Rethinking Transnational Chinese Cinemas

The Amoy-dialect film industry emerged in the 1950s, producing cheap, b-grade films in Hong Kong for direct export to the theatres of Manila, southern and . Films made in Amoy dialect – a dialect of Chinese – reflected a particular period in the history of the Chinese diaspora, and have been little studied due to their ambiguous place within the wider realm of Chinese and Asian film history. This book represents the first full length, critical study of the origin, significant rise and rapid decline of the Amoy-dialect film industry. Rather than examining the industry for its own sake, however, this book focuses on its broader cultural, political and economic significance in the region. It questions many of the assumptions currently made about the ‘recentness’ of transnationalism in Chinese cultural production, particularly when addressing Chinese cinema in the Cold War years, as well as the prominence given to ‘the nation’ and ‘transnationalism’ in studies of Chinese cinemas and of the Chinese diaspora. By examining a cinema that did not fit many of the scholarly models of ‘transnationalism’, that was not grounded in any particular national tradition of film-making and that was largely unconcerned with ‘nation- building’ in post-war South , this book challenges the ways in which the history of Chinese cinemas has been studied in the recent past.

Jeremy E. Taylor is a lecturer in Chinese Studies at the School of East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield, UK. Media, culture and social change in Asia Series editor: Stephanie Hemelryk Donald RMIT University, Melbourne Editorial Board: Devleena Ghosh, University of Technology, Sydney Yingjie Guo, University of Technology, Sydney K.P. Jayasankar, Unit for Media and Communications, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay Vera Mackie, University of Melbourne Anjali Monteiro, Unit for Media and Communications, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay Laikwan Pang, Chinese University of Hong Kong Gary Rawnsley, University of Leeds Ming-yeh Rawnsley, University of Leeds Adrian Vickers, University of Sydney Jing Wang, MIT

The aim of this series is to publish original, high-quality work by both new and established scholars in the West and the East, on all aspects of media, culture and social change in Asia.

1 Television Across Asia 5 Media and the Chinese Television industries, Diaspora programme formats and Community, communications globalisation and commerce Edited by Albert Moran and Edited by Wanning Michael Keane 6 Hong Kong Film, Hollywood 2 Journalism and Democracy in and the New Global Cinema Asia No film is an island Edited by Angela Romano and Edited by Gina Marchetti and Michael Bromley Tan See Kam 3 Cultural Control and 7 Media in Hong Kong Globalization in Asia Press freedom and political Copyright, piracy and cinema change 1967–2005 Laikwan Pang Carol P. Lai 4 Conflict, Terrorism and the 8 Chinese Documentaries Media in Asia From dogma to polyphony Edited by Benjamin Cole Yingchi Chu 9 Japanese Popular Music 19 Youth, Society and Mobile Culture, authenticity and power Media in Asia Carolyn S. Stevens Edited by Stephanie Hemelryk 10 The Origins of the Modern Donald, Theresa Dirndorfer Chinese Press Anderson and Damien Spry The influence of the Protestant 20 The Media, Cultural Control missionary press in late Qing and Government in Singapore Terence Lee Xiantao Zhang 21 Politics and the Media in 11 Created in China Twenty-First Century The great new leap forward Michael Keane Decade of democracy 12 Political Regimes and the Edited by Krishna Sen and Media in Asia David T. Hill Edited by Krishna Sen and 22 Media, Social Mobilization Terence Lee and Mass Protests in 13 Television in Post-reform Post-colonial Hong Kong China The power of a critical event Serial dramas, Confucian Francis L.F. Lee and leadership and the global Joseph M. Chan television market 23 HIV/AIDS, Health and the Ying Zhu Media in China 14 Tamil Cinema Imagined immunity through The cultural politics of India’s racialized disease other film industry Johanna Hood Edited by Selvaraj Velayutham 24 Islam and Popular Culture in 15 Popular Culture in Indonesia Indonesia and Fluid identities in post- Edited by Andrew N. Weintraub authoritarian politics Edited by Ariel Heryanto 25 Online Society in China Creating, celebrating and 16 Television in India instrumentalising the online Satellites, politics and cultural carnival change Edited by David Kurt Herold Edited by Nalin Mehta and Peter Marolt 17 Media and Cultural 26 Rethinking Transnational Transformation in China Chinese Cinemas Haiqing Yu The Amoy-dialect film industry 18 Global Chinese Cinema in Cold War Asia The culture and politics of Hero Jeremy E. Taylor Edited by Gary D. Rawnsley and Ming-Yeh T. Rawnsley

Rethinking Transnational Chinese Cinemas The Amoy-dialect film industry in Cold War Asia

Jeremy E. Taylor This edition published 2011 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2011 Jeremy E. Taylor The right of the Author to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Taylor, Jeremy E., 1973– Rethinking transnational Chinese cinemas: the Amoy-dialect film industry in cold war Asia/Jeremy E. Taylor. p. cm. – (Media, culture and social change in Asia) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Motion pictures, Chinese – China – Hong Kong. 2. Motion pictures, Chinese – . 3. Motion picture industry – China – Hong Kong – History – 20th century. 4. Motion picture industry – Southeast Asia – History – 20th century. I. Title. PN1993.5.C4T395 2011 384′.8095125 – dc22 2010047760

ISBN: 978–0–415–49355–0 (hbk) ISBN: 978–1–003–06120–5 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon For Sylvia

Contents

List of figures xi Note on romanisation, names and languages xii Preface xiv Acknowledgements xvii List of abbreviations xix

1 Rethinking transnationalism 1

2 Defining Amoy-dialect cinema 18

3 Origins and development 32

4 The shaping of a cinema 50

5 The ‘new Amoy-dialect films’ 68

6 A Cold War industry 94

7 The end of Amoy-dialect cinema 110

8 Conclusion 122

Glossary 127 Notes 135 Bibliography 147 Index 165

Figures

1.1 The former Confucius Theater in Manila – now the site of a restaurant 16 2.1 Singapore-based cabaret singer Chong Sit Fong prior to her entry into the world of Amoy-dialect cinema (c. mid-1950s) 29 3.1 Ongpin Street in Manila Chinatown, 1949 36 3.2 Screen logo for the company Hua Xia 37 3.3 Members of ‘the Amoy-dialect film family’, including Oh Tong, Seow Kuen, Ying and Li Ming 41 3.4 Republican – the ‘spiritual home’ of the industry – in the 1930s 45 4.1 Seow Kuen performing Nanyin in Cailou pei (Match of the Decorated Tower) (n.d.) 53 4.2 Handbill for the film Honglou meng (Hong Lui Mong)63 4.3 Lim Eng Eng – one half of the Lim Sisters – in 1955 65 5.1 Siu Yim Chao and Wong Ching-ho in Fanke shen haiwai xun fu (A Woman Searches for her Husband) (1958) 70 5.2 Ting Lan in an undated advert 73 5.3 King’s Theatre, Singapore in 1957 76 5.4 Still from Qian, qian, qian (Money, Money, Money) (1959) featuring Bai Lan, Kwan Sing Ngee and Wong Ching-ho 77 5.5 The Shaw production Luan feng he ming (Bill and Koo), starring Chang Hsiao-fung 78 5.6 The Hong Kong streetscape as featured in Qian, qian, qian (Money, Money, Money) (1959) 84 6.1 The 1955 zhushou laojun delegation: to the right of Chiang Kai-shek stands Jiang Fan; Huang Ying stands fourth from left 98 6.2 Chong Sit Fong arriving at Taipei airport, 1960 107 Note on romanisation, names and languages

It is perhaps fitting, at the start of a book about a film industry that took its name from the dialect in which its films were made, that I define what is meant by the term ‘Amoy dialect’. ‘Amoy’ is an archaic English name for the Chinese city of Xiamen, located on the coast of southern . Up until the 1960s, however, the English term ‘Amoy-dialect’ was used widely through- out Asia to refer to the dialect which was spoken not only in that city, but throughout most of southern Fujian and by Chinese emigrants from this region (and their descendants) in other parts of Asia. This dialect is now more commonly referred to in Anglophone South East Asia as ‘’, and in China as ‘’ (or ‘Minnanyu’). At the time of the Amoy-dialect film industry’s existence, the dialect was spoken by almost four million people in South East Asia and about six million people in Taiwan. In this book, although I occasionally employ the ‘Hokkien’, I have retained the phrase ‘Amoy-dialect’ (‘Xiayu’ in ), for this is precisely how this industry defined itself in the 1950s, in both Chinese and English. While there exist different variations of this dialect in different parts of Asia, and despite the fact that many of these variations have themselves been identified by scholars (e.g., ‘’ and ‘Standard Malaysian Hokkien’, for instance), speakers of this dialect in Taiwan, Singapore, the and elsewhere were (and still are) able to communicate with one another and understand films made in this dialect. This is a point to which I shall return in the main body of this book. It will suffice to say at this stage that what is referred to in this book as ‘Hokkien’ includes what is referred to in Taiwan as ‘Taiyu’ (lit. ‘Taiwanese’). Romanisation and transliteration have been something of a challenge for me in writing this book. After all, I am examining an industry that cut across national and colonial boundaries, which was based on a particular dialect for which various romanisation systems exist, and which developed in a world full of toponyms which are now often archaic. For personal names, I have tried wherever possible to use the English spellings which are (or were) preferred by the individuals in question, or which were used in English texts (e.g., correspondence, bilingual magazines and trade directories). Hence, rather than use the spelling Li Zuyong as it appears in Note on romanisation, names and languages xiii some academic texts, I have used the form ‘Tsu Yung Lee’ – the spelling pro- vided by this film financier and studio owner in correspondence with colonial authorities in Hong Kong in the 1950s; similarly, the Manila-based film financier who owned Golden City Film Company is given in this book as Yu Koc Le (rather than ‘Yang Guoli’), as that is the name which is still used in English texts written about him today in the Philippines. In some cases, however, Hanyu spellings have been used for personal names, simply because I have not, despite my best efforts, been able to locate any English texts in which the individuals in question were mentioned. The same principle has been used for the names of institutions. I suspect that the Manila-based theatre manager of Fujian origin called Zhuang Mingshu had a Tagalog name, for example, but I have been unable to ascertain what that name was. A glossary, which includes personal and institutional names, has been provided towards the end of this book. For the sake of clarity, film titles have been provided in Hanyu Pinyin – despite the fact that the films that form the basis of this study were not actually made in Mandarin. I have also sought to use, wherever possible, the translations (or transliterations) of the film titles that were employed in advertising materials for the films themselves (rather than invent new translations myself), although this has not always been possible. I have provided Hokkien transliterations of terms or concepts which were specific to the Amoy-dialect industry or which are uniquely ‘Amoy-dialect’. Following the usual convention, these have been provided in what is most commonly referred to as the Peh-oe-ji (H) system of romanisation, and have been marked with an upper case ‘H’ (for Hokkien). However, for terms or phrases which are common to all forms of Chinese, or when citing from a text, I have used Hanyu Pinyin (i.e., Mandarin) romanisation. Toponyms have been rendered in the English form used most commonly today in the society in which such places are located. This means ‘Kaohsiung’, ‘Jinmen’ and ‘Melaka’ (rather than, say, ‘Gaoxiong’, ‘Quemoy’ or ‘Malacca’) are used, as are ‘Xiamen’ and ‘Fujian’ (rather than ‘Amoy’ and ‘Fukien’). The only exceptions to this rule are in references to geographical entities that no longer exist in the same form that they did during the time of the Amoy-dialect film industry. For this reason, readers will occasionally come across ‘Malaya’, ‘British North Borneo’ and other colonial-era toponyms. Preface

