When discussing Japanese films from the fifties through to the seventies and Hong Kong cinema of the nineties, the concept of excess can be applied and used to help understand why these cinemas have largely avoided major Hollywood influence yet remained popular. Through a general comparison and examination of these cinemas, and a more specific look at examples of films from each period, it will be possible to see what makes this true. A brief discussion regarding the possibility that excess applies to both mainstream and art cinema will also arise. The main point that will be addressed, however, is that the excess present, in conjunction with the tendency to avoid Hollywood convention, is what makes these films successful, at least from a cinematic point of view if not commercial.

Excess in Japanese cinema during the fifties through to the seventies while present, is no where near as prevalent as it is in the films of Hong Kong during the nineties. This can probably best be explained through the difference in time frame. The excess present in Japanese cinema at that stage was more evident in the situations that were portrayed and less technical elements of the mise-en-scene. A large portion of what is excessive in Hong Kong films of the nineties, however, is due to technical wizardry of a more modern persuasion. Similarities do occur, though, in that acting technique, basic filming practices, and the conveyance of emotion in films of both nations do display elements of excess. So, while both cinemas do display elements of excess, apart from a few basic similarities, it is of a different vein.

Japanese films during the fifties until the seventies display elements of excess. The style of performance shown by the actors in these films is at times excessive. Historical theatre, such as Kabuki, like any theatre, only more so, requires actors to perform with exaggerated gestures. This is quite probably where this style of acting has derived from. Basic elements of the mise-en-scene, such as costume, are also at times excessive. This is fitting of Japanese culture. As will prove true for Hong Kong Cinema, it is most probably these historical traditions that have made Japanese films different from the conventions of Hollywood, and what has encouraged the use of excess.

The strongest point when discussing excess in Japanese films of the fifties through to the seventies, however, is the subject matter and the way it is depicted. In the early fifties, Japan was still recovering from the tragedies of the Second World War, and it shows in the films made during this period. The angles these films took in regards to war were often taken to such extremes that they may be viewed as excessive. Later in the period, with a greater freedom of licence and apparently no fear of excess, directors turned to exploitative sex films. Titles such as Confessions of a Gynaecologist really do tell all. Within this period of Japanese film history two other major film subjects that showed a sense of excess should be pointed out. These are the Samurai films and those that represented the more mystic or spiritual, particularly in the form of ghosts. It is these last to elements, although more so the Samurai portion that occur in Kurosawa’s films.

Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon is probably the director’s greatest achievement, and it displays many of the aforementioned elements of excess. The acting in the film is waxing melodramatic, especially the performance by Machiko Kyo. Her acting conveys emotion extraordinarily well, if not a little gratingly. Similarly, Toshiro Mifune’s performance is nearing perfection. His portrayal of the scruffy bandit is acted with persuasive tenacity, right down to the simian mannerisms and manic laugh. Each different version of the rape sequence is told with conviction, both in physical actions and vocal variance. The acting when compared to that of western films of the same era is more exaggerated and excessive, but this only serves to carry the emotions, feelings, and story more certainly.

Excess also occurs in this film in relation to the story itself and the inclusion of Samurai (although the swordplay sequences are nothing compared to Kurosawa’s other works, especially the ending of Yojimbo and it’s dramatic two-second duel) and the spiritual. A melodramatic sequence involving the medium and the spirit of the murdered Samurai is also shown. The performance in this scene is typical of the ghost films from Japan, with excessive expression, costume, and make-up. The basic theme of the film while relatively simple—Kurosawa himself says it is only a story of rape—it becomes more complex and meaningful through what may be viewed at times as excessive twists and turns in the plot. Each separate account of the rape scene muddies the waters of meaning and truth for the audience, the plot becoming more complicated and in a way more excessive. Ultimately, though, when each scene is compared, contradictions reveal which story is true and those that are false. This, in addition to the last scene with between the Commoner, the Priest, and the Woodcutter, allow the audience to understand what has happened. Excess is used in this film to convey meaning and emotion, often in a more complex way.

Excess in Hong Kong cinema is most certainly more obvious than that in Japanese. During Hong Kong cinema of the nineties, it is evident that this excess is not only rampant but also a key to the success of these films. The style of acting, especially the way the actors move, and the pace and rhythm of editing techniques probably stems from historical Chinese culture and practices. David Bordwell brings up the pause/burst/pause effect and compares it to the practice of Martial Arts. Martial Arts techniques when performed skilfully often do take on the appearance of dance, and can be extremely emotive. This affinity with conveying emotion through movement, especially excessive movement, assists greatly in conveying meaning in these films.

