This is a belated review on Diminishing Memories II, a documentary by local filmmaker Eng Yee Peng, and an elaboration of an earlier comment.

I watched DM II last month at the Singapore Film Festival. I was looking forward to it as I had enjoyed the first film, and was eager to see what Yee Peng has come up with next.

DM II is a continuation of DM I, yet it is something different. While DM I was concerned mainly with the past of Lim Chu Kang where Yee Peng grew up, DM II is concerned with its future: what is going to happen to Lim Chu Kang especially with government plans to make it a education/leisure venue with an agriculture theme?

Yee Peng explores this question through visits and interviews with the people who currently reside and work in Lim Chu Kang such as Ho Seng Choon and Ivy Singh-Lim of Bollywood Veggies and in her own reflections of these discussions.

As in DM I, Yee Peng plays a pivotal role as the narrator and director of the film. From her commentary we hear her voice clearly – one that is constantly thinking, reflecting on the information she has received and struggling to make sense of it. This is one of the most attractive aspects of her film – her honesty and courage in presenting her views and perspectives as a filmmaker which in turn motivate the audience to think a little more deeply about things many of us take for granted.

In addition, Yee Peng also allows the viewer insight into the filmmaking process. The most moving scene was perhaps the interview with Yee Peng’s mother where she expressed concern for Yee Peng’s overwhelming passion for filmmaking that threatened to affect her health. This helps the viewer understand some of the difficulties of independent filmmaking and how it operates in the context of the larger family.

Overall, I enjoyed the film very much and cannot even find anything negative to say about it. I admire the filmmaking style, I found the content educational and it was technically competent – better than DM I that suffered from shaky camera and stinting narration.

Most importantly I felt the soul of the filmmaker and the passion she has for the topic. I hope more people will watch the film. It’s good.

This is Jaime’s review of Feet Unbound.

Jaime’s review:

I was fascinated by the premise and content of the documentary. But I came away rather disappointed.

One of the most glaring inadequacies was the lack of historical and social contexts. As Stephanie pointed out, the film began rather abruptly. After 5 minutes, one still did not have much of an idea of where the film was leading – unless one had read the interview with Elly, the ‘protagonist’ of the documentary – or any other articles about it.

The film assumes the audience is well-versed or knowledgeable about the history of the Long March or even the social development of China. The explanatory texts to the former was not enough to paint the full picture. Even though the director, Khee-jin Ng, sought to highlight the ‘facts’ through the interviews, the information came in such bits and pieces that the audience has to work too hard to piece them together or figure out the loopholes.

The advertising for the documentary framed it as a journey of identity searching for a contemporary Chinese woman – Elly. If it was the director’s intention to contrast Elly and the Long March veterans, it again fell below par. Though there was attempts to bring out the privileges Elly enjoys as a 21st century Chinese woman and the hardship the veterans had to go through, the contrast was quite weak. Again, there was not much context to based the comparison on.

The potential strong premise was undermined by two competing voices. The apparent narrator is Elly, whose voice we hear. But like Stephanie pointed out in her review, was this Elly’s story or the director’s story? Although the director remained in the background, his voice was present in its absence. There seems a disconnect between Elly, the women and the journey.

What comes to my mind was Eng Yee Peng’s two documentaries, Diminishing Memories. Yee Peng had unabashedly laid bare her emotions thoughts in these two films. Her voice was unequivocally clear. In contrast, Ng seems to be hiding behind the camera. I somehow could not feel moved by the story.

The powerful interviews have been undercut by a lack of narrative cohesion. How did Elly come to take on this trip? Even if she was bored with her life, why this trip and not a trip, say, based on the Silk Route? Had it not been for the interview, no one would have known that Elly herself had written a series of articles on that forgotten bit of history, hence her fascination and decision to trace the journey of those women.

For me, the marketing seems to be more successful than the film itself.

In an earlier post, we wrote about the documentary Feet Unbound. In a nutshell, it is about a Beijing reporter, Elly’s journey along the trail of the Long March to learn more about this historic journey and the experiences of the women who made it.

Stephanie’s review:
I was excited to see the film as it seemed to have many things going for it. It was directed by a Singaporean (support Singapore film-makers!), it was about women and about history – a winning combination for me.

I came away from the film, however, with decidedly mixed feelings. Here’s a list of what I liked and didn’t like about the film.

The good:

(1) The intention/idea -The idea of retracing the trail of the Long March and focusing on the women who made the journey – a group often forgotten or overlooked – is interesting and significant.

(2) Potentially good set-up/ framework – The narrator of the film was a young Beijing reporter, Elly, who serves as a contrast to the weathered Long March ladies; and who on the journey was also motivated to reflect on her own life described as that of a ‘party girl’.