Some years ago, when I first started writing about the Amoy-dialect film industry, I received an anonymous peer review after submitting an article to an academic journal. The review was for the most part positive, and helped to ensure that the paper in question was published. Yet it also included a suggestion that I must have been something of a ‘Hokkien nationalist’ to pursue this topic, and that my paper read as if it had been written by someone who felt that the absence of the Amoy-dialect film industry from the story of cinema in Asia was something that had to be ‘put right’. In some respects, I was flattered by this accusation. But I also noticed cer- tain parallels between it and the encouragement that I was receiving in other contexts at the same time. In Singapore, for instance, mention of this book to friends and acquaintances would sometimes elicit expressions of support for reasons that were far removed from the purpose of the project itself. I have never seen this research as representing some attempt to take part in the reconstruction of ‘Chineseness’ in Anglophone South East Asia, for example; I do not have a stake in bringing ‘Hokkien identity’ – whatever that might mean – to some larger audience. Nor is this book some nostalgia-driven attempt to recover a ‘lost past’. Amoy-dialect films are not a part of my personal or family history. Another assumption I frequently encountered in the course of this project was that I must have been a ‘fan’ of Amoy-dialect films. After all, how could anyone spend a period of years researching a form of cinema unless they had some kind of personal investment in doing so? Strangely enough, however, I did not write this book to celebrate the Amoy-dialect films themselves or to validate this cinema as an art form. Indeed, as most people involved in this industry have readily admitted to me, these were poor quality films which many former performers and industry-insiders are sometimes embarrassed to talk about. I have not even particularly enjoyed watching many of the Amoy- dialect films that I have felt obliged to view while conducting research for this book. My purpose in writing this book, then, has nothing to do with ‘Hokkien nationalism’ or with film appreciation. Rather, I embarked upon this project because I genuinely believe there is a need to fill a gap that Yingjin Zhang Preface xv (2004: 9) has identified in the scholarship on Chinese cinema history – that is, to provide studies based on film production and/or film consumption – rather than to continue with the study of films solely or principally as texts and thus perpetuate the narrow focus which I believe defines much of the scholarship on Chinese cinemas today. In doing this, I am also hoping to respond to Richard Maltby’s (2007) suggestion that ‘cinema’s historians might consider the possi - bility of writing histories of cinema that are not centrally about films’. Some individual films will be analysed at different points throughout this book. On the whole, however, this is a history of a particular industry, one that has been ignored by most academics even though it is well known among many people in east and South East Asia who once patronised it. The book takes as its basic premise the idea that film industries were, and still are, important not because they produced films which stood alone as works of art or as anti-hegemonic forms of expression that challenged the power of the nation (or empire, or capital, or anything else for that matter), but simply because the production and exhibition of these films formed an integral part of many people’s everyday lives, and because studying them provides us with a route through which to re-examine the history of particular societies and the relations between them. I became aware of the existence of the Amoy-dialect film industry when I was living in Singapore in 2006. Occasional references to ‘old Hokkien films’, both in the course of my work for a publisher in that city and in local newspapers, caught my attention because of research I had done some years earlier on Hokkien popular music in Taiwan (e.g., Taylor 2004). I was particularly struck by what seemed to be many similarities between the commercial Hokkien entertainment that apparently used to exist in Singapore and that which emerged in Taiwan at about the same time, but also by the absence of any scholarly interest in these connections. After a number of visits to libraries and archives, I realised what I now know, and what many thousands of people of a certain age all over Asia already knew: that Singapore, Taiwan, and various other parts of the region in which Hokkien-speaking communities exist(ed) all jointly patronised a vibrant entertainment industry based on a common Chinese dialect in the post-war decades. This is not a history for its own sake, however. As I hope to demonstrate, the industry that forms the basis of this study emerged, thrived and declined during one of the most politically and socially complicated periods in the modern history of the region. Of equal note is the geographic spread of the industry, ranging as it did across a large swathe of societies, yet speaking to a very specific set of communities within those societies. The history of the Amoy-dialect film industry thus allows us not only to revisit topics as wide- ranging as Land Reform in Taiwan, the Emergency in colonial Malaya and the introduction of anti-Chinese legislation in the Philippines and Indonesia, but also to view the consequences of and reactions to such developments in new ways, and to realise that all these disparate trends and events were often intimately connected. In this regard, then, this book represents an attempt to xvi Preface move beyond a history marked out by the achievements of ‘great men’ (from Chiang Kai-shek to Run Run Shaw),1 dates of political significance (from 1 October 1949 to ‘Merdeka’)2 or the boundaries of colonies or nation-states (from Hong Kong to the Philippines), while remaining cognisant of all of these. The story of this industry also serves to illuminate some very different people from those who emerge on the pages of standard histories of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malay(si)a or the Philippines, for the Amoy-dialect films were not made, funded or watched by colonial or postcolonial elites – or, for that matter, by those who opposed them or aspired to be them. This was a cinema of neither the ruling classes nor the ‘masses’. In the history of this industry, it is often the amusement-park operators, theatre managers, cabaret girls (and their minders), itinerant scriptwriters and unemployed musicians who take centre stage. Film censors, ‘movie moguls’, political activists (of both the Left and the Right) and auteurs are certainly present, but often only as accessories. The people behind the industry could not but be touched in a variety of ways by the changes that were occurring around them throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s (indeed in many ways their cinema was a product of these changes), yet the ways in which they responded to these changes have not yet been credited in the histories written about this region. Most importantly, however, this book takes as its subject an industry which does not readily fit the familiar theoretical notions that have come to shape scholarship on Chinese film-making and cultural production more generally over recent years. As the title itself implies, this does not mean that we must disengage with such notions. Rather, it suggests that we might reconsider how we approach the study of cinemas, and film industries, in the Chinese world, and that in doing so we need to return to empirical research – looking into the archives and listening to what people involved in the making, marketing and exhibiting of films tell us – rather than take as our starting point the theoretical analysis of readily accessible texts. If nothing else, it is my hope that this book may encourage us to consider how best this might be done. Acknowledgements

This book would never have been completed had it not been for the assistance, counsel and encouragement of numerous individuals and institutions around the world. I must firstly thank Chua Beng Huat for urging me to pursue this line of research, and Tim Wright for suggesting that I turn it into a book. At Routledge, I thank Peter Sowden for showing confidence in this project and for providing much useful advice. I also thank Miriam Lang for taking the time and effort to read through earlier drafts of the book, and for offering many insightful comments and suggestions. Much of the material upon which this book is based is held by archives and other institutions, all of which have been helpful in allowing me access and assisting me in various ways. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Film Archive (HKFA) was an incomparable source of material, and both Richie Lam and Wong Ain-ling were extremely helpful; mention should also be made of the Hong Kong Public Records Office, where Bernard Hui was of great assistance. In Taipei, the Chinese Taipei Film Archive (CTFA), where Adolf Lin and Jing- jing Tsai went to great lengths to assist me, was also an important source of material; also in Taipei were the Government Information Office (GIO) (where Yu Tsai-hsuan was extremely helpful), the National Central Library, the National Taiwan Library, Academia Historica, the National Archives Adminis- tration, the KMT Party Archives and the Bureau of Mines. In Manila, the staff at the Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran were very hospitable and helpful, as were the staff of the Lopez Foundation Library. Various public and private institutions in Singapore, including the National Archives, the National Library, Singapore Press Holdings, the National University of Singapore and Rediffusion (where Gilbert Ong was of great help) also provided much needed assistance. In the course of writing this book, I benefited from discussions (in person and via email) with numerous people, including many of the individuals mentioned above, but also with Kristine Harris, Tony Reid, Geoff Wade, Craig Reynolds, Blandina Brösicke, Pei-yin Lin, Chang Bi-yu, Barak Kushner, Sai-shing Yung and the late Edgar Wickberg. Beyond academia, I benefited from discussions with my former colleagues at EDM Books in Singapore. Special mention must also be made of Teddy Co in Manila, who proved to xviii Acknowledgements be extremely knowledgeable, hospitable and encouraging, and who provided many useful insights and suggestions on all things film related. I thank Wong Han Min in Singapore and Dev Yang in Malaysia for similar reasons. I also benefited a great deal from conversations with people who were involved in the Amoy-dialect film industry in various ways, including Chong Sit Fong, who was extremely generous in sharing her memories of the 1950s and 1960s with me; Cynthia Goh at Eng Wah Organization; Maximo Tan and the staff of the Yu Uy Tong Club (former owners of the Confucius Theater) in Manila; and Kenneth Bi, who was very helpful in responding to questions regarding the role of his mother, , in the industry. Research leading to the completion of this book was presented at ‘The Glow in their Eyes: Global Perspectives on Film Cultures, Film Exhibition and Cinema-Going’ Conference held in Ghent in December 2007; at National Taiwan University’s Institute of Taiwanese Literature in September 2009; at St Antony’s College, Oxford, in November 2009; at the ‘Pop Culture China’ Conference held at the National University of Singapore in December 2009; and at the ‘Rethinking Taiwan History, 1949–75’ workshop held at SOAS in September 2010. I thank the organisers of these events for their encouragement and suggestions. Funding for research leading to completion of this project came from the Ministry of Education in Taiwan as well as from the Research Committee of the Association of South East Asian Studies in the United Kingdom. I thank both organisations for their generous financial support. Earlier instances of my writing on the Amoy-dialect film industry have been published in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies and the Journal of Chinese Overseas.1 I thank the editors of these journals for their interest in my work, the anonymous readers of my submissions for their comments, and the publishers for allowing sections of this work to be modified for this book. Lastly, I thank the Yen family for their boundless hospitality in Taipei. I also thank my wife and son for their unconditional support, encouragement, patience and love. Abbreviations

AH Academia Historica (Taipei) BOM Bureau of Mines (Taipei) CTFA Chinese Taipei Film Archive FFCCCI Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry GIO Government Information Office (Taipei) HKFA Hong Kong Film Archive HKPRO Hong Kong Public Records Office KMT Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) NAA National Archives Administration (Taipei) NAS National Archives of Singapore PRC People’s Republic of China VOA of America

1 Rethinking transnationalism

A Hokkien heritage Royston Tan’s 881 – a film which follows the fortunes of two sisters who make up a fictional getai act in modern-day Singapore – was a critical success all over east Asia following its release in 2007. Audiences in Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Tan’s own Singapore warmed to a film which could speak to cinema-goers in any number of contexts, and which included an unusual mix of ‘postmodern pastiche and parody’ which proved visually appealing to vastly different audiences (Lim 2009: 10). Despite its ‘transnational’ success, however, 881 was heavy in nostalgia for (and contained frequent references to) a world of specifically Hokkien enter- tainment which only still exists in what is today a marginalised world of stage shows in Singapore, and in a small but significant recording and television industry in Taiwan. Indeed, the film – in which virtually all dialogue occurs in the Chinese dialect of Hokkien – is arguably one of the clearest articulations of certain traits which are associated with commercial entertainment in Asia performed in this dialect: a set of lyrical, audio and visual markers which make certain forms of performance uniquely Hokkien or, in the case of Taiwan, particularly ‘Tai’ (Taylor 2008: 73); a slapdash level of production quality; a propensity for tragedy and self-pity; and even a particular fashion sense (and aesthetic) associated with performers who have made names for themselves in Hokkien popular culture. For the Singapore-based consumers of the very getai performances that form the basic plot of 881, modern-day stage shows such as those of Tan’s fictional Papaya Sisters have a heritage that stretches back some decades. Many of the same people who now patronise getai shows once frequented similar performances at Singapore’s now defunct Happy World and other similar sites, where acts such as the famed Lim Sisters established reputations in the early post-war years for their Hokkien drama and musical stage shows; others frequented King’s Theatre (which also no longer stands) in the city’s Tiong Bahru district – a cinema at which Hokkien films (which looked not unlike the sorts of performances parodied in 881) were exhibited in great number throughout the late 1950s. And others still telephone Rediffusion – the only 2 Rethinking transnationalism radio station in Singapore which today broadcasts in Hokkien to any degree – to request that the soundtracks of these same 1950s films be broadcast, despite the fact that most of the films themselves no longer survive, and have not been seen on Singapore screens since the 1960s. In other , despite the perhaps unexpected acclaim that Tan’s film acquired in Tokyo, Seoul and Bangkok, and among the ranks of cosmopolitan film theorists, 881 was clearly informed by a world of Hokkien entertainment which has a very specific, and at least partly remembered, history in Singapore. As some of the above examples suggest, Singapore was a hub of commercial Hokkien entertainment in the 1950s, its significant Hokkien-speaking com- munity representing a lucrative market for Hokkien films, drama and music, and its theatre and amusement-park operators an important source of fund- ing. Yet Singapore was not alone in this regard. It represented one link in a chain of port cities stretching the length of east and South East Asia, in which sub stantial Hokkien-speaking communities existed. Each of these cities was a market for the sale of commercial Hokkien cultural products. Indeed, during the decade following 1949, a trade in commercial Hokkien entertainment thrived along this chain, and many of the very ‘traditions’ that have now come to be associated in an almost clichéd fashion with Hokkien entertainment à la 881 were first established. At the heart of this trade was a body of movies made in Hong Kong for export to Hokkien-speaking audiences in Taiwan, the Philippines and other parts of the region. These were referred to by the people who made and consumed them as ‘Amoy-dialect films’ (Xiayupian). Between 1949 and the early 1960s, at least 400 of these films were made (Fonoroff 1998: 40) – though possibly many more. Most were exhibited for only a matter of days in any given location; the majority were made on the tightest of budgets and to the most relaxed of production standards; the entire industry included only a handful of celebrities, with many appearing in hundreds of films each; and only a small number of these films now survive in any form. What happened to this industry? How and why did it develop in the first place? And what – beyond the nostalgia recently articulated by Royston Tan – might an investigation of it contribute to our understanding of the history of cinemas in east and South East Asia in the twentieth century, and the ways in which we approach the study of such a history?