Bordwell also compares the excessive expression in Hong Kong action sequences to the acting in the films of the silent era. It is the type of over-acting that uses excessive gestures or movement to convey meaning. However, unlike the silent films, where this over-done acting is very theatrical and transparent, in Hong Kong cinema it makes the action more believable. The situations themselves don’t become more believable (the excess in this element of the films will be discussed further on) but the emotions and expressions do. Because the actors put more into a scene, using their whole body to emote as opposed to just facial expressions, the actions and emotions experienced seem more real. This method of acting is different from Hollywood convention, and that is probably for the best. The more excessive expression works to emphasise what is trying to be said, or what the character portrayed is feeling. Moreover, Bordwell’s statement shouldn’t be limited simply to action sequences. It is true that it is most aptly displayed in action sequences, but it is possible to apply it to any acted scene.

Generally speaking an action sequence in a Hong Kong film has more spunk than that of a Hollywood film. Despite the fact that Hollywood trains actors to perform more realistically (although this isn’t always achieved), when it comes to action sequences these films just seem to fall short. Comparing Face/Off with something like The Killer, both films being directed by John Woo, the action sequences in The Killer are simply more emotional and thus feel more real to the audience. Hollywood relies very heavily on the camera and carefully edited scenes to carry the action. This is true of Hong Kong cinema also, especially more recent films, but to a lesser extent. The action sequences in Hong Kong films appear more real to audiences because they are shown the action. What is actually happening might be completely over the top, and defy the laws of Science, but because it is shown happening, the rules of reality may be discarded; the action itself may be unrealistic, but the audience sees it and thus accepts it.

The actors can only take it so far, though, and the technical elements of film will inevitably come into play. Editing is used to elongate a sequence where it simply is not physically possible. Sound cues, the ever present ‘whack’ and ‘swish’ sounds during fight sequences for instance, are also used in excess to emphasise the action. Also, Hong Kong directors seem to be particularly fond of slow-motion sequences (often overlooked or simply ignored in Hollywood cinema) as an emphatic tool. Excess in all these technical aspects, help to carry the film and stress the actor’s performances. After seeing a Hong Kong action film, Hollywood just doesn’t seem to cut it anymore. It can also be said that because Hong Kong cinema, from an economic perspective, relies on audience members returning for multiple screenings it is important that these films are somewhat extreme and are worthy of more than one viewing. Excess in every element of Hong Kong films is, then, important for financial and filmic success.

In the film Once Upon a Time in China elements of excess are found throughout. The acting employs the use of full body gestures, exaggerated movement, and certainly excessive, and nothing short of beautiful, Martial Arts sequences. Jet Li’s movements in particular are comparable to choreographed dance steps. The pause/burst/pause effect mentioned by Bordwell is out in force, emphasising actor’s movements, feelings, and emotions. The action sequences themselves are excessive too, with anything from a ladder to an umbrella becoming a weapon. The last fight scene involving ladders, is in fact probably the best scene to demonstrate this visual and emotive excess. Technical practices again come into play using excess. Wires are used in this scene, along with many others, to give the ladders, poles, and even actors, more fluid and exaggerated movement. What all these things essentially do, is emphasise the action, and emotions being played out and give them more resolution.

John Woo is a master of excess, and the film Hard Boiled is an excellent film to prove it. Visually, in respect to acting techniques and effects, the film is just about as excessive as is possible. Chow Yun-fat and Tony Leung both employ the use of exaggerated acting to convey a stronger sense of emotion. Other characters portrayals are acted in this style too, and it is especially clear when anyone is shot, shoved through a plate glass window, or blown up. The actor’s entire body goes into the performance as they throw themselves quite literally into the action. Something else on great import which should be noted is that, in keeping with the male-male buddy relationship, Chow Yun-fat’s character is driven by the death of his cop partner and best friend. Emotion is shown rather clearly, and quite against the tradition of more macho male characters prevalent in Hollywood films, when Chow Yun-fat pauses to hold his dead partner’s hand. Emotion is a strong point in Hong Kong cinema, especially, and somewhat surprisingly, from male characters, and excess is one of the elements that conveys it.

