Pao Hsueh-Li transitions to director mostly as partner with Chang Cheh, especially throughout his ambitious cycle of epics. Nonetheless, he also makes 8 solo outings before splitting with the studio. Perhaps more of a consummate professional than personal auteur, his career behind the camera leads to generally handsome productions, with a chameleon-like ability to adapt to a variety of genres.
The last category of auteurs is what I call the “Maverick Directors” of Shaw Brothers: SUN CHUNG, KUEI CHIH-HUNG and HUA SHAN. With the three “Old Guard” directors above, they were the backbone of Shaw’s Exploitation unit. All three proved their mettle enough that, by the turn of the decade, they were awarded with more prestigious projects. Sun Chung could have perhaps been a great director of wuxia, but he has the misfortune of arriving just as the genre’s first wave is winding down. As a result he’s assigned to the studio’s sex films. Slowly, they start getting more action packed, with a noted influence from both American action films and Japanese Pinky Violence. With his reputation established, he’s assigned to several exceptional wuxias, as the genre makes it return. Dark, violent and brooding, they kickstart what I like to call the cruel wuxia-pian sub-genre of the early Eighties. Kuei Chih-Hung starts, with all things, romantic comedies. But with the help of Chang Cheh, he helps initiate the Shaw Brothers Crime wave. From then on, he makes some of the wildest and most provocative Exploitation films at the studio, films with a grim energy that truly feel as if they're on the edge of running out of control. His two masterpieces don’t come until the next decade, but he’s one director whose films truly feel subversive for their boldness alone. The least of the three, at least as this decade is concerned, is Hua Shan. Another former cinematographer, his tastes run increasingly towards the grotesque and bizarre. During the decade, he mostly distinguishes himself with several entries into the burgeoning Triad genre characterized by a certain brutal grit. However, he truly hits his stride going into the Eighties, where he directs several outrageous fantastique-laden wuxias. It's worth noting that these latter two don't work exclusively for Shaw: both Kuei and Hua also put in work for several indie studios. While these films look much more conventional at a glance, they may prove fruitful for future investigations.
Worth further investigation: T.F. MOU (or MOU TOU-FIEN), the enfant terrible behind the later Men Behind the Sun. Making his name with a few successful Taiwanese shorts, he’s another director instantly given an unprecedented freedom. Here, however, the studio immediately balks: they find his films too dark, too political, too controversial. Two of his films are chopped down from feature-length into anthology shorts; another is given a minor release and then falls to obscurity. We’ll wait until the ‘80s for his vision to make it to the screen somewhere approaching undiluted, but from what I see and read, he’s one of the most forward-thinking and iconoclastic directors at the studio. Begrudging mention: LU KEI, aka. Shaw’s other erotic director. His films, however, are the opposite of Li’s historical comedies; they’re contemporary, crass, broad, vulgar, and stereotypical, with often questionable sexual politics. They’re also often listed among the worst films the studio ever put out. But, with titles like The Mini-Skirt Gang and Starlets for Sale, they may prove irresistible to some. Just know what you’re getting into. There’s also JOHN LAW MA, a director who never works exclusively for Shaw, constantly jumping between them and the Indie studios. For much of his stay, he’s put in charge of several of their most successful attempts at the Cantonese Comedy, including the long running Crazy Bumpkins series. More importantly, he becomes Shaw’s go-to guy when it comes time to imitate the Indie-style kung-fu comedy. He makes three films back-to-back in 1979 which are amongst Shaw’s most successful attempts at the genre.
Now on to the actual guide… before I continue, I should further emphasize what is mentioned above. Biased and Reductive. While I like to think I know what the hell I’m talking about, the truth is I’ll probably push my knowledge or put my foot in my mouth several times. Considering the litany of long-propagated misinformation connected to the genre until recently (*cough*ricmeyers*cough*), it’s inevitable some will infiltrate the below accounts. If you notice something wrong, or outright disagree with my assessments, then by all means, say something. This isn’t the great comprehensive account of Shaw Brothers. This is just some fan mostly stabbing in the dark. I just hope that some people will find something of interest here, and maybe discover a few new great films.