(3) Interviews – The interviews with the Long March women were interesting and I always like to hear oral accounts of history straight from the people who have experienced in. More than what they said, their appearance, manner of speaking revealed their personality in the interviews.

(4) Music score & scenery – The music by the Tang Quartet and the landscape shots gave me an idea of what the land would have looked like on the trail.

The not-so-good:

(1) The opening – The film started abruptly which left the audience struggling to make sense of what was going on. I was not even sure I was watching the right film. It was quite a long time of uncertainty before the opening credits came on.

(2) The narration – While Elly’s English was not bad, it was probably not good enough to carry the narration. Sometimes she was struggling for the right words and came across as more simplistic than she really was. It may have been better if she had spoken in Mandarin with English subtitles.

(3) Elly’s reflections – Elly was an interesting narrator, but her tangential reflections on her name, her mother’s matchmaking attempts her taxi driver boyfriend took away some of the attention from the women of the Long March, and diluted the overall emotional force of the film.

(3) The invisible director – The director tried to be ‘invisible’ in the film. But as a documentary that seems to adopt a ‘reflective’ approach, this was probably not a good idea. I was left wondering who was really the actual ‘brain’ behind the film. Was it a case of Elly wanting to make the trip and got the director/camera person to come along; or was it that the director ‘hired’ Elly to make the trip? I am inclined to think the latter. If this was so, then the director should be more forthcoming on his intentions for the trip and not hide behind Elly or the camera. I am interested in hearing his take on the trip.

(4) The history – I was confused about the more historical aspects of Long March. Although the director had put in explanatory text, I was still rather confused about why the Long March was necessary and where the soldiers were going. It was not clarified in the footage. It is assumed that the audience have a good understanding of the historical context of the Long March which is not always the case.

(5) The title – I did not think the title, though catchy, was that appropriate for the film. I did not associate Long March women with the title, and the fact that that the women all had unbound feet had little to do with them going on the Long March but more of their peasant background. In a few weeks, on just seeing the title, I would probably have forgotten that it was a film on the women of the Long March.

Overall, I think it was an interesting film that did give me something to think about. It had the potential to be really good if the concept, direction and editing could have been better thought out and focused.

Diminishing Memories is the Eng Yee Peng’s first documentary film. This film documents Eng’s personal journey as she recollects her childhood memories in one of Singapore’s rural villages – Lim Chu Kang. She explores the history of the place and reconciles herself to its destruction in the 1980s. In the film, viewers accompany Eng as she revisits the site of her former home, discovers its documented history, and interviews family and friends to remember the life she once had and to understand how and why it has changed.

Both of us had different responses to the documentary. Our responses are below. You can watch the trailer on Google Video.

Stephanie’s review

I think it is a commendable effort especially since it is Eng’s first feature film. What I like about the film is its explicitly subjective perspective such that the film is not so much about Lim Chu Kang as the director’s journey to discover the history of the area, and to better understand her attachment to it. I found the interviews very powerful and well chosen as they reflect different attitudes towards Lim Chu Kang and the demolition.

Especially interesting was the dialogue between the director and her mother where her mother asked why she was so attached to the place. In this aspect, the film is telling about the relationship between the director and her family, especially your mother. By adopting this perspective, I admire Eng’s openness and honesty and willingness to expose herself and her story to a wider audience through this film. It is something which very few filmmakers are willing to do.

While the film is made in a personal style rarely used for documentaries which tend to adopt a more ‘objective’ stance, I think it is very informative about how we as ordinary people deal with history in our lives. In attempting to understand the area, Eng drew on both memory and history. While memories and photographs were the starting point, she developed a better understanding of the area by researching its documented history in the archives.

Through her research she eventually learnt about how the name of the main road came about, and how some of the residents in the area were related to its founder. While documented history provided a rather fixed set of facts; memories and recollections add depth and emotions to it. This provides us with an interesting personal ‘history’ of a place with all its colours, contradictions and emotions rather than a dull factual documentary by so-called experts telling you what to think about history.

There is however some room for improvement in the more technical aspects of the film such as the choppy editing and the sometimes shaky camera action. In addition, the English narration was rough in parts. While I appreciated hearing the director’s own voice as narration, I felt that she was more natural in Teochew and Mandarin. A more satisfying alternative would have been to use the language she is most comfortable in throughout the documentary with English subtitles. But given the tight budget and little help she had on the project, these are minor details.

Jaime’s review
More often than not, I prefer independently made films to commercial productions with recognisable templates. But in this case, ambiguity is perhaps the most apt description of my response.

On one hand, I agree with Stephanie that the explicit subjectivity of the film is an attractive feature. There is nothing more touching than the honest expression of one’s passions. It is clear that Eng is passionate about her subject matter – the subject would be the only film she’d make if it was the only one she’d make in her life.