Story wise, the film is completely off any conceivable scale of reality. From the limitless supply of arsenal, to the one against hundreds odds, to Chow Yun-fat’s flaming pants being extinguished by a urinating baby, it really can’t get much more excessive. However, despite these totally over-the-top plot devices, the film remains true to its basic concept of honour among friends and morality. And once again the audience will accept what it sees, simply because they see it and because the excess works to emphasise it. Technical aspects, such as the face pace editing, sound effects, and again a penchant for slow-motion shots, work in a similar way. Excess in these films means a stronger more resolute meaning, a more realistic feel, and more clearly conveyed emotions.

When discussing the concept of excess in popular, or mainstream films, and art films, a major problem occurs: what is popular and what is classified as art? These categories are often inferential and viewed differently by different people, societies, and cultures. Many films from Asian culture, or any other national cinema that isn’t Hollywood, will more often than not get lumped in with ‘true’ art films. Not only does this prove restrictive when examining popular and art cinema, but it truly makes the question of excess appearing in both types of film more problematic. It is reasonable to say, however, that because excess in Hong Kong and Japanese cinema is largely revealed in the way actors perform, and that this type of performance branches across all film types (whether they are labelled popular or art) that excess does appear in art films. Certain filmic techniques are also universal—editing, the use of wires in stunts, sound cues, and so on—produce this milieu of excess, and therefore must also appear in art films. In answering the question then, excess does appear in art films, although it may not be of the same nature as that in mainstream, and especially action, films from Hong Kong and Japan.

It can be seen then, that excess appears in Japanese films from the 1950s through to the 1970s and Hong Kong films of the 1990s. It is plausible to say that it also occurs outside these periods. It should be noted, however, that this concept of excess is based largely on comparisons with western cinema. That is to say, it is excessive largely because it does not appear to such an extent in western films (namely Hollywood films). The implications of this statement should not be taken as negative, nor should they be taken lightly. The concept of excess is often accompanied by connotations of inferiority, or ridiculousness, but in regards to these cinemas that is not the case at all. Paradoxically the excessive nature of these films helps to convey a sense of realistic emotion, which seems to be a very important part of Asian cinema, and realistic feeling. Also, it is precisely because Hollywood is lacking these elements that Japanese and, more so, Hong Kong cinema remains popular within and outside the respective nations. It is no wonder then, that recent Hollywood films, such as The Matrix, have been utilising techniques that are standard in Asian cinema. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to suggest that this will continue. At least from the audience’s point of view, entertaining excess seems to mean success.

WORKS CONSULTED

Anderson, Joseph L. and Donald Richie. The Japanese Film: Art and Industry (Expanded Edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Bordwell, David. "Aesthetic in Action: Kung Fu, Gunplay, and Cinematic Expressivity." Fifty Years of Electric Shadows. Ed. Law Kar. 1997. 81-89.

Buehrer, Beverley Bare. Japanese Films: A Filmography and Commentary, 1921-1989. Jefferson: McFarland and Company, 1990.

Cook, David A. A History of Narrative Film. 3rd Ed. W. W. Norton and Company: New York, 1996.

Goodwin, James. "Modernist Narrative and Intertextuality." Akira Kurosawa and Intertextual Cinema, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994: 113-149.

Hard Boiled. Dir. John Woo. Golden Princess, 1992.

Kar, Law. "A Comparative Study of John Woo’s "Hero" Series and Ringo Lam’s "On Fire" Series." Ed. Law Kar. Fifty Years of Electric Shadows. 1997: 67-73.

McDonald, Keiko I. "The Dialect of Light and Darkness in Kurosawa’s Rashomon." Cinema East: A Critical Study of Major Japanese Films. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Presses, 1983: 23-35.

Once Upon a Time in China. Dir. Tsui Hark. Golden Harvest, 1991

Rashomon. Dir. Akira Kurosawa. Daiei, 1950.

Richie, Donald. A Lateral View: Essays on Culture and Style in Contemporary Japan. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press, 1992.

Richie, Donald. (Ed.) Focus on Rashomon. London: Prentice Hall, 1972.

Richie, Donald. (Ed.) Rashomon. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Teo, Stephen. Hong Kong Cinema: The Extra Dimensions. BFI Publishing, 1997: 162-183.