Next up: Wuxia Pian (1970-1974)
Vol I: The Wuxia Pian (1971-1974): Introduction / Selected Films / Further Suggestions
On the Kung Fu Film (Brief Notes on Genre): Intro / Definition / Sidebars / Bashers / Shapes / Comedies / New School
Vol II: Shaw Kung Fu: coming soon
Vol III: The Wuxia Pian (1975-1979): coming soon
Vol IV: Shaw Crime: coming soon
Vol V: Shawsploitation... and Beyond: coming soon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So to get this ball rolling... this overview is meant to be in conjunction with the 1970s project. As it has quickly ballooned past what I thought it'd be, I've decided to make it its own thread. I'll roll it out gradually in seven parts, this "introduction" being the first. Before I continue, some notes:
1) Other than this introductory essay and a later one, these pieces will follow a similar pattern. They'll each be focused on a specific genre. They'll begin with a brief essay outlining their development at Shaw during the decade. They'll be headed by two or three Essential Films, painfully pared down from the grand list of potential films. Then a handful of Distinguished Reccomendations, capsule reviews of films that particularly strike my fancy. Then a section called For Further Investigation, where I try to broadly outline the remaining films of said genre. If you're not interested in the outline of genre or studio history, feel free to skip to the capsule review and pick out the recommended films.
2) I've tried to make these write-ups and capsule reviews SPOILER-FREE. As the genre project taught me, in depth analysis doesn't lead to new viewers. This project is for the layperson, a primer for those who don't know anything about the genre. References to events and scenes remain, I hope, suitably vague so as not to ruin anything. So, please, read away with any conscience... and if something seems spoiler-worthy, it's probably not, or it won't hurt your enjoyment.
3) If you want to discuss genre or studio history, please discuss it here. If, however, a particular film strikes your fancy, and you feel it's worth it, try to post it in the 1970s thread. Preferably, there'll be a lot of back and forth going on between these two places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Shaw Production: A Biased and Reductive Overview of a Major Hong Kong Studio During the Seventies.
“Another Shaw Production”. It emblazoned the end-title cards of the 800-plus films that emerged from the studio, the seal impression of an empire that briefly ruled the screens of Southeast Asia. Perhaps it’s redundant: one was never mistaken when watching a Shaw Brothers production. For in a Shaw Brothers production, you find the uncanny and uneasy mix of adventurous modernity and bullheaded traditionalism: of startling new techniques and strategies which lifted the action film to unprecedented heights, and of an unwavering commitment to old-fashioned studio-magic, imitative of the great Hollywood studios which were already splintering when the studio began its ascension. This is as apparent from the opening of a Shaw Brothers film as its ending: the distinctive drum-roll and triumphant fanfare, the assuring promise of Shawscope, the studio emblem unapologetically swiped from the brothers Warner. For perhaps the great appeal of Shaw Brothers Studio is that it was the last of the old-school studios, with its contract stars, favored genres and in-house-style, its massive Movietown complex ceaselessly in production. It’s an emblem they wore proudly as the studio slowly dominated all competition… and which they refused to rub or scratch off, even as their output seemed more and more archaic with the surrounding world.