The ‘euphoria of the transnational’ The term ‘transnationalism’ has been used with such frequency in studies of Chinese cinemas over the last two decades that it is difficult to find an academic text on the topic that does not include it. As Yiman Wang (2008) has observed, use of the term has been so widespread as to be almost ‘euphoric’ in nature.1 The concept of ‘transnational Chinese cinema(s)’ has come to inform much of what is published and taught by film studies theorists, and Rethinking transnationalism 3 has been used to describe all manner of developments, from the influence of Hollywood on Hong Kong film to mainland Chinese consumption of Taiwanese cinema. Indeed, there now seems to be an assumption that when talking about Chinese cinemas in any form we must engage with ‘trans - nationalism’ or seek to find out what exactly was ‘transnational’ about the texts, industries or individuals which form the basis of our studies. As a scholarly concept, transnationalism did not start with Chinese film studies; it has a long pedigree and a range of meanings. Many of these bear little resemblance to the sorts of scholarship that have emerged in recent years (cf. Ong 1999: 8–16). Anthropologists Arjun Appadurai, Aihwa Ong and their peers first began using the term with frequency in the 1990s. In geographic terms, ‘transnationalism’ was frequently applied to the Asia-Pacific region, where the increasing wealth of ‘newly-industrialised economies’ began to catch the attention of economists and cultural theorists alike. In temporal terms, it related to the late twentieth century; it described particular trends and phenomena that were linked closely to globalisation, the movement of capital and the overall nature of late twentieth-century capitalism. Thus transnation- alism was a phenomenon born of a specific part of the world and a specific period in the recent past, signifying in the late 1990s ‘a cultural domain within the strategies of accumulation of the new capitalism – both Chinese and non- Chinese – emerging over the last two decades in the Asia-Pacific region’ (Ong and Nonini 1997: 4).2 The ubiquity of citations of the work of Appadurai and Ong in studies of ‘transnational Chinese cinemas’ has tended to obscure the fact that these scholars did not necessarily see transnationalism as a ‘theory’ that could or should be applied to all contexts. For them, instead, it was a ‘distinctive marker of the last quarter of the twentieth century’. However, although it had not been envisaged as a ‘catch-all’ theory, transnationalism took on a certain vigour in studies of Chinese media, film and identity. In particular it was invoked in relation to phenomena that arose on either side of 1997, the year in which Hong Kong, a city that had been at the centre of the commercial Chinese entertainment industry for much of the post-war period, was incorporated into the PRC. As Hong Kong’s ambiguous position in relation to the Chinese mainland and the rest of the world was called into question, and as the PRC’s rapid economic rise changed the balance of power in the global market for Chinese media products, the term ‘transnationalism’ became particularly useful. Here was a word that seemed to encapsulate the increased cultural and artistic interaction that was becoming so evident in the late 1990s. This approach – perhaps best summed up by Mayfair Yang (1997: 288) in her argument that the ‘transnational imaginary world order’ was something constructed by the media in post-Mao China – has continued to find expression in more recent work, such as that of Sun Wanning (2005), who links what she calls a ‘transnational Chinese imagi- nation’ with both an ‘explosive development in the global Chinese media- sphere’ (66) and the start of economic reforms in China in the late 1970s (81). 4 Rethinking transnationalism The same approach also informed seminal works on Transnational Chinese Cinemas, such as the book of this title by Sheldon Lu (1997). Despite the book’s claim to ‘examine a century-long history of transnational Chinese cinemas’ (2) and Lu’s much-cited (but rarely extrapolated) comment that ‘Chinese film was an event of transnational capital from its beginning’ (4), much of this work concentrates on the post-1978 period, the suggestion seeming to be that Chinese cinemas have only really been ‘transnational’ (in the sense that Ong and others use the word) during those periods of the twentieth century in which China itself was engaging with film-makers, audiences or capital beyond its own political borders. More recent scholarship by Chris Berry and Laikwan Pang (2008: 4) has continued in this vein, speaking of the ‘transnationalisation’ of Chinese cinemas with reference to the ‘blurring’ of the boundaries between mainland Chinese, Hong Kong and Taiwanese film-making in recent decades. In the fields of comparative literature and cultural studies more generally (as they relate to east and South East Asia), the idea of ‘transnationalism’ has proven to be useful as a replacement for older paradigms such as ‘Greater China’ or ‘cultural China’ (two phrases which reached their intellectual peak in the early 1990s, having been used to articulate the nature of cultural flows between the PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Chinese communities in other parts of the world). ‘Transnationalism’ seemed a much softer term than its predecessors and did not give undue weight to the PRC itself. If ‘Greater China’ and its progeny ‘Gang Tai (Hong Kong and Taiwan) popular culture’ both privileged the centrality of the PRC a little too much (Taylor 2004: 175–6), then the adjective ‘transnational’ seemed far more egalitarian. Similarly, growing scholarly unease about the application of the term ‘Chinese diaspora’ (e.g., Chun 2001) made ‘transnationalism’ attractive as a far less ‘loaded’ term. Despite the popularity of the term and its ‘euphoric’ reception in studies of Chinese cinemas, ‘the word transnational’, as Leon Hunt and Leung Wing- Fai (2008: 2) remind us, ‘is used more often than it is defined’. Chris Berry and Mary Farquhar (2006: 4–5), who have been among the few to actually ask ‘what does “transnational” mean?’, note that the term has most often been used in two different and indeed conflicting ways. For some theorists, ‘transnational phenomena are understood simply as products of the globalizing process’ (an example might be the increasing role of transnational corporations in shaping film markets around the world). For others, the term ‘suggests that phenomena exceeding the national also need to be specified in terms of the particular places and times in which they operate’ (an example being the increasing difficulty that one faces in trying to classify films made with diverse funding or which speak to diverse audiences). The former sense of the term is inherently pessimistic; the latter is optimistic and perhaps even liberating. What such assertions also suggest, however, is that in recent scholar- ship the adjective ‘transnational’ has come to be attached to all manner of phenomena, not all of which were experienced in the Asia-Pacific region in the 1980s and 1990s. The specific connection that ‘transnational’ once had Rethinking transnationalism 5 with late twentieth-century capitalism has been set aside, and ‘transnational’ is now applied to virtually anything involving the movement of people, goods, ideas and capital – something that can be found in almost any period of history and in any part of the world. This has led some scholars to argue explicitly for a broadening of its meaning. As Maria Ng and Philip Holden (2007: 1) have phrased it, ‘transnationalism enables us to . . . see continuities in the flow of people, cultures, and capital in a longue durée’; meanwhile Chee-Beng Tan (2007: 2) criticises the limited application of the term, arguing that ‘the Chinese case shows that there were transnational networks long before scholars used transnationalism as a mode of analysis’ and that much of what has been focused on in cultural studies over the last decade or more differs little from earlier movements dating back many centuries. It is this trend that has seen ‘transnationalism’ habitually invoked in reference to Chinese film and media industries in other periods. It is particularly common in discussions of the early post-war decades (e.g., Lim 2006), when South East Asian capital and American ideas were flowing into Hong Kong and Taiwan (among other places), and when there existed extensive links and cross- overs between cinema, Malay cinema, Taiwanese (Hokkien) cinema and many other forms of cinema throughout the region. If the PRC’s integration into a regional entertainment and media market in the 1980s and 1990s could be classed as ‘transnational’, then why could the same not be said of trends and networks witnessed four decades earlier? This tendency to read transnationalism back into the history of earlier periods is understandable, and it may represent a frustration on the part of many cultural historians with the somewhat ahistorical approach taken by some scholars in fields such as cultural studies. Media theorists whose work is informed by the idea of transnationalism have often been guilty of ignoring the longer histories of the phenomena that they study. Zakir Hossain Raju (2008), for instance, writes about ‘Malaysian Chinese cinema’ as if this were something only invented in the twenty-first century, disregarding the involve- ment of Malay(si)an financiers, actors and producers in the rise of the post-war Hong Kong film industry; similarly, June Yip (2004: 300) makes the astonishingly inaccurate claim that Hokkien films were never exhibited in Taiwan prior to the rise of that society’s ‘New Cinema’ directors in the 1980s, dismissing an entire history of Taiwanese-produced Hokkien cinema from the 1950s to the 1970s in a single footnote. Yet there are problems with applying a notion that was used to articulate certain trends observed in the 1980s and 1990s to things that look transnational in other periods. This is a point that the geographer Carolyn Cartier has raised (2001), particularly in relation to attempts to fit the idea of transnationalism into periods of history when substantial movements of people, capital and ideas between China and others parts of Asia were commonplace. The use of the term ‘transnational’, she suggests, ‘codes the national scale’(18) and ‘privilege[s] the nation-state and its boundary-making project’ (62). Just as importantly, it imposes a present-day construct (i.e., the nation-state) upon 6 Rethinking transnationalism times and spaces in which such a concept did not exist, or when certain communities were excluded from it. For Cartier, then, the act of describing everything that involves cross-border movement as ‘transnational’ is anachro- nistic at best and tends to make us observe the past in terms shaped all too clearly by events and trends unique to the present era. One might contend that Cartier’s point is pedantic. Does it really matter when we are observing certain phenomena? And is it important if, in much of Asia prior to the post-war period, it was colonies, empires and port cities rather than nation-states that predominated as spatial entities? Yet Cartier’s argument goes much further than this. Her approach is informed by ‘regional thinking’ (67), which can ‘encompass both material places and concepts of place’; furthermore, her analysis acknowledges that what was in the 1990s referred to as ‘greater China’ has a history that predates the ‘transnational’ spread of capital and media. In Cartier’s view, the existence of ‘transboundary’ cultural economies – those which drew together and were shared by people on parts of the south China coast and in communities in colonial Malaya, for example – is not synonymous with the ‘transnational’ flows of capital that we see in a post-Cold War world of nation-states. This does not make them unworthy of study, however. Cartier’s writing also reminds us that the ‘national’ part of the word ‘transnationalism’ has been identified as a source of controversy in some of the recent literature. Indeed it is this precedence of the ‘national scale’ that a number of scholars have taken issue with. In the view of Yeh Yueh-yu (1998), for instance, there exists an ‘homogenizing tendency . . . in discussions of Taiwanese and Hong Kong cinema’, and many of these discussions ‘are conducted from the perspective of the taken-for-granted centres (mainland China and the First World) rather than the margins’; phenomena are deemed ‘transnational’ only when ‘the national’ (i.e., China) is present. Why, asks Yeh, are Chinese cinemas only studied when they involve capital, audiences or film-makers from Taiwan or Hong Kong in engagement with the PRC? Yeh’s criticism of western theorists’ approach to the study of Chinese cinemas finds echoes in the work of the film historian Poshek Fu (2003: 52), who has highlighted what he refers to as a ‘Central Plains Syndrome’ among many scholars in China itself. This ‘syndrome’ involves crediting the study of film at the ‘margins’ of China only when it can tell us about the development of China’s national film industry. It is perhaps the discomfort that some scholars feel about this ‘national’ element within the word ‘transnational’ that has prompted a recent move away from widespread use of this term. Chua Beng Huat (2001), for instance, has put forward the idea of ‘Pop-Culture China’ – a configuration which is ‘substantially and symbolically without centre’ and which does not privilege the PRC per se. Similarly, Yingjin Zhang (2010) – who is, significantly, the author of what remains the major scholarly work in English on Chinese National Cinema – has argued for the importance of concepts such as Rethinking transnationalism 7 ‘polylocality’ when trying to understand the nature of cultural flows between different Chinese communities around the world. Yet just as some scholars have suggested that the concept of ‘trans- nationalism’ credits the ‘nation’ a little too much, others see in the first five letters of the word the potential for liberation from the ‘national’ and a move towards a greater focus on those elements of cultural production which are ‘transvergent’ and ‘transformative’ (Hunt and Leung 2008: 3). In studies that adopt this more optimistic , ‘transnational Chinese cinemas’ are important because they shed light on precisely those things that have been left out of discourses on ‘national cinema’, or because they allow us to examine the geographic, social and theoretical margins of ‘China’. Similarly, all cinemas can be studied from within a field known as ‘transnational film studies’ (Berry and Farquhar 2006: 14–15). This view not only recognises the innate ‘trans nationalism’ of all hitherto ‘Chinese cinemas’ but also acknow - ledges the ‘transnational’ nature of scholarship as it operates today. In this regard, ‘transnationalism’ has also frequently been twinned with the notion of ‘cosmopolitanism’. Writing about celebrated examples from the canon of post-war Hong Kong cinema, such as the 1959 Mandarin film Kongzhong xiaojie (Air Hostess), for example, authors such as Poshek Fu (2007) and Charles Leary (2008) have stressed the ways in which such films resembled the ‘cosmopolitan’ lifestyle of financiers like Loke Wan Tho of Cathay Organisation, or represented a ‘global outlook’ that was (and perhaps still is) common to Hong Kong cinema. The transnational nature of media and cultural developments in the current era, meanwhile, are assumed to assist in the construction of a ‘re-cosmopolitanism’ of places – such as Shanghai – that were left out of the post-war affluence that gave rise to the sorts of life- styles that were celebrated in late 1950s Hong Kong cinema (Yang 1997). At another level, the cosmopolitan nature of scholars engaged in study- ing Chinese cinemas – and of the auteurs of the very filmic texts which have become the fodder for their research – is now frequently stressed in the literature in this field, and Appadurai’s call for a ‘cosmopolitan ethnographic practice’ (1996: 50) regularly invoked.3 It has become de rigueur for scholars of Chinese cinemas to reflect on their own ‘transnational’ sensibilities, or to claim a cosmopolitan outlook that helps to break down the sorts of approaches which once defined the study of Chinese texts by western scholars (e.g., Berry and Farquhar 2006: 13–16). Many academics now laud the work of those directors, financiers and actors who, like themselves, are bilingual, hold dual citizenship or spend much of their time moving back and forth across national and cultural boundaries.4 Attempts to rediscover what exactly is ‘transnational’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ about various forms of cinema are worthwhile, and have helped to shed new light on cultural production in various parts of Asia. Self-reflective musings on the cosmopolitan nature of scholars who make a living out of teaching or writing about ‘transnational cinemas’ are equally relevant. It is both responsible in scholarly terms and fascinating, for example, to highlight the ‘cosmopolitan’ 8 Rethinking transnationalism nature of the Shaw Brothers enterprise in the 1960s as both a film studio and a cultural phenomenon (most often associated with the Hong Kong entertain- ment industry) by focusing on its production of Malay films, or on the reception by African-American audiences of the Shaw vision of an ‘imagined’ China.5 The rediscovery of the global financial networks that made the emergence of such enterprises possible has helped to move scholarship away from an undue focus on what was ‘Chinese’ about ‘Chinese cinemas’, and has encouraged us to re-examine the very ways in which we approach forms of cultural expression that were not undertaken purely in the service of ‘the nation’ in its various guises. But in the ‘euphoric’ search for films, film industries and auteurs that are (or were) evidently transnational and cosmopolitan, do we not also risk overlooking forms of cultural expression – or, for that matter, entire industries – which were not cosmopolitan? By the same token, are we not in danger of uncritically assuming that things which look transnational – such as film industries which involved the cross-border movement of capital, which borrowed from other (non-Chinese) forms of cultural expression and which encouraged the movement of people and ideas all over Asia – were, along with everything from Air Hostess to the films of Tsai Ming-liang, transnational? And how do forms of cultural expression that only partially conform to the ‘transnational’ template fit into our wider understanding of Chinese cinemas? The frequent application of the word ‘transnational’ may risk providing undue importance to the ‘national’ scale; alternatively, it may provide us with a means of writing ourselves into our studies of cultural production in Asia while at the same time focusing on the ‘transient’ and ‘transvergent’. But what do we do with forms of cultural expression that are neither ‘national’ in the orthodox sense (or ‘Chinese’ in the ‘national cinemas’ sense) nor ‘trans - national’ in the many senses that have been attached to that word in the last two decades?

