Happy Together Review (page 1)

Review and analysis of Happy Together

This was the last film I saw to feature Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung whilst he was still alive - for on the 1st of April, 2003 his life ended, apparently by an act of suicide, much to the shock and disbelief of his many fans. The three-times Wong Kar-Wai collaborator was widely acknowledged as one of Hong Kong’s greatest actors, and his performances on WKW’s films were highpoints in his career. This film now formed a link between the past when a talented man was alive and the present where a legend would still flower on celluloid.

In many ways, Happy Together also forms the obvious link between WKW’s mid-90’s hip-fests and the more measured approach of In The Mood For Love. Clearly, it’s the temporal connection (WKW made no other films between 1995 and 2000, apart from various advert projects), but I had always wondered how to bridge the gap between Fallen Angels and ITMFL - both dazzling movies (obviously), but one a paradigm of hip counter-culture surface mixed with emotional exhilaration, and the other a sumptuous reflection of past regret and the beauty of unfulfilled potentiality.

Happy Together, like several of WKW’s earlier works, starts with a self-contained concept, which the film expands on and refers back to later. In voiceover, in the first scene to feature the leads, we hear Tony Leung telling us that his lover, Ho Po Wing (Leslie Cheung), always uses the phrase, ‘Let’s start over.’ The pithy voiceover reminds us of trademark WKW, and in terms of mise en scene WKW uses classic economy in presenting both a thematic concern and a way of setting the film (but removed from film conventions as to the ‘establishing shot’): he simply shows close-up shots of the leads’ passports being flicked through to the background of airport noise. An Argentine stamp is then imposed onto the paper, the simple action setting down fact as irreversibly as Leslie’s ‘one minute friends’ speech in Days Of Being Wild.

The shots of the passports serve the dual purpose of emphasising travel by the two leads as well as hinting at a concept of identity, and how statehood interfaces with such an idea. Happy Together is, of course, a 1997 film in that it was made and released on the year Hong Kong’s sovereignty reverted to China - a concept arguably alluded to and foreshadowed by WKW before (particularly with Chungking Express’s expiry dates). WKW already provokes curiosity by setting the movie on the opposite end of the planet (prompting critics to ask ‘why Argentina?’), and the shots of the passports emphasise the crossing of national boundaries, as well as the political status of the protagonists as foreign citizens.

It is interesting to note that the designation of both characters as ‘British Nationals (Overseas)’ (as a helpful finger briefly draws our attention towards) was a non-automatic status. This is an instant reminder of the omnipresence of 1997 for Hong Kong citizens. The status of British National (Overseas) was a status which was brought in to replace the de rigeur status of British Overseas Territories Citizen, which would no longer be suitable for Hong Kong. The new status was only given on application, with the deadline as 1997. Understandably, many people took advantage of the opportunity to, potentially, have better migration possibilities. So, the question is, how are the protagonists ‘British Nationals (Overseas)’? Do the passports really denote their identity (or are they more tools of convenience in an ever changing world - like for the smugglers in Chungking) and, for that matter, does any concept of nationality or nationhood adequately denote identity for individuals at all?

WKW juxtaposes the stiff, rubber-stamped ideas of nationality against the following scene of gay sex. It is fair to say that the gay context of the film garnered great international (critical) attention for WKW (many critics were unfamiliar with him beyond what some of the less observant saw as ‘lightweight’ Chungking) - but it has also seemed to create problems in critics’ obsessions with politicising cultures and issues. Certainly, some saw WKW as not facing the social issues surrounding homosexuality sufficiently, or avoiding the portrayal of homosexuality at ‘home’ in Hong Kong. I don’t think it’s going too far to say this, but I think that these critics are missing the point entirely: and by doing so they are confirming WKW’s reputation as a maverick not bound by rules of politics or artistic expectations.

If WKW can be accused of casting the core (gay) relationship as dysfunctional, then we might criticise him were it not the fact that dysfunctional relationships are the staple diet of all of WKW’s films. And, furthermore, is it an unwritten rule that films featuring a non-mainstream, marginalised culture (as homosexuality still is, more so in Hong Kong but ‘even’ in the West) have to be subjected to a grinding nit-pick through ‘issues’ until, presumably, the filmmaker reaches a satisfactory conclusion - which in any case won’t reflect reality?

There is a laughable amount of headbanging exhibited by some critics over how WKW handles social issues - the strive for social redress, one is led to believe, means that we should make films where issues and gestures are paramount over lives and emotions, where political correctness is the only level of interface which matters - art by code.

Thankfully, WKW has quite a knack of side-stepping tiresome debates - he has insisted that Happy Together is not a gay film: it simply has gay characters. This manages to avoid the ghettoization of specific social issues in art - the trap of falling into ‘responsible’ filmmaking dictated by context. WKW flies in the face of dogma - and not for the first time if one notes, for instance, Chungking with its Indian underworld (where Brigitte Lin’s smuggler is almost a slave driver), or Fallen Angels with its no-hope misfits. If these scenarios were played to ‘artistic responsibility’ chances are the results would be such boring and worthy discourses on socio-political factors that nobody would even bother talk about these films.

Leaving aside all the critical hot air over ‘issues’, the film’s opening sex scene gives way to the pair’s abortive trip to Iguazu Falls. This beginning section of the film, with it’s black and white road movie style, sets out the troubled relationship of the protagonists. With an opening shot of the souvenir lamp used to denote the Falls, we have a locus which signifies the connection between Tony Leung’s character (Lai Yiu Fai) and Leslie’s Ho Po Wing (not for the first time, WKW picked the names quite arbitrarily from his own crew - and Lai Yiu Fai is actually now an established cinematographer co-shooting blockbuster Infernal Affairs for director and occasional WKW cinematographer Andrew Lau - a film which also features more-than-occasional WKW cinematographer Chris Doyle as ‘visual consultant’).

Indeed, it is not long before we are treated to a gloriously slow, colour overhead shot of the Falls. The shot is repeated near the denouement in a move which is classic WKW - as per Days with its repeated title shot of a scrolling Philippine forest, Fallen Angels with its opening scene replayed and contextualised near the end, or Ashes with Leslie Cheung repeating his ‘business as usual’ patter to an unseen customer.