But, before their fall, the studio spent two decades rebuilding Hong Kong cinema from the ground up, a legacy which is still felt. Above all else, Shaw recreated Hong Kong cinema as an industry of action-packed, populist entertainments, made with a craft and ingenuity that has become increasingly rare in the Western equivalents they once openly imitated. David Bordwell (in his similarly-titled, well-recommended essay) goes as far as to say they created an aesthetic of film to rival “Soviet Montage, German Expressionism, and other stylistic schools.” Reliant on “constructive editing” and “segment shooting”, it’s an aesthetic of constant movement that would soon bleed to all facets of production, constituting the verve and energy which is still the signature of modern Hong Kong cinema. While Hong Kong may have been late in introducing widescreen and color, Shaw compensated by enacting an across-the-board adoption of Anamorphic Widescreen and Eastmancolor as early as 1962. With their usually ornate costuming and large lavish sets, nearly always brightly and evenly lit by studio technicians, the Shaw studio-look emerges. It is a cinema of vivid colors in wide panoramas, the palette taking on a second-hand velvet texture imitative of old Hollywood Technicolor, unrelenting right up into the 1980s, long after film technology had changed to favor photogenic-realism. This is never more vivid than in the globs of tomato-red blood that was increasingly streaked across the screen, as if it was the actual sacrificial lifeblood needed for Movietown to sustain itself, and whose glow envelops the studio’s excesses in a warm unreality.
For Shaw’s greatest success and its greatest folly was that it thrived on this unreality. A Chinese friend, once in a conversation of Chinese cuisine, made the declaration that if one seeks quality and authenticity, one shouldn’t travel to Shanghai nor Hong Kong nor Taipei. Rather, one should pilgrimage to Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia, or to Singapore. For in these cities, created by the progeny of expatriates, cut off from their native culture, fidelity bears a special privilege. Whether this theory holds any truth I’ve never had the pleasure to investigate… but the basis of the theory is reflected in Shaw Brothers aim, to cater not to a specific Cantonese or Nationalist niche, but to make films for the Chinese diaspora at large. How appropriate, then, that Shaw’s pre-HK headquarters should have been in Singapore, its earliest successes in Malaysia. Their output, then, is not based in contemporary stories or socio-political realities of the ever-fractured Chinese world. Instead, Shaw Brothers based their tales in Chinese history, in a collective and romanticized Chinese past that could be shared by someone in Singapore or Thailand alike. There are exceptions – such as their attempts to woo the Nationalist Taiwanese market – but in general, Shaw films were only intermittently set after WWII, and statements on class and politics, if visible at all, are always carefully buried within the construct of genre cinema. They found the perfect vehicle, then, in the mythical world of Wuxia, which in one form or another dominates all the studio output. Yet, it was this decision which would prove their undoing: it was an expatriate’s fantasy of “authenticity”, and it could only sustain the studio so long. As the pendulum swung back to a focus on social reality and local identity, Shaw seemed to unable to escape the ancient dream-China of its own making. Ultimately, Shaw Brothers were the witnesses, harbinger and, ultimately, victims of the unlikely Hong Kong success story, the way this inconsequential colonial-port, buffeted by politics beyond its controls, was transformed overnight into one of the world’s great metropolises.
It is funny that now, thirty years later, the situation is now backwards, that Shaw is long gone, but now Hong Kong film stands the risk of being sacrificed at the altar of a potentially unified China. Perhaps this is why I suffer from this sudden fixation to catalog the films of Hong Kong’s Golden Age, to relive some sort-of second childhood by revisiting these films which once meant so much to me, bottled lightning which may never come again. Hong Kong may still persist as an “autonomous zone”, but it often looks as if the film industry hasn’t been extended the same privilege. The decision, at the start of the millennium, to count Mainland co-productions within the quota of “local” films has had the insidious effect of corroding the Hong Kong film industry, absorbing it as a satellite of Mainland productions. A recent decision, to lift quota bans on Hong Kong films in certain parts of Cantonese-speaking South China, is a positive development, but it still raises the question on how much of a distinct identity can Hong Kong films maintain if it’s transformed simply into a “dialect cinema”. It’s a complete reversal of what happened a half-century ago. Then, the ban on Cantonese film and closing of the Mainland gutted local productions in the colony and left a void for “high-quality” Chinese films. For better or worse, it was Shaw Brother’s express purpose to fill this void. Perhaps, then, the studios ultimate closure, less than three decades ago, was unavoidable, its success inevitably fleeting. Remember, kiddies, it’s a changing world, and things don’t last forever.