Locating Amoy-dialect films Despite the ‘euphoria of the transnational’ and the copious amounts of scholarship this idea has generated, it remains the case that histories of entire cinemas which do share certain traits with transnational Chinese cinemas of the current era remain largely unwritten. This includes the history of the industry which forms the focus of this book, that of the Amoy-dialect films of the 1950s. The Amoy-dialect films have been mentioned in the footnotes of studies of various national cinemas – Chinese, Singaporean and Taiwanese – and the Hong Kong Film Archive has done a commendable job of analysing the place of some of these films within a paradigm of ‘Hong Kong cinema’. In most of these cases, however, the industry has been viewed as merely some intermediary stage in the evolution of other forms of cinema. For scholars of Taiwanese film, the Amoy-dialect film industry is important only because it inspired Taiwanese directors and producers to consider making films in their Rethinking transnationalism 9 ‘native tongue’; for the historians of Singapore cinema, the Amoy-dialect films represented a spark of creative endeavour that would lead to something else.6 Nonetheless, it is perhaps surprising that Amoy-dialect cinema has not been swept up in the ‘euphoric’ rise of transnational film studies. After all, this was a cinema which, in appearance, was even more transnational than much that came before or has come since. It relied on the movement of capital between different parts of east and South East Asia; it claimed no single home, being produced in Hong Kong by individuals who saw their sojourn in that city as temporary; it claimed audiences in an array of colonies, cities and countries across Asia; and it celebrated, at least in the latter stages of its existence, a very modern, middle-class lifestyle which we might assume to be ‘cosmo - politan’. What better candidate could there be for the label of ‘transnational Chinese cinema’? At one level, I would suggest that the lack of academic interest in this industry relates to the fact that the Amoy-dialect films circulated in societies where either the Chinese cultural presence has subsequently been erased or ideas of cosmopolitan hybridity were imposed and overt expressions of Chinese identity became dangerous or even outlawed. This has rendered basic archival research challenging, and has led to large sections of the academy remaining unaware of this industry’s very existence. For example, no study of the exhibition of Chinese films of any type in the Philippines has as yet been undertaken. Instead, the focus of much of the scholarship on post- war Philippine-Chinese cultural history has tended to concentrate on how ‘the Chinese’ became ‘Filipinos’ (e.g., Ang, et al. 2005). A film industry that contributed not to nation-building in the Philippines nor to the creation of a hybrid ‘Tsinoy’ culture, but rather to the survival of unambiguously communal Chinese identities inspired directly by memories of the Chinese province of Fujian, finds no place in such narratives. Given that Philippine-Chinese businesspeople played a pivotal role in financing the production of Amoy- dialect films, and that Manila’s Chinatown represented one of the industry’s main markets, this has meant that the history of this cinema in one of its main ‘habitats’ has gone virtually unnoticed. Similarly, and as Krishna Sen (2006) has noted, the Chinese role in film-making and film exhibition in Indonesia has been all but erased from cultural histories of that society. Though Amoy- dialect films were exhibited in numerous Indonesian cities throughout the 1950s and a number of Indonesian-Chinese businesspeople became involved in financing the industry, this slice of the Amoy-dialect cinematic world has passed – and continues to pass – unnoticed.7 Amoy-dialect films existed during a time known in Indonesia as the ‘Old Order’ (or ‘pre-New Order’), and only very limited Chinese cultural production of any sort survived the anti-Chinese cultural policies that followed. Nonetheless, even though no major study of the Amoy-dialect film industry has been written, the early history of this industry has been traced by a handful of commentators, none of whom have been engaged with the study of ‘transnational Chinese film studies’, and none of whom have taken 10 Rethinking transnationalism a particularly cosmopolitan approach to the study of the industry. They include Wong Ching-ho, himself an actor and scriptwriter in the industry who will reappear at regular intervals throughout this book. Wong’s reading of the industry, as recorded in publications of the HKFA (e.g., Wang 2002; Wong 2003), parallels his own experience: it begins in early post-war , experiences a short detour to Xiamen on the eve of the communist victory in China, and only really develops into a viable enterprise in 1950s Hong Kong. The picture painted more recently by the Xiamen-based independent scholar Hong Buren (2007: 78–89), while not specifically contradicting Wong’s interpretation, places a far greater emphasis on the role of Xiamen as the ‘spiritual home’ of this industry. Basing much of his research on late- Republican sources, and publishing his interpretation through Xiamen Uni- versity Press, Hong describes an industry which, despite being largely financed by Philippine-Chinese investors and linked to production houses in Hong Kong, is firmly tied to its mainland roots.8 It is led not by performers like Wong Ching-ho but by Xiamen-based companies, some of which trace their history back to the 1930s. Indeed, Hong’s story suggests a reluctantly émigré industry that would have continued to develop, and indeed prosper, in Fujian had the communist victory of 1949 never occurred. A third reading of the industry’s history also merits mention, if only because it was partially made by someone with direct knowledge of it. Ivy Ling Po’s retrospective account – which appears in the Taiwanese Hokkien film Gunü Ling Bo (The Orphan Ivy Ling) (1964), produced by the company Tailian – depicts the Amoy-dialect film industry as little more than a ‘stopover’ on the way to the ‘golden age’ of 1960s Mandarin cinema. Its interpretation of the industry is an inherently negative one. It presents the Philippine-Chinese businessmen who first financed Amoy-dialect films, for example, as shady fraudsters picking over the shanty towns of Hong Kong for Hokkien talent and naïve Fujianese women to exploit. There are truths in all three of these interpretations. Hong’s focus on Xiamen reminds us that late-Republican Fujian cast a long shadow over the industry for the entirety of its history. The primacy of Hong Kong, as Wong frames it, was no less important to the development of Xiayupian; and the relation- ship between the industry’s actors and musicians in Hong Kong, and their paymasters in Manila, as depicted in the Tailian version of the story, was not always as rosy as the promotional literature produced in the 1950s might have us believe. Yet despite the very different foci adopted by their respective authors, each of the above interpretations highlights the importance – and controversy – of place in the Amoy-dialect film story, and the ambiguities about where this industry belonged. In many regards, however, it was precisely this confusion that defined the industry. Hong is right, for example, to underline the fact that a small number of Amoy-dialect films were made in Xiamen prior to 1949, yet the industry only really blossomed commercially in Hong Kong after the ‘fall’ of the mainland. Wong is justified in stressing the importance Rethinking transnationalism 11 of Hong Kong to the industry’s development, but in doing so downplays the importance of both southern Fujian as the industry’s source of talent and the Philippines as its initial source of funding. The Tailian version is correct in portraying Xiayupian as merely a forerunner to the huangmeidiao films of the early 1960s (see Chapter 7), but in doing so seems to suggest that the Amoy- dialect film industry need not be studied either on its own terms or in the context of a regional film market in which Mandarin cinema was not dominant. As I hope to demonstrate throughout this book, the Amoy-dialect film industry may well have grown out of established cinematic traditions which originated in China, found a base in Hong Kong and claimed markets in and funding from South East Asia, but it belonged to no single city, nation or, indeed, ‘place’. Instead, it was the product of a specific set of circumstances – geographic, political and economic – that relied on the growing ties between Hokkien-speaking communities beyond the shores of mainland China in the early years of the Cold War. These circumstances brought into being a Chinese cinema that was unique and that still defies description today.

Contextualising Amoy-dialect cinema As we shall see in later sections of this book, the Amoy-dialect films themselves were very much – to borrow a now unfashionable phrase from Tu Wei-ming (1991) – ‘culturally Chinese’ products. Plots for the films were initially drawn from a voluminous body of specifically Fujianese folk tales or from the Chinese classics. Furthermore, it is clear that the majority of people involved in the production of these films thought of themselves as ‘Chinese’ regardless of what part of Asia they found themselves in. Indeed, as we shall see, there were times when Amoy-dialect producers and celebrities revelled in their patriotism for China in its many guises. Yet it is important to make a distinction here between the ‘cultural Chinese’ geography that was celebrated on the Amoy-dialect screen, and the geography – both imagined and real – of the industry itself. Reading the handbills, newspaper advertisements, posters and company records that emanated from the Amoy-dialect film industry is like stepping into a very different world, a world made up of configurations and entities that may be very unfamiliar to those of us who study or live in Asia today. It becomes immediately apparent that the Amoy-dialect film industry thrived in a world shaped by borders and centres of power that proved to be only transient, and in which the modern, postcolonial nation-state represented only one future for the region (and one that many people of Chinese origin were excluded from in this period). As with much else that relates to diasporic Chinese communities in late colonial South East Asia, the concept of the Nanyang (lit. ‘the South Seas’) was fundamental to defining how people involved in all aspects of the indus- try saw their place in the world. Sai-shing Yung (2008: 137–8) has noted this point in relation to the birth and development of the Shaw Brothers 12 Rethinking transnationalism entertainment empire in the region at much the same time.9 As Wang Gungwu has pointed out (1985: 75), the concept of the Nanyang was invented in southern China to define those areas of South East Asia to which people from provinces such as Fujian had emigrated. It was more than simply a geographic concept, however; also encoded in the term was a sense that South East Asia was a ‘land of wealth and opportunity’. Many of the individuals who financed Amoy-dialect films were people who had moved to the Nanyang in the early twentieth century, when this concept’s currency was at its peak, and they still wrote and spoke about their place within the world in terms of the ‘Nanyang’ in the 1950s. The imagined space of the Nanyang was overlaid, however, with a complex network of colonial and postcolonial boundaries that defined how the Amoy- dialect film industry was able to operate. In the early 1950s, this was a world in which British colonialism not only persisted in ways it no longer did in other parts of the world, but where it was actually embraced by large sections of the Hokkien-speaking middle class as a provider of stability and prosperity. The British colony of Hong Kong sat at the centre of the Amoy-dialect film world even though Hokkien speakers made up only a small percentage of the colony’s population, and the city was celebrated almost as a mystical centre of entertainment throughout much of the industry’s life. Like their Cantonese- speaking peers, Amoy-dialect celebrities were described as living ‘in the shadow of Victoria Peak’ (Taipingshan xia), and their supposed exploits in the city’s hotels and nightclubs filled column space in the ‘mosquito press’ of the region. The territories of Singapore, Malaya and (the British colonies on) Borneo – collectively known as ‘Xing Ma Po’ – also provided a major set of markets for the industry, with the films themselves travelling in tin canisters back and forth along an arc that started on the west coast of the Malay Peninsula and ended in Sandakan. ‘Malaysia’ existed only as a concept at the time of the Amoy-dialect films; the country came into being as an independent and unified state just as the industry disappeared.10 Yet ‘the Federation’ (lianbang) of Malaya was an important part of that world, with the Amoy-dialect industry seemingly content with the loose alignment of states that existed under British tutelage (despite having been granted nominal independence in 1957), and which guaranteed that Chinese (and hence Hokkien) cultural expression would be tolerated – providing, of course, that it did not touch upon political issues such as the on-going ‘Emergency’ (King 1957).11 As mention of the post-war communist insurgency in Malaya might suggest, however, the Asia of the Amoy-dialect film industry was starkly coloured by the Cold War: it was marked not only by the battle between the Malayan Communist Party and British colonial rule in the region, but also by the ideological war that continued to rage between the rival Chinese governments in Taipei and Beijing. It is easy to forget, for instance, that the city that gave this industry its name, and from whence many of its celebrities originated, sat Rethinking transnationalism 13 literally on the front line in this Chinese Cold War. From 1949 onwards, the imaginary line that cut through Xiamen’s outer harbour and differentiated the Nationalist-held (and Hokkien-speaking) island of Kinmen from the rest of Fujian marked the northernmost extremity of both the Amoy-dialect film industry’s geographical reach as well as that of ‘Free Asia’. As we shall see later in this book, the industry relied extensively on Nationalist Chinese patronage. For this reason both the geographic scope of its markets and the ‘imagined geography’ which existed in the literature about the industry reflected the realities of Cold War Asia. In the Amoy-dialect film industry, China – or rather ‘Free China’ (ziyou Zhongguo) – was a synonym for the Nationalist-held island of Taiwan. The ‘motherland’ (zuguo) was also a synonym for Taiwan, even though virtually no Amoy-dialect celebrities in the early years of the industry could claim Formosan ancestry, and few had even visited Taiwan prior to 1955. The mainland was known by various sobriquets. In film titles, for example, it was evoked as the half-remembered ‘Tangshan’ (lit., the Tang Mountains). More specifically Fujian, where most people involved in the production of Amoy-dialect films had originated, was enshrined as a place of memory. Celebrated – in its pre-communist guise – in a large number of films, it was remembered with unabashed pride by the industry as a whole. Xiamen, of course, was not simply the hometown of many of the people who acted in these films, but also an important qiaoxiang – a mainland Chinese city which represented the point of departure for millions of and which had long maintained close links with the Chinese diaspora.12 Even though the industry carried the city of Xiamen in its very name, and revelled in memories of late-Republican Fujian, references to contemporary (that is, post-1949) Fujian in the discourses of the Amoy-dialect film industry were fleeting and usually limited to public expressions of anxiety by celebrities who worried about how their hometown was enduring under communist ‘oppression’. The geography of the Amoy-dialect film industry did not extend to communist Amoy (Xiamen) itself.13 What is perhaps most striking about the Amoy-dialect film world, however, is the extent to which Manila, Bangkok, Medan and other cities around South East Asia which today are not usually considered major centres of Chinese cultural production are listed alongside Taiwanese cities and Singapore as important sites of Amoy-dialect entertainment. Cities all over (non-communist) Asia were incorporated into this world, but were written about primarily as sites of Chinese settlement. Minbu or Minlila – now archaic Chinese toponyms for Manila – and Feidao (the ‘Philippine islands’) are described as essentially Chinese places in the literature that surrounded this industry; there is minimal reference to non-Chinese communities (that is, the majority of the population) in either the textual or photographic representations of such sites. On paper and on screen, Amoy-dialect Asia looks remarkably homogenous, and very Chinese. 14 Rethinking transnationalism At the same time, this was a world beset by strict rules regulating travel and movement. Amoy-dialect celebrities were habitually reported to be waiting in transit while their passports were checked by authorities in Sarawak or Thailand. Immigration restrictions in the Philippines disrupted promotional tours of Manila by Amoy-dialect stars. Amoy-dialect films were seized at Taipei airport when nervous customs officials suspected certain financiers of leftist tendencies. And film-makers continually self-censored their work in order to avoid accusations of moral or political profligacy in any number of jurisdictions. In contrast to the ease of travel and transport that has led to the booming of transnational cinemas so beloved of cultural studies theorists in recent years, the Amoy-dialect world was one in which the circulation of films, people and finances was always subject to the (often conflicting) whims of Nationalist Chinese, colonial (British) and postcolonial Philippine and Indonesian bureaucracies. As we shall see, however, the industry thrived in this world of shifting and sometimes difficult to define boundaries, in a region where the movement of people, goods and ideas was (by today’s standards) remarkably inefficient. It developed and, to a degree, prospered in spite of such restrictions; indeed it was able to thrive precisely because of these fluid and changing boundaries and the transitional nature of many of the political entities that defined the region in the early Cold War period. Tellingly, it declined at that moment in which the political borders that now define the region came to take shape in the early 1960s. It should also be noted that despite the geographic spread of the industry in terms of reception, Amoy-dialect producers, actors, financiers and exhibitors inhabited a limited number of localities throughout Asia. North Point and lower Kowloon in Hong Kong marked the sites of residence and production, respectively; the districts of Geylang and Bukit Ho Swee in Singapore emerged as centres of Amoy-dialect film exhibition and financing in that city; in the Philippines, the industry started and ended in the Manila district of Binondo, and was barely even noticed in other parts of the Philippine capital; in Taiwan, meanwhile, the southern cities of Chiayi, Tainan and Kaohsiung marked the industry’s most important markets, and the Taipei neighbourhood around Dadaocheng its centre of funding. In this regard, I would argue that the Amoy-dialect film industry under- mines many of the basic tenets of transnationalism as it is applied to film studies today. This industry predated the post-1978 development of ‘transnational media markets’, and yet it represents a form of cinema that was arguably more ‘transborder’ than anything known today, especially when we consider the difficulties that were involved in moving goods, capital and people around the region at the height of the Cold War. At the same time, this was a highly parochial – and almost radically Chinese – cinema, one which exhibited its product only at Chinese theatres, and which seemed to take limited interest in events or communities that did not relate to the Hokkien-speaking world. Rethinking transnationalism 15 There was little that was cosmopolitan about the world represented on the Amoy-dialect screen, and even less about the people responsible for creating that world.