On the other hand, the subjectivity of Eng undermined, at some points, the credibility of the film. For instance, it is quite clear that Eng was against the destruction of her home village, as part of the larger government redevelopment scheme. Yet, the historical context is unclear (from the film) that the redevelopment scheme affected other villages of Singapore as well. The narration gave an impression that Lim Chu Kang was the only village impacted by the change.

Eng’s bias against redevelopment of her village was made clearer when she expressed surprise that former villagers did not regret moving out of the village. She seemed to want to steer the interviewee towards the sentiment that moving and redevelopment was against their wishes. Add to these the at times over-melodramatic voice-overs, the personal style began to grate.

The film has a certain naivete. It builds on the foundation of nostalgia but the issue of nostalgia is not fully explored to give the film more depth: Does nostalgia have a place in the modern and highly urbanised place like Singapore? Can the past and modernity co-exists?

Eng seems to be of the view that it was an either/or situation, in which sadly, modernity has emerged victorious. But is it really? Are there no longer the innocence of the “good old days”? The film is situated in the context of urban redevelopment in Singapore but it is a personal film that, as Eng admits, is about “the regret and the pain of losing my childhood”. Eng’s regrets and pains of loss are clearly demonstrated in the frustration and helplessness at reversing the situation. They are also clear in her interview questions “that these regrets and pains of losing the “idyllic kampung (village) life” should be felt by everyone.