A Brief Synopsis of the Studio’s Rise and Fall:
The 1970s should have been Shaw’s decade. It was an ascension decades in the making, since the brothers Shaw created their first production company, Tianyi Films, in 1925. Like China itself, the company was scattered to the wind by the various troubles of the mid-century, troubles complicated when the Mainland essentially closed itself off to outside film studios in the 50s, and very soon, closed itself off period (come the Cultural Revolution, they essentially stop making narrative films). The fundamental problem arises for any aspiring film studio: how do you carve out a Chinese audience when you can’t access China? Run Run Shaw finds himself at an opportune moment, the backbone of the family business at this point being a series of theater chains throughout the “nanyang”: the various Southeast Asian countries with large Chinese populations (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.). There, in the midst of the golden age of Malay cinema, he also runs the successful Malay Film Productions; but the bubble on that industry is set to pop, and the potential money to be made filling their theaters with Chinese films is far too enticing. So, he buys a large tract of land in Hong Kong’s Clearwater Bay, christening it Movietown. As the story goes, the land was close enough to the Mainland, and its owners paranoid enough of a potential invasion, that Run Run buys it for a steal. There, he takes over his brothers’ fledgling Shaw and Sons Studio, consolidating it along the lines of the studio system, vertical integration, and sets out to make high-quality, color, Mandarin-language films for an audience scattered across the Chinese Diaspora.
This immediately puts them at odds with many Hong Kong studios, still trying to make localized films for the relatively limited Cantonese audience, like the social-realist Union Film Enterprises or its urban-and-urbane successor Kong Ngee. As a studio striving to be apolitical-to-the-point of conservatism, it was also at odds with leftist studios, like their Mandarin-rivals Great Wall/Feng Huang. But their true arch-nemesis at the end of the 1950s is Cathay/MP&GI. They were Shaw’s rival theater chain in the “nanyang”, their rivals in the Malaysian film industry, and they got a three-year head-start on Shaw in establishing a Hong Kong presence. What’s more, Cathay had great P.R.; they were the sophisticated, stylish and youthful film company, whereas Shaw was seen as stodgy and traditional. But Shaw used that image to their advantage, tapping into “stodgy and traditional” Taiwan, which was then opening up after a period of military isolation. Cathay may have made the hipper, contemporary films, but Shaw’s Huangmei Operas allowed them to open up this lucrative and conservative new front of the Mandarin-language market. When Cathay’s millionaire mastermind, Loke Wan Tho, unexpectedly died in a plane crash in 1964, taking several executives with him, Shaw had Cathay on the ropes. The next year, they made the studio-wide decision to begin making action-orientated wuxias, christening the start of the “wuxia century”. It was an unprecedented move for a Mandarin studio, and it was practically a knock out. For the next five years, they watched as Cathay’s relevance slowly slipped away; by 1973, the studio would shutter. Their other Mandarin-rivals, Great Wall and Feng Huang? Their politics ostracized them from the reactionary Taiwan, which gossiped that they were secretly funded by the PRC, and the Mainland had enough problems of their own to sustain them. Even the Cantonese studios suffered from the growing popularity of the “new wuxias” and then the sudden emergence of Hong Kong television. This decline was so steep that during the three years between 1971 and 1973, only two films were made in Cantonese.