Studying Xiayupian As well as the mental leap that is required when trying to understand the Asia that gave rise to these films and the geopolitical context in which they existed, there are other challenges to tracing the history of Amoy-dialect cinema. For example, this industry did not leave many institutional descendents. With the exception of the Singapore-based cinema operator Eng Wah – a company to which we shall return at different points throughout this book – there have been few corporate survivors from the industry. For the most part, the com- panies that specialised in the financing, distribution or production of these films simply no longer exist, and most have left only scarce traces of their exist- ence. Many of the people who funded or made a living from this industry did move into different industries following its demise (and we shall see below how the silence that these people maintained in later years contributed to the aca- demic invisibility in which the industry is still shrouded), but just as many Amoy-dialect film-makers, financiers and celebrities disappeared from cultural production altogether in the early 1960s. For a substantial number of performers, the dozens of cheap, low-quality Amoy-dialect films in which they were involved marked their only ‘moment in the sun’, and their names have often been subsequently forgotten. Indeed, in compiling this study, I have been struck by just how little is known about the fate of some of the most recognisable faces of the industry – performers such as Jiang Fan, the most prolific Amoy-dialect actress up until the mid-1950s, or Ting Lan, the ‘Hokkien Marilyn Monroe’. At the time of writing, no Amoy-dialect films were commercially available on DVD or in any other format. To view such films, one must visit archives in Hong Kong or Taipei (though there may well be more in private collections throughout Asia) – or visit YouTube, where snippets of still extant Amoy- dialect films have been uploaded by resourceful fans.14 There is no single Amoy-dialect cinema archive that holds documents or ephemera relating exclusively to the industry. Much has been destroyed in the various fires that seem to have afflicted the institutions and companies that were once connected to the industry, and much else has gone the way of the individuals and firms who once populated it. In searching for textual traces of the industry’s existence, one is forced instead to look at colonial-era company registration documents in Hong Kong and Singapore; at court and censorship files in Taipei; at the collections of antiquarians all over the region; or on a small number of blogs that have been established by private collectors who remember watching such films as teenagers and have scanned and uploaded the lobby cards and posters they have been able to find in the second-hand bookstores of Malaysia. The ‘paper trail’ that the Amoy-dialect film industry left in its wake can sometimes be extremely faint, and can just as often dissipate into 16 Rethinking transnationalism nothing; yet it can also at times appear with such clarity that one is led to question why the industry has never been granted a significant place in film scholarship before. There is also a paucity of architectural relics of the Amoy-dialect film industry. In contrast to a number of older theatres which once predominantly showed Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Hollywood or Tagalog films in

Figure 1.1 The former Confucius Theater in Manila – now the site of a restaurant (photograph by the author, September 2009). Rethinking transnationalism 17 various parts of east and South East Asia,15 or studios which were constructed specifically for the production of Cantonese and Mandarin films and have since been renovated or refurbished, most of the theatres to which crowds flocked to watch Amoy-dialect movies have been razed. Indeed, King’s Theater (formerly Asia Theater) in Manila – a site which played an important role in the early years of the industry (discussed in Chapter 3) – was demolished in 2008 (as I was writing this book) in order to make way for a new condo- minium project (Sanchez-Lacson 2008). The only major surviving theatre building at which Amoy-dialect films were ever shown in great number in the Philippines that still stands today is the former Confucius Theater, which is now home to a restaurant.16 All of this makes the study of the Amoy-dialect film industry difficult, yet at the same time worthwhile. The silences, gaps and absences provide us with a means through which to test many of the theories and ideas that are often raised in the academic literature on transnational Chinese cinemas. And the challenges that we face in trying to piece together the story of this industry’s emergence, existence and decline encourage us to explore new ways of thinking about the cultural history of the societies in which the industry thrived, as well as the history of the cultural and commercial links between what have often been conceptualised as disparate Chinese communities in various parts of Asia. The very ‘transnational’ process of studying the Amoy- dialect film industry disrupts and undermines many of the assumptions that have been made in the literature about ‘transnationalism’; further, it challenges us to think about the extent to which the history of Chinese cultural production in the 1950s necessarily fits neatly into existing theories at all. Notes

Preface 1 The latter being one of the most important figures in Hong Kong (and ‘Chinese’) cinema in the second half of the twentieth century. 2 The former marking the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC); the latter (meaning ‘freedom’ in Malay) referring to the achievement of independence in a number of South East Asian states.

Acknowledgements 1 See Taylor 2008 and Taylor 2009. Permission to reprint material from the second article has been kindly granted by Brill.

1 Rethinking transnationalism 1 The subtitle above is borrowed from a phrase coined by Wang in the above-cited article. 2 What were referred to as ‘transnational medias’ were fundamentally different to those that had come before, despite some obvious continuities. Part of this distinctiveness was the ‘historically unprecedented’ speed at which ‘news and entertainment images travel the globe . . . [in the 1990s]’ (Grewal, Gupta and Ong 1999: 654). 3 As Ong (1999: 14) notes: ‘There is of course no necessary connection between the study of diasporan subjects and a cosmopolitan intellectual commitment, but cultural theorists appear to believe there is.’ 4 A phenomenon observable in the current scholarly obsession, for example, with the films of the Malaysian-born, Taiwan-based director Tsai Ming-liang – such as the special issue of the Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 1, 3 (May 2007) which was devoted to Tsai’s work. 5 Topics on both appear in Fu 2008. 6 Examples of such discussions will be examined at various points throughout this book. 7 Readers will notice that references in this book to the exhibition of Amoy-dialect films in Indonesia, or the role of Indonesian-Chinese investors and distributors of Amoy-dialect films, are few in number. The reason for this is the very invisibility that Sen mentions, and the difficulty that this poses with regards to research. The New Order agenda was successful in erasing not only Chinese involvement in Indonesian cinema, but also evidence of Indonesian-Chinese involvement in the Amoy-dialect film industry. 136 Notes 8 This is significant for a number of reasons. Press has been active in recent years in promoting the publication of local Fujian studies, and has done a commendable job in this regard. Yet Hong’s study is framed in precisely this mode: the book itself is a study of everything to do with film in Xiamen, ranging from the Xiamen-born actors who appeared in the Amoy-dialect films of the 1950s to the exhibition of Soviet movies in the city in the same decade. 9 Indeed, the concept provided the inspiration for the name of at least one Taiwan- based film company (which I shall explore in Chapter 3). 10 This sentence might just as easily be inverted: the Amoy-dialect film industry declined just as Malaysia emerged as a nation-state. As we shall see below, the timing was not completely coincidental. 11 The name given to the communist insurgency against colonial rule in Malaya, lasting from 1948 to 1960. 12 The term qiaoxiang is usually given to villages, towns or cities in China that are ‘emigrant communities’ – i.e., places to which many overseas Chinese trace their origins, and where a substantial proportion of the population (e.g., over ten per cent) is made up of ‘returned overseas Chinese’ (Pan 1999: 27–30). 13 Direct contacts between the PRC and Taiwan (as well as the islands off the Fujian coast that the Nationalist government continued to control) were strictly forbidden during the post-1949 period. 14 Sections of a handful of Amoy-dialect films held by the Chinese Taipei Film Archive have also been made available on the internet as part of the publicly- funded National Digital Archives Program in Taiwan (see http://digitalarchives.tw/ for details). 15 I am thinking here of the Cathay Building in Singapore, the façade of which has come to form the entrance to a new complex of cinemas and residences. 16 I am not suggesting that there has ever been a deliberate agenda to erase the physical sites associated with the Amoy-dialect film industry. However, the ephemeral nature of the industry itself, together with the fact that it has never been seen as belonging to any national tradition of film-making, has inevitably meant that governments and civic groups have never felt the need to protect sites associated with it.

2 Defining Amoy-dialect cinema 1 A recent example being Kenny K.K. Ng’s work on Cathay’s romantic comedies of the 1950s and 1960s (2008), in which the term ‘dialect’ is used almost as a synonym for ‘Cantonese’. 2 This suggests that not all of the Amoy-dialect films produced in Hong Kong were necessarily shown there. 3 Mention should be made here of films in the Chaozhou dialect in the late 1950s, nine of which were imported into Singapore at that time. I shall touch briefly on such films at other points throughout this book. 4 With six Mandarin films imported from Taiwan and ten from mainland China. Taiwanese media reports (e.g., Lianhebao 20 May 1957) suggest that Hong Kong- produced Amoy-dialect films exhibited in Taiwan actually outnumbered Hong Kong-produced Mandarin films in 1956. 5 The Taiwan-based (and Cantonese-speaking) military author Zhou Xiaohong (2001: 192–3) reminisces about watching Cantonese films in early post-war Taiwan, simply because so few other films were being exhibited at the time. 6 It is difficult to ascertain exactly who chose to watch Amoy-dialect films. In the rare references to audience that can be found in the literature, it would seem that the films found their largest market among urban, middle-aged women. Ye Longyan (1999: 60) argues that it was middle-aged women who represented the largest market for these films in Taiwan, for instance; oral accounts given to me Notes 137 by individuals who were involved in the promotion of Amoy-dialect films through radio broadcasting in Singapore suggest a similar demographic in that city (Xu Shumei, personal communication, 25 August 2009). References were also made in the Manila Chinese media to the ‘laofu’ (old women) who chose to watch Amoy- dialect films, mainly because they could not understand anything else (Huaqiao shangbao 10 November 1953). 7 It is important to note, however, that in these 1957 figures, Amoy-dialect (Xiayu) and Taiwanese Hokkien (Taiyu) films were grouped together in the same category. 8 Only a handful were shot either wholly or partially in Malaya, Singapore, Taiwan and elsewhere. The Amoy-dialect film Huanxi yuanjia (The Quarrelsome Couple) (which took its name – and possibly more – from a 1959 Cantonese film produced by Kong Ngee) was filmed on location in Macau, for example. 9 In a few cases, Amoy-dialect films were premiered in a Hong Kong theatre (such as the Alhambra on Nathan Road) for industry insiders, or dubbed into Cantonese and shown in Hong Kong cinemas for the general public (He 1957). 10 Some production houses managed to make parts of certain Amoy-dialect films in colour. Li Da Company used Kodak Color to film a section of its 1955 Niulang zhinü (The Cowherd and the Spinning Girl) (Huaqiao shangbao 8 May 1955), and according to advertisements in the Singapore press in early 1958, a section of the Amoy-dialect film Tianxian songzi (A Heaven-sent Son), starring Lim Ean Ean and Lu Fen, was also made in colour. 11 It is generally accepted that Amoy-dialect films were exhibited in Taiwan well before any Taiwanese Hokkien films were made. Yet even in a 2008 documentary on the history of Hokkien opera films produced by Taiwan’s Public Television Service (Gongshi) – subtitled, ironically, ‘the forgotten art of film opera’ – no mention is made of any of the dozens of Amoy-dialect films that were exhibited in Taiwan in the early 1950s and that laid the groundwork for Hokkien opera films produced in Taiwan from 1955 onwards (Gongshi 2008a). 12 Despite the nativist pride in which the early Taiyupian are now held by many Taiwan-based film historians, the films have much in common with their Xiayu predecessors in terms of production quality. 13 Chu’s analysis decries the role of Nationalist government agencies in Taiwan for the disappearance of locally made films in Taiyu. The fact that he inadvertently uses the established term for the earlier genre made in Hong Kong underscores the fact that the terminology was never precise and the distinction often blurred. 14 When Jiang Fan – the star of hundreds of Amoy-dialect films – visited the Philippines at different stages throughout the 1950s, she was lauded not only by cinema audiences but also by the Nanyin fraternity in that society (Yang 1990: no page numbers). 15 Jiang Fan was habitually referred to as a ‘Xiamen mingdan’ – a ‘famous operatic diva from Xiamen’ (Huaqiao shangbao 10 May 1955). The phrase ‘xiaosheng’ is used to denote the role of a young man in various forms of Chinese opera. 16 While I am not suggesting here that getai was an exclusively Hokkien practice (getai was simply a form of performance; getai singers performed in many different dialects as well as in English and other languages), it is worth noting that the getai form has only survived to any degree in Singapore and Malaysia to the present in its Hokkien variety. 17 This could include stories about ordinary Hokkien-speaking Singaporeans who aspired to be Amoy-dialect getai stars. See, for example, the story ‘Gexing meng’ (‘Dreams of becoming a singer’), written by Kwan Sin Ngee (Guan 1952: 10–11). Ironically, this particular dialogue details the hopes of one of the protagonists to make it onto the cover of a regional weekly magazine. As we shall see in Chapter 5, only one Amoy-dialect star – Ting Lan – appears to have ever succeeded in this feat. 138 Notes 18 Details of the years in which VOA maintained ‘Amoy’ broadcasts can be found at this broadcaster’s website: http://author.voanews.com/english/About/language- services.cfm. 19 This was the case with Lidehusheng gequ xuan, a musical anthology of 1948 in which the lyrics to Xiaqu (Amoy-dialect songs) – as well as songs in Mandarin, Cantonese and Chaozhou dialect – were published for listeners in Singapore. 20 I am indebted to the broadcaster Rediffusion (Singapore) for allowing me access to a number of these Amoy-dialect film soundtracks when I visited their studios in 2009. 21 It should be borne in mind, for example, that the ‘worlds’ catered for entertainment in all manner of dialects and languages; that Cantonese opera shared a close relationship with the post-war Cantonese film industry; that the Cantonese film industry too shared a close relationship with broadcasting; and that the rise of radio broadcasting and recorded music was a region-wide phenomenon. 22 In newspaper advertisements for Amoy-dialect films in Taiwan, some companies would even advertise stocks of older film that were no longer needed. One such notice appeared even within an advertisement for a film on page 5 of the Lianhebao (United Daily News) on 10 April 1957; the old film stock that was advertised included not only Amoy-dialect films, but Mandarin, French and Italian films, all of which were being sold off at bargain prices.

