BOOK REVIEWS
Stephen Teo, Director in Action: Johnnie To and the Hong Kong Action Film, Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 2007, 294 pp.

One of the most prominent directors in Hong Kong at the moment, Johnnie To   Kei-fung, has over the past few years been receiving more attention at film   festivals globally with films such as Breaking News (2004), Election I &   II (2005-2006), Exiled (2006), The Mad Detective (2007), and most recently,   Sparrow (2008). Sometimes referred to as the post-1997 poet of Hong Kong, To   has a career that actually goes back as far as the 1980s, and as one of the   few directors to keep up a high output even after the local film industry started   to decline, his CV now boasts close to 50 films. Writing a monograph on To is   therefore no easy task, and there are few people as qualified to attempt it   as Stephen Teo, who previously wrote an important history of Hong Kong cinema   and studies of other Hong Kong directors such as Wong Kar-wai and King Hu.(1)   
  Teo’s main theoretical concern – outlined in the first chapter –   is how to accommodate genre theory with auteur theory to explain To’s   somewhat paradoxical position as an auteur working in the often disdained action   genre. Teo proposes to consider To’s “auteur function,” a   term derived from Michel Foucault’s work that, in Teo’s words, refers   to “those functions specific to the auteur and his role in mediating,   altering and transforming the codes of genre” (p. 14). To is therefore   an “enunciator of pre-existent material,” which makes him somewhat   of a paradox: he seemingly submits to the system and questions it at the same   time. This makes his films very complex, a complexity that also stems from their   idiosyncrasy: To’s films “all exert a certain quality that can only   be identified as the personal touch of To” (p.16). Since Teo considers   idiosyncrasy as essentially cultural, he also aims to pinpoint the cultural   specificity of the mutual relation between To and the action genre. This cultural   specificity “determines the way the films respond to the specific urban   culture of Hong Kong, and how the characters’ behavior drive the pacing   and the rhythm of the narratives” (p. 16). While To’s films indeed   raise questions about genre and auteurism, the director is perhaps not so unique   as Teo makes him appear: one can think of many filmmakers who once occupied   a similar position (for instance, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and in a Hong   Kong context, John Woo). What makes Johnnie To more problematic, however, is   what Teo calls his “unevenness”: the system influences the efficacy   of To’s auteur function, making him an “uneven auteur” whose   “essential characteristics are attenuated across genres” (p. 19).   In this manner, Teo explains how To excels in the action film while simultaneously   producing rather unremarkable romantic comedies and other genre films. 
  In the next four chapters, different phases of To’s career are closely   investigated. Chapter Two takes as its subject the films of the period before   1996, when To established his own company, Milkyway Image. Tracing various elements   that recur in the director’s films in the action genre, the chapter shows   how To gradually develops his art. The first true masterpieces, however, appear   only during the Milkyway period discussed in the third chapter. Ironically,   the director credits of most of these early Milkyway works went to To’s   protégés (particularly Patrick Yau), although it is now generally   accepted that To directed most of Yau’s films. The themes of fatalism,   impermanence, and death are prominent in these films, resonating with the uncertainty   and despair surrounding the handover of sovereignty in 1997. 
  From 1998 on, To started directing films under his own name again, producing   what Teo in Chapter Four follows To in calling “exercises,” including   films such as The Mission (1999), Running out of Time (1999), PTU (2003), and   Breaking News (2004) – all films that helped establish To’s name   internationally. Chapter Five discusses films made in the same period as those   of the previous chapter, but not as accomplished or easily classified. Five   films are discussed: Needing You (2000), Help! (2000), Fulltime Killer (2001),   Running on Karma (2003), and Throw Down (2004). Teo puts them together and calls   them “neo-exercises” with the argument that they all illustrate   To’s “unevenness” as an auteur. He gives this “unevenness”   various meanings depending on the film, so that while in Needing You it refers   to a funny sight gag in a not so funny film, in Fulltime Killer it refers to   the inconsistency of language, and in Throw Down to the quirky narrative. With   such an open definition of “unevenness,” the term seems to lose   its meaning and makes its application appear like an excuse to put these very   different films together in one chapter. Teo admits as much when he states at   the end of the chapter that his theme of “unevenness’ is a “structural   conceit” (p. 175). It shows how difficult it is to write about a director   with such a large, varied, and indeed, qualitatively uneven body of work, and   raises the question of whether another structure for the book would have been   better: chapters focusing on the varied and developing treatment of certain   themes in To’s work seems like a good alternative in this regard, although   it would inevitably lead to a less chronological and straightforward account   than the one offered by Teo. 
  Illustrating the risks involved in writing about a very productive and innovative   director, Teo had to add a postscript to his book to keep abreast of To’s   prolific output. This postscript deals with Election I and II, as well as Exiled,   and focuses on To’s treatment of violence in these films. Teo puts these   recent films in the category of the “neoexercises” he used to describe   the “uneven” films in Chapter Five. This classification seems inappropriate,   however, because unlike most of the films in the fifth chapter, these more recent   films received considerable critical and popular acclaim. It begs the question   of whether To’s career has entered a new phase, and whether the categories   of “exercises” and “neo-exercises” are useful at all   in thinking about To’s films of the last ten years. Finally, in the epilogue,   Teo summarises some of the points he made about Johnnie To and his films throughout   the book, focusing in particular on how To’s style of filmmaking defies   and transmutes spectator expectations of the genre. This is most clearly illustrated   by his handling of the convention of the happy ending, which in To’s films   often isn’t all that happy. 
  Unfortunately for Teo, since his book came out in 2007, To has directed and/or   produced seven new films, amongst which two (The Mad Detective and Sparrow)   are of obvious critical importance to an assessment of his career, since they   show To taking his experiments in a somewhat different direction. The Mad Detective   harks back to previous masterpieces (especially PTU and The Longest Nite), but   adds supernatural/magical elements to the mix (the detective’s ability   to see people’s multiple personalities, for instance). The supernatural   returns in Linger (2008), where the main character experiences various encounters   with her deceased lover’s ghost, and also in Sparrow there seems little   concern with realism. This last film is perhaps To’s most personal and   light-hearted film to date (with the possible exception of Throw Down), and   is a wonderful homage to (old) Hong Kong. In a number of ways the film is also   a further attempt to combine the two genres To is famous for: the action film   and the romantic comedy (something he started to work towards in the Andy Lau-Sammi   Cheng vehicle Yesterday Once More, 2004). These movies reveal To’s further   development as an absolute master of the image, his recycling of old themes   and ideas, and his experiments towards a new kind of cinema – one with   relatively little concern for conventional plot development, realism, and characterisation,   but brilliant in its creation of atmosphere, its combination of music and the   visual, and its (generic) innovativeness. 
  Despite these more recent developments in To’s oeuvre, one has to admire   how accurately Teo identifies recurring themes and motifs in the director’s   films, in this way proving the book’s insightfulness and continuing relevance.   Director in Action is thus a must-read for anyone interested in Hong Kong cinema   and one of its most prominent directors, Johnnie To.                    
 
         
        