Mandarin-language cinema was at a high, and Shaw was making up to half of Hong Kong’s output. By 1970, they had conquered all their rivals in the small island colony. The character and direction of Chinese cinema were practically being dictated on their terms. But when fate closes one door, it opens two others… and it was usually Shaw themselves who inadvertently turned the knob. Ultimately, the studio was the unforeseen victims of its own success. Their authorial control, both of the box office and their own studio, bred discontent. At the start of the decade, two of their producers left the studio, disenchanted with its creatively-stifling and penny-pinching ways, to create Golden Harvest, a studio built along the United Artists model, eschewing centralized productions for contracts with independent producers. As Shaw had beaten every rival into an “independent”, they had no trouble finding collaborators. If Shaw opened up the Taiwanese market, they also woke the island up to its potential. Soon, Taiwanese studios had no trouble luring away talent, and the late 60s and early 70s were marked by constant defections, none more embarrassing than the loss of their then-biggest star, Jimmy Wang Yu, right at the beginning of the decade, contracts-be-damned. As Taiwan enacted quotas and tax policies to protect their industry, it was the indie-studios that proved more flexible in collaborating with the country. Shaw’s response was to essentially make a studio-within-the-studio, beginning their Chang’s Film Co. experiment, where Chang Cheh was sent to the island to produce a series of lavish epics meant to catapult the studio to new heights, as well as extricate some much coveted funds. These epics, however, proved unsustainable, barely breaking-even or losing money, and the studio closed the company in 1976. It was a damaging blow to Shaw’s reputation and their coffers, and it pretty much ended Chang’s status as the most prestigious director at the studio.
If Shaw were innovators, they had a major problem in following up their innovations. If they made many films that set the standard for the Kung-Fu craze of the 70s, they always reverted back to the increasingly outdated wuxia pians, leaving the further innovations to Golden Harvest and unaffiliated rivals. Things got so out-of-touch that, by decades end, the prestigious studio was openly imitating the low-budget, fly-by-night indie-productions that were littering theaters. Remember how they beat back Cantonese language film to oblivion? That one lone Cantonese made in 1973? It was a Shaw Production. House of 72 Tenants unexpectedly became one of the biggest Hong Kong films ever, making twice as much as Enter the Dragon, and bringing back Cantonese cinema from the dead. Despite this, Shaw decided not to follow up on the Cantonese market, outside of a few token films. But it was this market that revolutionized the Hong Kong industry in the following decade, spelling doom for Shaw. And lord knows they had chances! During the middle of the decade, they made several successful crime films, set in contemporary Hong Kong and acknowledging the social conditions there. The Hong Kong Crime Film, of course, would soon overtake the martial-arts film in popularity and be one of two genres (alongside Cantonese Comedy) responsible for the transformation of Hong Kong back to a localized industry. But, except for a few too-little, too-late entries in the early eighties, Shaw never placed enough emphasis on this new and adventurous genre. Oh, and Cantonese Comedy: Shaw briefly had the TV comedian Michael Hui under contract. The three films he made at the studio were wildly successful, but Shaw a) refused to give Hui any creative input, although his wildly popular show proved he was no slouch, b) kept him away from the Cantonese language so crucial to his shtick and his primary audience, c) chose not to cast him with his brothers and comedy partners, despite having one of them under contract. After three films, he bounced to Golden Harvest, becoming the most beloved Hong Kong star this side of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan. The Hui Brothers’ comedies were so successful that many people credit them with keeping the industry afloat during its transition away from the diasporic legacy built by Shaw. And that’s without touching the fact that Bruce Lee, on arriving in Hong Kong, approached Shaw Brothers before any other studio, only to be given an offer he considered beneath his talents. By the end of the decade, Shaw fell to second place in box-office receipts, behind Golden Harvest. At some point in 1982, they were also surpassed by Cinema City, the young upstart emblematic of the Hong Kong New Wave. By 1985, they essentially ceased production, and two years later, officially called it quits, divesting their attention to their more lucrative TV and theater chain businesses.
The Guide to the Guide:
Ultimately, were not here to dissect where Shaw went wrong, but to look at what the studio made right. In short, making some of the most entertaining and plain bad-ass genre films in a decade that, elsewhere, mostly settled for moody realism, art-house detachment or schlocky prurience. My goal is to essentially divide the studios output by genre, outlining the general flow and characteristics of each movement. Then, I’ll attempt to spotlight some of the essential films of each category, as well as some worthy follow-ups for the more adventurous viewer. To accomplish this, I have broken down Shaw’s output this decade to five (or six) main umbrellas.