3 Origins and development 1 It is unclear whether or not any of these films were also shown in the new theatres that were being built at around the same time in Manila, Singapore and other South East Asian cities. 2 Little research has been done on this topic, but it is clear that some Taiwanese opera troupes, theatre operators and recording artists benefited from the Japanese Occupation of other Hokkien-speaking parts of the world during the war. At least one theatre in Xiamen, for example, was taken over by a Taiwanese businessman following the Japanese occupation of that city (Xiamen Huaqiaozhi Bianji Weiyuanhui 1991: 208). 3 The events collectively referred to in Taiwan as ‘2–28’ (i.e., 28 February) refer to both anti-Nationalist riots on Taiwan in early 1947 and the Nationalist govern- ment’s violent responses to these riots. These events are still considered highly divisive and sensitive in Taiwan, and there is still debate about how many lives were lost, with some scholars putting the number in the tens of thousands. In any case, this was recognised as a major event in Taiwan’s post-war history, and one that caused major rifts between ‘local’ Taiwanese and those who had come to the island from mainland China in the aftermath of the Japanese surrender at the end of the Second World War. 4 HMV’s Kolkata factory had also been the place at which records of Hokkien operas had been produced prior to the war, with most of the ‘Amoy songs’ broadcast in South East Asia being pressed there. 5 Owing to unsuitable facilities in the Philippines and a lack of interest among financiers in China, Yang’s idea had never become a reality. 6 As Weightman (1960: 30–8) explains, there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement about the actual number of Chinese resident in the Philippines in this period. 7 The company was later renamed the Yi Zhong Gongsi, and eventually Liangyou Gongsi. 8 This cinema had originally been built by the theatre operator Henry Yang in 1937 as the Cathay Theater (Jindu Xiyuan). It was destroyed during the war, but was rebuilt in 1949 – i.e., the same year in which mainland China turned socialist, and Notes 139 the supply of films from Shanghai ceased (Salumbides 1952: 20). It was renamed Queen’s Theater (Huanghou Da Xiyuan) on 10 October 1953 (i.e., Republican China’s National Day). As we shall see in Chapter 5, it would later be re-named Golden City Theater (Jincheng Xiyuan). 9 King’s was owned by the lumber magnate Vicente Gotamco. Its original name was the Asia Theater (Yaxiya Da Xiyuan). 10 Standard went on to produce a number of different cigarette brands, including two with distinctly ‘movie-inspired’ names: Cameo cigarettes and Ben-Hur cigarettes. 11 Lin’s Nan Yang had no official affiliation with the ‘Nan Yang’ Studio of Shaw fame. 12 AH: Ziyuan Weiyuanhui (National Resources Commission); 003000022627A, Yinshuaye gongchang diaochabiao – Taiwan, er (Inspection Reports on Printing Works – Taiwan, Part II); Yuanxiang Yinshuaju (The Yuanxiang Print Shop); 10 November 1947. 13 Here Zhang is referring to the large studios that originated in Singapore, such as Cathay and Shaw. 14 It would seem that this was often done without permission. Although this occurred towards the end of the industry’s life, there were reports in the Singapore press in 1959 of an Amoy-dialect film crew being accused of attempting to shoot on the premises of that city’s Pasir Ris Hotel without the permission of the hotel’s owners (The Straits Times 6 May 1959). 15 Advertising text in Singapore for one Amoy-dialect film in 1954, for example, urged: ‘If you love listening to good songs and watching good shows, then you can’t miss Zhongcai guniang (The Beautiful Vegetable Grower)’. HKFA: Zhongcai guniang (The Beautiful Vegetable Grower), handbill HB3651X. 16 Archival files in Taipei suggest that he may have been involved in vote rigging in local elections in Xiamen in 1948. NAA: Jianchayuan Fujian Taiwan Jianchaqu Jiancha Shishu (Office of the Ombudsman, Taiwan and Fujian region, Control Yuan); 0037/044100/00007, Xiamen Kaiyunqu Choubeiyuan Huang Zhenji beisu weifa wubi (Huang Zhenji, Member of the Preparatory Committee for Kaiyun District, Xiamen, sued for fraudulence); July 1948. 17 The actress Siu Yim Chao, for example, noted her embarrassment on her first trip to Hong Kong upon realising that a tailor whom Kiao Kwang had sent to her hotel to fit her for costumes understood everything she was saying to a Taiwanese friend in Hokkien (Xiao Yan Qiu 1958a). 18 This term was used by the Singapore-based financier Goh Eng Wah (Wu 1963). We shall examine Goh’s involvement in the industry in Chapter 5. 19 The prefix Lu, literally meaning ‘egret’, is a literary simile for Xiamen. It was also used in the stage names of a handful of other, lesser-known Hokkien performers, including Lu Hong’s sister Lu Fen. 20 Lu Hong’s claims to proficiency in Mandarin (as well as similar claims made by Jiang Fan) were significant. As we shall see below, Amoy-dialect films sat firmly on the bottom of the Chinese cinema hierarchy in the 1950s, and Mandarin cinema at the top. A professed ability to speak the ‘national language’ of China on the part of Amoy-dialect performers thus suggested a degree of sophistication or education that others in the industry may not have acquired, and perhaps even some measure of (Chinese) patriotism. For the same reason, one rarely saw an actress who may have made a name for herself in Mandarin cinema claim proficiency in Hokkien, as to do so would suggest a lower place on the cinematic ladder. 21 Including, in the late 1940s, the ‘Fukien Economic Reconstruction Company’, headed by Singaporean and Malayan businesspeople of Fujianese ancestry (Yong and McKenna 1990: 208). 22 For an example, see Guangyi dianying huabao 1952. 140 Notes 23 The choice of this stage name was significant, though for different reasons. The phrase ‘Pearl of the Orient’ was often used in reference to Hong Kong, and, for a time, to Manila (cf. Manila Merchants’ Association 1908). 24 There were cases, however, of Hokkien-speaking Taiwanese film stars who had spent the late 1950s in Hong Kong making Amoy-dialect films appearing in adver - tisements in Taiwan; and the Amoy-dialect actress Ting Lan advertised alcoholic beverages in the South East Asian Chinese-language press in the late 1950s. 25 Photographs of a number of Amoy-dialect stars now held by Singapore Press Holdings bear the mark of photo studios on Granville Road in Kowloon. 26 The only Hokkien star of the 1950s to adopt a yangming (as far as I am aware) was a Singapore-based cabaret singer called Shirley Koh. As we shall see in Chapter 5, Koh made a small number of Amoy-dialect films in the late 1950s. 27 Throughout this book, for example, I have used the spelling ‘Oh Tong’ for one of the most famous members of the industry. Yet in sources such as The Straits Times, one could also find alternative spellings for this actor-cum-director in occasional film adverts.

4 The shaping of a cinema 1 The Kangxi Emperor’s apparent liking for this musical form is often recounted in oral histories of Nanyin (Chou 2002: 98–9). 2 This will be explored further in Chapter 6. 3 My thanks to James Tan of the Koc Hong Cultural Association for pointing this out to me. 4 Guo Jingning (2003: 320) notes that expatriate members of the Ji’an Tang provided music for this film. 5 ‘A significant regional opera tradition originating in Quanzhou . . . [and] . . . one of China’s most long-established drama traditions’ (Stock 2005). 6 Interestingly, few propaganda films funded by the colonial authorities in Malaya at this time were made in Hokkien, though a substantial number were made in both Mandarin and Cantonese (cf. Department of Information 1953). 7 The 1958 Minsheng film Hunduan Lanqiao (Tragedy on the Blue Bridge), was one of the very few Amoy-dialect films to be set during the war against the Japanese (Guo Jingning 2003: 333). One can only speculate as to why the Amoy-dialect industry appears to have studiously avoided what would surely have been a fertile period for plots, especially in markets such as the Philippines and Singapore. 8 For cinema-goers in southern Taiwan and parts of South East Asia, the lychee was a common fruit. 9 And despite the fact that versions of the story were made into films in other dialects. 10 The ‘famous artistes’ of the Ji’an Tang almost certainly included Chen Jinmu, the musician responsible for training a number of Amoy-dialect celebrities in the art of Nanyin (see Chapter 3). 11 These details were provided in large advertisements for the film placed in the Huaqiao shangbao (The Chinese Commercial News) days prior to its release in Manila on 10 November 1953. 12 ‘Fujian tongbao buke bu kan’. HKFA: Lian li sheng Han Qi (Lian li Gives Birth to Han Qi), handbill HB3642.2X. 13 ‘Fujian Quanzhou zhenren shishi’. The wording is taken from an advertisement for the film that appeared in the 11 January 1958 edition of Zhonguobao (The China Press) in Kuala Lumpur. 14 HKFA: Leipi e jiagu (The Cruel Grandma), handbill HB3648X. 15 ‘Hangman Minnan qingdiao’: The phrase is taken from an advertisement for the film found in the 9 July 1952 issue of Singapore’s Nanfang wanbao (Nanfang Evening Post) (4). Notes 141 16 Bai Yun, who had starred in the Mandarin version made in Shanghai, was recruited to act in and direct the Amoy-dialect film based on this story (Guangyi dianying huabao 1952). 17 ‘Quanbu Xiayu gechang guzhuang minjian da beiju . . . Nanyin jinqu jiazhi liancheng’. HKFA: Liang Shanbo Zhu Yingtai (Lian San Pak Chok Yin Tai), handbill HB4062X. 18 Only one character differentiates the two titles: the character mu (mother) in the Amoy-dialect title is replaced by the character nü (woman) in the Mandarin title. A more literal translation of the two titles might thus be ‘The story of the holy mother Mazu’ and ‘The story of the holy woman Mazu’, respectively. 19 I take all of this information from the extensive file on the film and the legal dispute about it held in Taipei. GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 00686, Shengmu Mazuzhuan (The True Story of Mazu), 1955. 20 The slogan comes from a handbill for the film that was circulated in Singapore. My thanks to Wong Han Min for sharing this handbill with me. 21 Numerous versions of the story exist in song and fiction. Fan et al. (2006: 3–10) place the date of the deaths of the real historical figures as being in 1927. The Tainan Canal had been designed and created by the Japanese during their reign over Taiwan, and the Amoy-dialect film about the deaths is one of only a small number of Xiayupian set in Taiwan during the era of Japanese colonialism. 22 GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 00802, Yunhe xunqing ji (Dying Together in the Canal), 1956. 23 The term ‘bensheng’ literally means ‘this province’, but in the Taiwan context might best be translated as ‘local’. At a time when neither government nor the media in Taiwan made much distinction between the Hokkien that was spoken in Taiwan and that spoken by Fujianese émigrés in Hong Kong, Taiwan-based film- makers could differentiate their product from that of their rivals only by stressing the ‘local’ (i.e., Taiwanese) origins of their casts. 24 The Madras was known in Chinese as Zhonghua Xiyuan (lit., ‘The Chinese theatre’) and catered almost exclusively to a Chinese clientele. 25 My evidence for this particular ‘battle’ comes from the movie pages of the Kuala Lumpur-based newspaper Zhongguobao (The China Press) from January 1957. 26 In her 1954 report (Koek 1954: 2), the Singapore film censor noted that ‘there was only one film of local production [that year] and it was in Hokkien’. We might assume that this is a reference to Homesickness Sent from Afar. 27 See issue 63 of Guangyi dianying huabao (Kong Ngee Movie Pictorial), published in September 1953. At that time the mosquito press in Singapore habitually included what would, in Taiwan, have been considered ‘vulgar’ images of cabaret entertainers. 28 One wonders, however, if Wong Ching-ho’s later dismissal of Dongfang Mingzhu as ‘unattractive’ might have had anything to do with disapproval in ‘Little Fujian’ of such behaviour (Wang 2002). 29 See Chapter 3. 30 My only record of this film’s existence comes from advertisements for it in Taiwanese newspapers dating from March 1956. These advertisements contain no reference to any director or production company, but do inform us that Huang Ying and Oh Tong played supporting roles.