Overall, it was a good first attempt. “The personal is political” is a saying that channelled the feminist movement forward. Let’ss hope that “the personal is political” statement will also be a motivating force for Singaporean film-makers, writers and art-workers.

~~~

Diminishing Memories has been screened at numerous film festivals in 2005 and 2006. DVDs of the film are available for purchase through Journeyman Pictures (Worldwide distribution) or from the director (Singapore only) at her website.

Homerun is a Chinese language feature film by Singapore’s most prolific director, Jack Neo. An adaptation of the award-winning Iranian film, Children of Heaven by Majid Majidi, Homerun is set in Singapore in 1965, the year it became independent. Marketed as a ‘period’ or historical film, Homerun focuses on the lives of two impoverished siblings whose plights are worsened when the older brother loses his sister’s only pair of school shoes.

Commercially released in 2003, the film made SGD$2.2 million at the local box office and picked up a host of international awards including the People’s Choice Award 2005 at the Montreal International Children’s Film Festival. Lead actress Megan Zhang won an award for best new performer at Taiwan’s 40th Golden Horse Awards.

Before moving into filmmaking, Jack Neo made his name in the 1980s and 1990s for popular comedy variety shows on television. Known as an ‘unabashed commercial director’, Neo has been said to make movies ‘about heartlanders, for heartlanders’. In 2002, Time magazine described Neo as a ‘megaphone’ for Singaporeans ‘on the issues of daily life in jokes, on his popular TV shows and in hit films’. He constantly develops films based around social issues important to the ordinary citizen such as making a living (Money No Enough, 1998) and education (I Not Stupid, 2002) with a distinct Singaporean flavour. This is apparent not only in the issues he deals with, but also in the language he uses – his preferance for local vernacular dialects over the official languages; the local settings such as a coffee shop and housing board flat, and characters representing ordinary people such as the student, the teacher, loan shark and office worker. Neo’s popularity and handling of social issues has also won him favour with the government. In 2004 he became the first local filmmaker to be honoured with a National Day Award. In the following year, he won the Cultural Medallion by the National Arts Council (NAC), the highest art and cultural award in the nation.

In Homerun, Neo turns his attention away from current issues and tries to capture a flavour of Singapore life in the 1960s. Neo explained that in making the film, he wanted to make the story in Children of Heaven more accessible to a mainstream audience. He also wanted to explore the value of friendship in the simple kampong life of 1960s. This, he admitted, was related to his nostalgia for the era and setting in which he grew up. More than just a feel-good nostalgic attempt, Homerun also sets out to draw parallels and relevance to the present day. Executive Producer Daniel Yun said:”The issues faced by pre-independent Singapore in Homerun bear a striking resemblance to those encountered today…The uncertainty and promise experienced when Singapore achieved independence in 1965 at the end of the film mirrors the unknown future we face as Singapore remakes itself now.”

Despite its fictional storyline, by setting this film in the 1960s, Neo produces a cohesive commentary about the Singapore life then. In the film, the two main protagonists, Ah Kun and his younger sister, Seow Fang live in a kampung with their father and pregnant mother. Life is difficult with the father struggling to earn enough money to get even the basic necessities in life. The first scene shows Ah Kun taking Seow Fang’s worn out shoes for repair and having to beg a shop owner for a cup of rice and a bottle of sauce. When Ah Kun loses his sister’s shoes, the situation becomes desperate; the shoes were the only pair of school shoes she has. Both children are reluctant to tell their already over-stressed parents about the situation; they decide to share Ah Kun’s pair of school shoes. Seow Fang wears the shoes to school in the morning before dashing home to pass Ah Kun the shoes for his afternoon session. The focus on the difficulties the children face as a result of this, writ large in close-ups of their teary young faces, constructs an emotional understanding of the hardships of Singapore past.

Amidst these circumstances of struggle and poverty, Neo creates an idealised nostalgic version of kampung life. Sociologist Chua Beng Huat defines the ‘memorialised’ kampung as a relaxed pace of life, communitarian cooperation and happy days in spite of material privation. In Homerun, Neo emphasizes the importance of enduring friendships and mutual help – the kampung spirit. Ah Kun enlists the help of his friends – all of whom are also poor – to help his sister get a pair of shoes. The leader of this group, Seow Hay, says that although they are poor financially, they are rich in spirit. The group help Ah Kun strike several deals with a rich youth, Beng Soon whose father owns a shoe shop, and his gang. The two groups make several deals, have misunderstandings and arguments but in the end, all is resolved when Beng Soon presents new shoes to Ah Kun and Seow Fang. In an interview, Neo said: “I want to make the audience remember those friendships: the fighting over goli (marbles), fighting fish and kites, which would all be forgotten after a day or two.”

In addition, Neo takes pains to recreate a kampung based on his memory of the kampung he grew up in. In The making of Homerun, Neo is captured early on location saying: “I like kampung morning. I miss kampung morning”. Filming on location in rural Malaysia, Neo had been taken by the beauty of this particular location on an earlier trip and had resolved that if he were to make a ‘period’ or historical film, it would be there. Thus the village life in the past is recreated as a picturesque kampong with quaint wooden huts, lush green foliage and majestic towering coconut palms, a stereoypical portrayal of the idyllic kampung. The use of crane shots accentuates this by allowing for dramatic landscapes and perspectives. Images or references to the dirt, discomfort, smells and other unpleasant aspects of this rustic life are absent from the film.

Although approached from the perspective of the children, the larger political and social issues of the day are, at certain points, weaved into the main storyline. One scene depicts a violent clash between protestors and the police (riots were common in the 1950s and 1960s) just as the two children are rummaging in the rubbish looking for the sister’s missing shoes. Just as Ah Kun is about to retrieve one of the shoes, he is caught up in the riot, and the shoe is destroyed in the ruckus. Towards the climax of the film, the sibling’s mother gives birth to a new baby while the then PM Lee Kuan Yew’s voice is heard in the background announcing Singapore’s independence on the radio. In this way, the film’s characters, representative of the ordinary Singaporeans, are placed within the larger context of national history. However, if Singaporeans are characterised by the children, then they are seen as passive in relation to history – in that they are affected and influenced by it, but are unable to change it in any way despite their efforts.

Towards the end of the film, Neo draws a parallel between the children’s predicament and Singapore’s development. In the climax, both children are pushed to the limit. Ah Kun runs barefoot through mud and rocky ground to win a competition while Seow Fang runs barefoot across a path strewn with broken glass to get a midwife to attend to her mother who is in labour. The theme song of the film, a sentimental pop ballad entitled Yong You (拥有 To Possess, written by Neo) accompanies these scenes and emphasizes the importance determination and dignity despite material impoverishment and tough times. Eventually both siblings receive new shoes and the last scene depicts them running across a smooth dirt path before stopping in front of a muddy and tough track with Ah Kun questioning: “Without our shoes, we could see our problems easily. Now that we have shoes, can we still identify our problems?”

It can be said that the children’s difficulties parallel the nation’s troubles prior to independence, while the shoes symbolise independence and material wealth. Singapore in 2003, is likened to Singapore in 1965 as facing a threshold and period of transition which promises to be hard and difficult. In the film, Neo suggests that the same values of determination and dignity are required to overcome them.

Homerun is a nostalgic take on history that uses history to ‘teach’ values and suggest solutions to modern-day concerns. Homerun history is complementary to the national educational production, The Singapore Story: Overcoming The Odds, which was part of the National Education curriculum. In addition Homerun runs parallel to The Singapore Story. While the latter emphasises the importance of adopting a broader national perspective focusing on political developments, Homerun takes a narrower focus, zooming in on the activity of the daily lives of the ordinary people. The film suggests that although ordinary people are affected by national activities at selected moments in their lives, they generally live independent of them. However, their struggles and concerns are in a way similar to, although on a smaller scale, to national developments.

~ Stephanie