The first is the wuxia pian, the studio’s signature and most enduring genre. To put things into perspective, I’ve broken this genre in half: Wuxia Pian (1970-1974) will highlight the films from the first half of the decade, largely holdovers of the “New Wuxia” aesthetic of the late 60s. Buffeted by changing audience tastes and new freedoms in screen material, this period finds an uneasy mixing of the old and new, the romantic and the provocative, and it should be no surprise that the genre reaches a decline mid-decade. The genre slowly regains its footing during the second half of the decade. Wuxia Pian (1975-1979) is largely categorized by the emergence and popularity of the “Swordplay & Intrigue” film: wuxias which were distinguished by mystery-plotting, baroque and macabre atmospherics/stylization, and bizarre and lurid thematic elements which emphasize the genre’s pulp-roots as much as it’s more classical-literary precedents.
The third category is the much more famous Kung-Fu Film, which starts literally at the beginning of the decade. Shaw’s relationship to the genre is complicated: one moment their its chief innovators. The next, they’re openly imitating their rivals. It is however the genre that brought them international attention, and a genre much of their legacy in the West is built on. To better define this oft-ridiculed genre, I have accompanied this section with a more general study of the genre – On the Kung-Fu Film – which I hope will bring some clarity to defining its particular elements.
From here, things get trickier and more muddled. For the sake of time and thoroughness, the next two sections may have to wait until after the ‘70s project. But as they stand, I’ll focus on the Shaw Crime Film, an ultimately minor genre that nonetheless would prove to have large ramifications for Hong Kong’s film future. Its focus on modern settings and brief glimpses of social realism would briefly open up the studio to the Hong Kong world they’d been largely ignoring. Lastly, I’ll attempt to sum up and briefly outline the sundry of other genre under the last section, Shawsploitation… and Beyond! From sizzling sex comedies to raucous horror films, patriotic WWII actioners to lavish tales of historic court intrigue, Shaw always kept their hands in various genres beyond their famed martial-arts films.
The Shaw Brothers’ “Auteurs”
But before we proceed, let me put my Andrew Sarris hat on, and distinguish the directors I consider to be the most interesting and significant auteurs at the studio this decade. I have pinpointed 13 “auteurs” during this period, as well as a few directors worth further consideration or mention. Discussion of individual films will wait until the later guides, but be rest assured you’ll see these names again, multiple times even. Nonetheless, as I’m trying to par my recommendations down to the barest of essentials, this may prove fruitful for further investigations.
Up front, the three most popular and crucial directors are also those most responsible for the direction of martial-arts cinema. This is what I call the “Master Class” of Shaw auteurs: CHANG CHEH, LAU KAR-LEUNG and CHOR YUEN. Chang Cheh (I refuse to call him Zhang Che) starts the decade off as the studio’s “wonder boy”, his violent, macho yanggang-style films setting the stage for the kung-fu boom. Making 54 films this decade, he practically is a studio onto himself, transitioning from early gangster films to mid-period epics, and closing the decade out with a deluge of kung-fu cheapies. His ethos of “heroic bloodshed” and “blood brothers”, his mixing of extreme violence and macho melodrama, his bloody tales of male camaraderie and struggles for justice… all these essentially set the tone for the martial-arts film made in his wake. Lau Kar-Leung (or Liu Chia-Liang) spends the first half of the decade as the uncredited backbone of Shaw’s entire martial-art output. With partner Tong Gai, these guys choreograph and help develop countless films, including much of Chang’s above. When he transition to directing, he brings a special emphasis to authentic kung-fu. His films are either comedies celebrating the ethos of marital-arts, or brooding dramas about those very same ethos being despoiled by revenge and violence. He doesn’t make as many films as his peers, but every one of them is considered a classic. Chor Yuen (or Chu Yuan), however, focuses entirely on the wuxia pian. Making his name as a Cantonese filmmaker before coming to Shaw, he makes several films in various genres (many of them quite good), before becoming the proponent of the aforementioned “Swordplay & Intrigue” film, making 15 entries into the sub-genre before the decade was up. A highly stylized and baroque filmmaker, his films would pretty much define the wuxia pian during Shaw’s final years.