5 The ‘new Amoy-dialect films’ 1 On Taiwanese audience fatigue with Jiang and others of her generation, see Huang 1994: 5. 2 The Gangdu Theatre was one of the most important sites of exhibition for Amoy- dialect films in that southern Taiwanese port city. 142 Notes 3 Much of the literature on Li that has been produced in Taiwan over recent years is typical of the ‘nativist turn’ in that society, and focuses primarily on his contributions to Taiyu popular music while barely mentioning his role in the revival of the Amoy-dialect film industry. In a biography of Li that was recently published by the Taipei City Government (Huang 2009), the term ‘Xiayupian’ is not even used. 4 One example – though a not particularly important one in the wider context of the industry – was Qiaolong Film Company (lit. ‘Overseas Chinese Dragon’). This was set up by Philippine-Chinese investors in Taipei in January 1956; its founders explicitly cited the Retail Nationalization Act as the main reason for the establish- ment of their enterprise (Zhongguobao 18 January 1960). 5 Nanyang guangbo yuekan, issues 427 and 434, published in February and April 1959, respectively. 6 Ivy Ling Po (formerly Seow Kuen), for example, recalls that there was little direct contact between people such as Jiang Fan and Lu Hong and her own generation of Amoy-dialect actresses in this period, mainly on account of the age difference between them (Kenneth Bi, personal communication, 9 February 2010). 7 On the whole, Hokkien speakers in Taiwan were people who had lived on the island prior to the arrival of the Nationalists in 1945 and who had therefore experienced the period of Japanese colonialism there. 8 ‘Modern Hong Kong women’, sang Chong Sit Fong in one of her films, ‘wear their hair in the Hepburn style’ (Modeng Fujian gequ n.d.: 34). 9 Shaw’s own publicity stated in January 1959 that nine Amoy-dialect films were being ‘planned’ for production in that year, but it appears that Shaw Brothers also made a number of other Amoy-dialect films in this same period (Nanguo dianying June 1959). 10 Of his experience with Shaw Brothers, Wong Ching-ho admitted that the studio was far more rational and efficient than any of the small Amoy-dialect production houses had been, but also that Shaw expected a great deal (yaoqiu hen gao) from its staff (Wang 2002). 11 See Chapter 3. 12 HKPRO: Registrar General’s Department, Companies Registry; Voluntary Liquidation of Company Agencies Files: Kiao Kwang Film Company; HKRS114–6-1028; 26 August 1958– 22 February 1963. 13 The advertisement appeared under the heading ‘Qiaoguang Qiaolian zhengqiu yanyuan’ (Kiao Kwang and Qiaolian recruits actors) on page 3 of Zili wanbao (Independent Evening News) on 13 March 1958. 14 NAS: Registry of Companies; Defunct Company Files: Golden City Film Company Ltd; 1957/0031; 1957–65. As well as sharing an English name, the two Golden Cities had similar names in Chinese. Yu’s company (which was much more pro- lific in the production of Xiayupian) went by the Chinese name of Jindu Gongsi, while the Singapore-based company was known as Jincheng Gongsi. The picture was further complicated by the fact that the Chinese name for Yu’s theatre in Manila (i.e., Golden City) was Jincheng Xiyuan (and not Jindu Xiyuan). 15 Wang was also hired by the Amoy-dialect actress Li Ming in 1961 to provide the music for her self-funded film Pan Jinlian (Lotus Pan), which appears to have been made primarily for distribution in the Philippines (Fan 1961: 7). 16 A transparent reference to the communist victory of 1949 in mainland China. 17 See, for example, Shaw’s film Guanggao meiren (Advertisement Beauty) (1959). 18 South East Asian terms for the ‘Straits Chinese’ – i.e., the descendants of Chinese immigrants to the Straits Settlements who developed their own cultural traditions which set them apart from ‘China-born Chinese’. 19 All are titles of songs found in publications such as Zuixin dianying modeng Fujian gequ 1960. Notes 143 20 I thank Wong Han Min for showing me a number of handbills from these films. 21 Only when the film was re-titled Fawang nan tao (Crime Doesn’t Pay) – and the offending scenes removed – was it permitted in Taiwanese theatres some years later. GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 01438, Fawang nan tao (Crime Doesn’t Pay), 1961. 22 GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 01304, Penhuo meiren (Fire- breathing Beauty), 1960. 23 This was not necessarily the case in some parts of South East Asia, including the Philippines. 24 Qian A’na (lit., ‘Anna Money’), a character in the film Money, Money, Money, is only one example. Putting aside the obvious western connotations inherent in such a name, it is noteworthy that the name Anna also had something of a Fujian-specific heritage. The Black Cat Dancing Hall (Heimao Tiaowu Chang) on Xiamen’s Bund, which was known as ‘the most modern dancing hall in Amoy’ in the 1930s, boasted the famed ‘wunü A’na’ (‘Anna the Dancing Girl’). 25 The films they made, however, were transported around the region on Malayan Airlines and Air America flights. 26 The term ‘Modeng Minqu’, for instance, appears in Wo de geji 1952: 122. 27 Particular time slots were also set aside for modern Cantonese and Mandarin songs. 28 Belafonte’s refrain of ‘day-o!’ was turned into the Singapore-Hokkien expression for ‘black tea’ – te-o (H). 29 Chong’s style of singing was distinctly shidaiqu in quality – unlike the older stars of the industry, such as Jiang Fan, who maintained a distinctly Nanyin sound. 30 The fact that performers such as Bai Lan and Bai Chong chose the character bai (white) as the first part of their stage names is significant. Ye Longyan (1999: 13) has suggested that this convention was copied directly from the pre-war Shanghai film industry, in which many stars had adopted stage names containing the same character. 31 Wednesday night was ‘Hawaiian night’ (Xiaweiyi zhi ye) at Singapore’s Happy Dancehall (Kuaile Wuting) – which was associated with Eng Wah’s Happy World – in the early 1950s (Guan 1952: 48). 32 Again, this is a practice that was adapted from Mandarin cinema being produced in Hong Kong at the same time; on the use of subtitles for lyrics, see Teo 1997: 30. 33 The details of this arrangement are included in an advertisement featured in Anon. 1959. 34 This particular advertisement appeared on page 3 of the 18 March 1961 edition of Dianying zhoukan (The Movies Weekly). 35 Details are taken from advertisements and copy featured in Huaqiao shangbao (The Chinese Commercial News) for May 1958; see also Yinhua huabao (The Milky Way Pictorial), July 1958.

6 A Cold War industry 1 For a typical example of such scholarship, see Yip 2004: 16–18. 2 This was not only the case for film but also for Hokkien opera, which was encouraged within the Nationalist armed forces. Special units were established to entertain Taiwan-born recruits (Bullard 1997: 107). Taiwan-based Hokkien opera and Nanyin troupes were also encouraged by the Nationalist authorities to travel abroad, particularly to the Philippines (Chou 2002: 108). 3 Files on Ngo, held at Taipei’s Bureau of Mines, detail his investment in coal mining in Taiwan during this period, but also show that Ngo was joined in his endeavours by Lin Hanyong. BOM: Gedi meikuang (Coal mines in each area), 0045/475.1/11–22/312/035–035, 1958. 144 Notes 4 Nationalist censors had no qualms about the content of an Amoy-dialect thriller produced by Huang Zhenji (and jointly directed by Chan Yik-ching and Oh Tong) in 1962, but they did take issue with its title. The title of Zhong gou ji (The Plot to Kill a Dog) had originally included the character 刣 (zhong) to represent the Hokkien word thai (H), or ‘kill’. The film was approved for exhibition in Taiwan only after the offending (non-) character was replaced with the character 殺 (sha), the standard Mandarin term for ‘kill’. GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 01739, Sha gou ji (The Plot to Kill a Dog), 1963. 5 As noted earlier, the Nationalist authorities in Taiwan rarely made a distinction between ‘Xiayupian’ and ‘Taiyupian’: in censorship files, ‘Taiyu’ was used to cover both. 6 This was the only change called for in the entire film. GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 01344, Nongpo cuwen (Breaking the Vinegar Jar), 1959. 7 On the practice of laojun, see Szonyi 2008: 168. 8 While Huang Ying and Xiao Wen visited Kinmen, Jiang Fan visited the outlying islands of Penghu (the site – significantly, given Jiang’s role in the controversial Amoy-dialect film about the Chinese Goddess of the Sea – of the oldest Mazu temple in the Nationalist realm). 9 This would be the last time that most of these Amoy-dialect celebrities would ever see the land of their birth. 10 Lin produced the 1961 bilingual (Mandarin and English) film Yiwan siqian ge zhengren (Fourteen Thousand Witnesses), a dramatisation of the defection to Taiwan of mainland Chinese prisoners-of-war during the Korean War. 11 The only exception seems to have been Chen Huanwen, the director of a number of Amoy-dialect and other films in the mid-1950s (including those produced by Zhang Guoliang and Esteban Ngo), who took part in the first visit in 1953. 12 KMT patronage of Mazu in any form was not without its problems. As Mayfair Yang (2004: 215–16) notes, Chinese governments have maintained (and continue to maintain) a rather ambivalent attitude towards a deity who has the power to both reinforce and undermine claims to cross-Strait unity. 13 For details of the PRC view of He, see Xinhuawang 2005. 14 AH: Taiwan Sheng Jingwuchu (Taiwan Provincial Police); 063000000248A, ‘Zhenjian Feiqiao Shi Weixiong huodong’ (Investigation of the activities undertaken by the Philippine-Chinese Shi Weixiong), 22 October 1955. See also AH: Taiwan Sheng Jingwuchu (Taiwan Provincial Police); 063000000112A, ‘Zhenjian Feilübin Huanghou Xiyuan Zhuang Mingshu huodong’ (Investigation of the activities undertaken by Zhuang Mingshu of Queen’s Theater in the Philippines), 30 December 1956. In martial-law-era Taiwan, suspicions about visit - ing businesspeople were nothing unusual, and in neither of these cases did the police deem any behaviour untoward. Such monitoring does suggest, however, that the Nationalist authorities were never completely certain that their nominal allies within the industry could be trusted. 15 Originally known as the ‘Hong Kong and Kowloon Film-makers Free General Association Limited’ when it was first formed. 16 Alishan Fengyun (Happenings on Mount Ali) (1950). 17 Xu had also directed a 1953 propaganda film (in Mandarin) entitled Meili baodao (Formosa). Ironically, this film followed the fate of Philippine- who had ‘returned’ to Taiwan to invest – precisely as Philippine-Chinese business - people were investing in the Amoy-dialect film industry in Hong Kong. 18 The designation of Eng Wah as ‘fufei’ was discussed at length at a number of meetings in Taipei in the early 1960s. See, for example, ‘Di shijiu ci fufei yingpian gongsi ji yingren shencha huiyi jilu’ (Record of the Nineteenth Meeting on the Investigation of communist-affiliated film companies and individuals), 10 January 1963. GIO: Dianying Jiancha Chu (Film Inspection Office); 02102, Jiahuang xuhuang (Phony Phoenixes), 1963. Notes 145 19 Southern Films to Kwok Seng Film Co., 11 September 1958. NAS: Loke Wan Tho, Correspondence With Film Company Representatives (Arranged In Alpha- betical Order) 1952–6; NA216. Intriguingly, Loke Wan Tho also cooperated with Eng Wah and Yu Koc Le’s Golden City to gain exhibition rights for a number of Amoy-dialect films in South East Asia at about the same time (Yingju zhoubao 19 December 1959). 20 This competition has been explored at length in the academic literature on Hong Kong cinema. On the Left-Right struggle in Cantonese cinema, for example, see Teo 1997: 43–50. 21 This may be why, even today, the very existence of Amoy-dialect cinema is ignored by historians telling the story of ‘pro-PRC’ film companies in Hong Kong. For example, Xu’s (2005) history of Southern Film Company (which was responsible for exporting PRC-produced films to diasporic audiences in South East Asia in the 1950s and 1960s), does not even mention Xiayupian, despite focusing on ‘dialect cinema’ in much of the book. 22 ‘Great news!’ exclaimed advertisements sponsored by Yung Lo Theater on page 6 of Lianhebao (United Daily News) on 6 April 1957: ‘Let’s welcome the queen of Taiwanese Hokkien films Xiao Wen . . . who has come to Taiwan to make a new specially-selected, authentic Taiyu movie’. 23 Ting Lan’s Hokkien Hua Mulan predated the now much better known Mandarin film Hua Mulan (Lady General Hua Mulan) (1964), which was produced by Shaw Brothers and which starred (ironically) Ivy Ling Po – an artist whose career had started in Xiayupian (See Chapter 7). The Shaw version of the story is often presented as evidence of a correlation between Nationalist ideas of patriotism in the 1960s and the Mandarin film industry, which was dominated in this era by Shaw (Harris 2008). One might speculate about what the earlier interpretation by Ting Lan – and the Nationalist state’s support for this endeavour – might tell us about the link between Xiayupian and the KMT in the late 1950s and early 1960s. As far as I am aware, no copies of the Ting Lan film survive. My knowledge of its existence is based solely on references in the entertainment press of the day (such as those cited above) and its mention in official Taiwan sources (e.g., Shen 1962: 570).