Shaw Brothers didn’t just automatically clean house at the start of the decade. Other than Chang, this is what could be called the “Old Guard” class: CHENG KANG, HO MENG-HUA and LI HAN-HSIANG, who all deserve mention for their longevity and adaptability at the studio. Cheng Kang (or Ching Gong) was a former screenwriter who was well known as being a hot-tempered perfectionist on set. Despite his often troubled production methods, Run Run Shaw soon promotes him to the upper echelon of A-list directors. He perhaps has the mistake of making his name at the studio just as the “New Wuxia” bubble starts to burst, but before it goes, he makes several big-budget epics which are among the best the studio ever made. Afterwards, he transitions into one of the studio’s more interesting Exploitation directors. A similar fate awaits Ho Meng-Hua, who starts the decade at a stride, with several of the last great female-centric wuxias. As fortunes change, he turns into one of the studio’s most variable directors, something like their Swiss-army knife, working in horror, crime, fantasy and exploitation capacities. Li Han-Hsiang is an even more interesting case: the most prestigious director at the studio during their Huangmei Opera phase, he was their most famous defector during the mid-‘60s (outside of maybe King Hu). He returns at the start of the seventies, and is immediately assigned to Shaw’s various sex-comedies. As opposed to slumming, Li takes to the genre with gusto, making several of the most successful and beloved films of the period. Despite the sordid material, he always maintains his lavish attention to detail and elegant directorial style. His brand of historical erotica proves successful enough that he is soon able to make several straightforward historical dramas, which he continues even after leaving the studio. Although lacking the durability of the three above, GRIFFIN YUEH FENG is worth distinction as a consistently strong director. Another of the studio's top directors in the '60s, with a propensity for both the huangmei opera and yenyi melodrama form, he made his mark in the wuxia pian with the seminal Bells of Death (1968). Outside of a few late melodramas, he works exclusively in this register, defined by a grim outlook, shocking violence and tight, muscular direction. He leaves the studio sometime around 1974.
While the above directors carry plenty of weight, Shaw proves more troubling in bringing and developing new directorial talent. Many of their most promising directors simply come and go after a film or two. Many contract players never rise above the level of competent journeymen. During the first half of the decade, of the many “New Directors”, I’d identify three as worth special emphasis: CHANG TSENG-CHAI, CHENG CHANG-HO and PAO HSUEH-LI. Chang Tseng-Chai was one of Shaw’s great hopes, and in the end, perhaps a great disappointment. His From the Highway (1970), for rival studio Cathay, was one the defining successes of the era, leading him to being offered a contract at Shaw. It makes him one of those rare things at the studio: a young director provided with unprecedented freedom and massive resources. None of his films end up becoming the commercial or critical hit Shaw was hoping for, but he makes several ambitious, genre-bending features during his brief tenure. Even briefer is Cheng Chang-Ho’s stay, which only lasts about three years. An established Korean filmmaker (real name: Jeng Cheong-Woh) he quickly makes a name for himself with his quirky, stylish, fast-paced wuxia pians. Despite the massive success of his seminal King Boxer and the entreaties of Run Run Shaw himself, he chooses to leave the studio in ’72, making several indies before returning to South Korea. Formerly the top cinematographer at the studio, Pao Hsueh-Li transitions to director mostly as partner with Chang Cheh, especially throughout his ambitious cycle of epics. Nonetheless, he also makes 8 solo outings before splitting with the studio. Perhaps more of a consummate professional than personal auteur, his career behind the camera leads to generally handsome productions, with a chameleon-like ability to adapt to a variety of genres.
The last category of auteurs is what I call the “Maverick Directors” of Shaw Brothers: SUN CHUNG, KUEI CHIH-HUNG and HUA SHAN. With the three “Old Guard” directors above, they were the backbone of Shaw’s Exploitation unit. All three proved their mettle enough that, by the turn of the decade, they were awarded with more prestigious projects. Sun Chung could have perhaps been a great director of wuxia, but he has the misfortune of arriving just as the genre’s first wave is winding down. As a result he’s assigned to the studio’s sex films. Slowly, they start getting more action packed, with a noted influence from both American action films and Japanese Pinky Violence. With his reputation established, he’s assigned to several exceptional wuxias, as the genre makes it return. Dark, violent and brooding, they kickstart what I like to call the cruel wuxia-pian sub-genre of the early Eighties. Kuei Chih-Hung starts, with all things, romantic comedies. But with the help of Chang Cheh, he helps initiate the Shaw Brothers Crime wave. From then on, he makes some of the wildest and most provocative Exploitation films at the studio, films with a grim energy that truly feel as if they're on the edge of running out of control. His two masterpieces don’t come until the next decade, but he’s one director whose films truly feel subversive for their boldness alone. The least of the three, at least as this decade is concerned, is Hua Shan. Another former cinematographer, his tastes run increasingly towards the grotesque and bizarre. During the decade, he mostly distinguishes himself with several entries into the burgeoning Triad genre characterized by a certain brutal grit. However, he truly hits his stride going into the Eighties, where he directs several outrageous fantastique-laden wuxias. It's worth noting that these latter two don't work exclusively for Shaw: both Kuei and Hua also put in work for several indie studios. While these films look much more conventional at a glance, they may prove fruitful for future investigations.
Worth further investigation: T.F. MOU (or MOU TOU-FIEN), the enfant terrible behind the later Men Behind the Sun. Making his name with a few successful Taiwanese shorts, he’s another director instantly given an unprecedented freedom. Here, however, the studio immediately balks: they find his films too dark, too political, too controversial. Two of his films are chopped down from feature-length into anthology shorts; another is given a minor release and then falls to obscurity. We’ll wait until the ‘80s for his vision to make it to the screen somewhere approaching undiluted, but from what I see and read, he’s one of the most forward-thinking and iconoclastic directors at the studio. Begrudging mention: LU KEI, aka. Shaw’s other erotic director. His films, however, are the opposite of Li’s historical comedies; they’re contemporary, crass, broad, vulgar, and stereotypical, with often questionable sexual politics. They’re also often listed among the worst films the studio ever put out. But, with titles like The Mini-Skirt Gang and Starlets for Sale, they may prove irresistible to some. Just know what you’re getting into. There’s also JOHN LAW MA, a director who never works exclusively for Shaw, constantly jumping between them and the Indie studios. For much of his stay, he’s put in charge of several of their most successful attempts at the Cantonese Comedy, including the long running Crazy Bumpkins series. More importantly, he becomes Shaw’s go-to guy when it comes time to imitate the Indie-style kung-fu comedy. He makes three films back-to-back in 1979 which are amongst Shaw’s most successful attempts at the genre.
Now on to the actual guide… before I continue, I should further emphasize what is mentioned above. Biased and Reductive. While I like to think I know what the hell I’m talking about, the truth is I’ll probably push my knowledge or put my foot in my mouth several times. Considering the litany of long-propagated misinformation connected to the genre until recently (*cough*ricmeyers*cough*), it’s inevitable some will infiltrate the below accounts. If you notice something wrong, or outright disagree with my assessments, then by all means, say something. This isn’t the great comprehensive account of Shaw Brothers. This is just some fan mostly stabbing in the dark. I just hope that some people will find something of interest here, and maybe discover a few new great films.
Next up: Wuxia Pian (1970-1974)