7 The end of Amoy-dialect cinema 1 Indeed, Goh Eng Wah (Wu 1963) noted this fact about the Philippines when defending his decision to invite Oh Tong and Wong Ching-ho to Malaysia. 2 In which the original ‘Brother Wang’ had been played by Oh Tong, and the original ‘Brother Liu’ by Wong Ching-ho. 3 She would be mobbed by enthusiastic fans on her arrival in Singapore nearly two years later (The Straits Times 1 April 1963). 4 Details of the company’s history are on its website: http://yklcolor.com. 5 Written with identical Chinese characters. 6 The new Jiang Fan regretted that she had never had the chance to meet the original Jiang Fan in person, and knew little about her (Duo 1982: 39). 7 ‘Ivy Ling Po is Seow Kuen’ is the headline in one contemporary fan publication from Taiwan (Xu 1963: 33). 8 Even as late as 1996, TNA re-released a two-volume set of Seow Kuen recordings from her Xiayupian days on CD under the title Xiao Juan zhuanji (Ling Bo) (Seow Kuen album (Ivy Ling Po)). 9 Its unflattering depictions of Shi Weixiong (the head of Hua Xia in the film is a character named Shi Shunfa) prompted that financier to visit Taipei the same year and launch legal proceedings against the production company Tailian for defamation. Even more significant than the use of Shi’s surname was the use of ‘Shunfa’ – the personal name of the actor who went under the stage name of Oh Tong (i.e., Hu Shunfa). One could even interpret this as a veiled attack on Oh Tong, one of the most representative members of ‘the family’. 146 Notes 10 Regular Chinese broadcasting on Philippine television commenced in 1965 through the KMT-controlled Voice of Principle (Zhengyi zhi sheng) service. This broadcaster not only showed old Amoy-dialect films but also interviewed ageing Amoy-dialect stars (such as Ting Lan and Chen Qiusheng) through until the 1970s – as evidenced in its periodical Zhengyan (Listener’s Magazine).

8 Conclusion 1 And little sense, at the time, that such films merited preservation anyway (Cynthia Goh, personal communication, 9 April 2007). 2 As noted in the acknowledgements, this book would certainly not have been possible had it not been for the assistance of both the HKFA and the CTFA, and access to their extensive collections. Bibliography

Amyot, Jacques (1973) The Manila Chinese: Familism in the Philippine Environment, Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University. Ang See, Teresita, Go Bon Juan, Doreen Go Yu and Yvonne Chua (eds) (2005) Tsinoy: The Story of the Chinese in Philippine Life, Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran. Anon. (1959) ‘Lüetan Jiang Fan’ (‘A sketch of Jiang Fan’), 2–3, in Yichun liu san (Yichun Leaves an Umbrella), Hong Kong: Nantian Shuye Gongsi, film programme. Appadurai, Arjun (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Appleton, Sheldon (1959) ‘Communism and the Chinese in the Philippines’, Pacific Affairs, 32, 4 (Dec): 376–91. –––– (1960) ‘Overseas Chinese and economic nationalization in the Philippines’, Journal of Asian Studies, 19, 2: 151–61. Bai, Ke (1956; 2006) ‘Zhou Cheng guo Taiwan’ (‘Zhou Cheng makes the crossing to Taiwan’), 26–7, in Ren Huang (ed.), Youxiu Taiyupian pinglun jingxuanji (A collec - tion of critiques of outstanding Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Yatai Tushu. Balisacan, Arsenio M. and Hal Hill (2003) ‘An introduction to the key issues’, 3–44, in Arsenio M. Balisacan and Hal Hill (eds), The Philippine Economy: Development, Policies and Challenges, New York: Oxford University Press. Berry, Chris and Mary Farquhar (2006) China on Screen: Cinema and Nation, New York: Columbia University Press. Berry, Chris and Laikwan Pang (2008) ‘Introduction, or, What’s in an “s”’, Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 2, 1: 3–8. Bockhurst-Heng, Wendy (1999) ‘Singapore’s Speak Mandarin Campaign: language ideological debates in the imagining of the nation’, 235–65, in Jean Blommaert (ed.), Language Ideological Debates, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brooks, Barbara J. (2000) ‘Japanese colonial citizenship in treaty port China: the location of Koreans and Taiwanese in the imperial order’, 109–24, in Robert Bickers and Christian Henriot (eds), New Frontiers: Imperialism’s New Communities in East Asia, 1842–1953, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Brösicke, Blandina (2000) ‘The ideal sound of Fujian Nanyin’, Chime, 14/15 (Dec): 82–8. Bullard, Monte R. (1997) The Soldier and the Citizen: The Role of the Military in Taiwan’s Development, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Cartier, Carolyn (2001) Globalizing South China, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Chang, Chu-kun (1959) ‘Preface’, i–vi, in Kao Yun-lan, Annals of a Provincial Town, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. 148 Bibliography Chen, Edwin W. (2003) ‘Musical China, classical impressions: a preliminary study of Shaws’ Huangmei diao film [sic]’, 51–73, in James C. Alexander and Ain-ling Wong (eds), The Shaw Screen: A Preliminary Study, Hong Kong: HKFA. Chen, Geng (2005) Qianqiu liyuan zhi Haixia beige (The tragic song of opera in the Taiwan Strait), Fuzhou: Haichao Sheying Yishu Chubanshe. Chen, Huanwen (1954) ‘Daoyan de hua’ (‘From the director’), 3–4, in Li jing yuan (The Lychee and the Mirror), Singapore: Yuandong Wenhua Gongsi, film programme. Chen, Szu-wei (2005) ‘The rise and generic features of Shanghai popular songs in the 1930s and 1950s’, Popular Music, 24, 1: 107–25. Chen, Xingqi (2007) ‘1960 niandai Taiyupian yanyuan yu yingye zhi guanxi’ (‘The relationship between Taiwanese Hokkien actors and the film industry in the 1960s’), 26–49, in Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan (ed.), Chunhua Menglu wushinian: Taiyupian xueshu yantaohui lunwenji (Fifty years of Chunhua Menglu: collection of papers from the Academic Conference on Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Guoli Zhengzhi Daxue yu Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan. Chen, Yande (2000) ‘Lun Minguo shiqi huaqiao zai Xiamen jingji shenghuo zhong de zuoyong’ (‘On the role of overseas Chinese in the economic life of Republican Xiamen’), Zhongguo Shehui Jingjishi Yanjiu (Chinese Studies in Social and Economic History), 2: 72–9. Chen, Yongfeng (2004) Taizhong dianying chuanqi (The Legend of Taichung Cinema), Taichung: Taizhong Shizhengfu. Chen, Yu (2008) ‘The making of a bund in China: the British Concession in Xiamen (1852–1930)’, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7, 1: 31–8. Chiao Hsiung-ping, Peggy (2003) ‘The female consciousness, the world of significa- tion and safe extramarital affairs: a 40th year tribute to The Love Eterne’, 75–85, in James C. Alexander and Ain-ling Wong (eds), The Shaw Screen: A Preliminary Study, Hong Kong: HKFA. Chinatown East (1982) ‘Chinatown moviehouses: from burlesque to kung fu’, 1, 10 (April): 14. Chou, Chiener (2002) ‘Issues of identity in Nanguan music’, Music in China, 4: 89–128. Chu, Gregory (1983) ‘The demise of Amoy dialect films in the Republic of China’, Stone Lion Review, 11: 50–5. Chu, Yingchi (2003) Hong Kong Cinema: Coloniser, Motherland and Self, London: Routledge. Chua, Beng Huat (2001) ‘Pop culture China’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22, 2: 113–21. –––– (2003) Life is Not Complete Without Shopping: Consumption Culture in Singapore, Singapore: Singapore University Press. Chun, Allen (1995) ‘An oriental orientalism: the paradox of tradition and modernity in Nationalist Taiwan’, History and Anthropology, 9, 1 (Aug): 27–56. –––– (2001) ‘Diasporas of mind, or why there aint no black in Cultural China’, Communal/Plural: Journal of Transnational & Cross-Cultural Studies, 9, 1: 95–109. Cultural Center of the Philippines (1994), CCP Encylopedia of Philippine Art, Volume 8: Film, Manila: Cultural Center of the Philippines. Curry, Ramona (2008) ‘Bridging the Pacific with Love Eterne’, 174–98, in Poshek Fu (ed.), China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. The Daily Mirror (Manila) (1961) ‘Lower movie taxes asked’, 9 May: 18. Bibliography 149 De Vega, Guillermo C. (1975) Film and Freedom: Movie Censorship in the Philip - pines, Manila: Guillermo C. de Vega. Department of Information (1953) Films of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Information. Devadas, Vijay (2006) ‘Rethinking transnational cinema: the case of Tamil cinema’, Senses of Cinema, 41 (Oct–Dec). Devadas, Vijay and Selvaraj Velayutham (2008) ‘Encounters with “India”: (Ethno)- nationalism in Tamil cinema’, 154–71, in Selvaraj Velayutham (ed.), Tamil Cinema: The Cultural Politics of India’s Other Film Industry, London: Routledge. Dianying quan (The Screen Voice) (1954) ‘Lu Hong shenghuo zhao’ (‘Everyday images of Lu Hong’), 22 (Sep): 23–4. Dianying zhoubao (The Movies Weekly) (1960) ‘Ding Lan liang xin pian: Mu Lan congjun yu Qian zuo guai’ (‘Two new Ting Lan films: Mulan Joins the Army and From Riches to Rags’), 5 November: 1. –––– (1960) ‘Wei Xiayupian dai lai xin de qixi: Gao Xiaoli qiantu wu ke xianliang’ (‘Bringing a breath of fresh air to Amoy-dialect films: Shirley Koh’s future is limitless’), 13 August: 1 –––– (1960) ‘Xiayu dianying huanghou cong tian er jiang’ (‘The queen of Amoy- dialect films falls from the sky’), 5 November: 1. –––– (1960) ‘Xiao Juan biaoshi shiye wei zhong, fouren shetan lianai’ (‘Seow Kuen says that work comes first, denies she is on the look out for love’), 20 Novem- ber: 1. –––– (1961) ‘Kewang chengwei mingri Xiayupian yinghou de Ding Lan’ (‘Ting Lan – the one with hopes of becoming tomorrow’s Queen of Amoy-dialect cinema’), 14 January: 2. –––– (1961) ‘Xiayu yingpian mingxing beiju fengge de Xiao Juan’ (‘Seow Kuen: a unique Amoy-dialect star’), 25 March: 1. Du, Yunzhi (1988) Zhonghua Minguo dianyingshi (A history of film in the Republic of China), Taipei: Wenjianhui. Duo, Yin (1982) ‘Jiang Fan weile xiju shengming jieshu le hunyin shenghuo’ (‘Jiang Fan gives up married life to concentrate on drama’), Jinri dianying (Cinema Today), 141 (Dec): 38–9. Emery, Robert F. (1963) ‘The successful Philippine decontrol and devaluation’, Asian Survey, 3, 6 (June): 274–84. Ernü qingshen (Love’s Obligation) (1955) Hong Kong: Xianggang Yingyi Chubanshe, film programme. Fan, Qing (1961) ‘Kanguo le Xiayupian Pan Jinlian shipian’ (‘On seeing the screen tests for the Amoy-dialect movie Lotus Pan’), 5–7, in Pan Jinlian (Lotus Pan), Hong Kong: Riyue Yingye Gongsi, film programme. Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (1964) The Philippine-Chinese Yearbook, 1964–5, Manila: FFCCCI. Fonoroff, Paul (1998) ‘Hong Kong cinema’, 31–46, in Yingjin Zhang and Zhiwei Xiao (eds), Encyclopedia of Chinese Film, London: Routledge. Fu, Poshek (1999) ‘Selling fantasies at war: production and promotion practices of the Shanghai cinema, 1937–1941’, in 187–205, Sherman Cochran (ed.), Inventing Nanjing Road: Commercial Culture in Shanghai, 1900–1945, Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University. –––– (2003) Between Shanghai and Hong Kong: The Politics of Chinese Cinemas, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 150 Bibliography –––– (2007) ‘Modernity, diasporic capital and 1950s Hong Kong Mandarin cinema’, Jump Cut, 49. Available at: www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc49.2007/Poshek/text.html. –––– (2008) ‘Japanese Occupation, Shanghai exiles and postwar Hong Kong cinema’, China Quarterly, 194: 380–94. –––– (ed.) (2008) China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Fu, Poshek and David Desser (eds) (2000) The Cinema of Hong Kong: History, Arts, Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gao, Shen (1955) ‘Tan Mazu guansi (xia)’ (‘On the Mazu court case, part two’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 5 November. Gaoxiongshi Dianying Xiju Gonghui (The Kaohsiung City Film and Drama Union) (2008) Gangdu kua shiji dianyingshi (A cross-century history of cinema in Kaohsiung), Kaohsiung: Gaoxiongshi Dianying Xiju Gonghui. Gongshi (Public Television Service) (2008a) Gezai chuanqi (si): Bei yiwang de dianying gezaixi (The legend of Hokkien opera (Part 4): the forgotten art of film opera), Taipei: Gongshi, DVD. –––– (2008b) Gezai chuanqi (wu): Dianshi gezaixi (The legend of Hokkien opera (Part 5): Televised opera), Taipei: Gongshi, DVD. Government Printing Office (1953) Report of the Department of Broadcasting for the years 1946–1952, Singapore: Government Printing Office. –––– (1955) Annual Report of the Board of Film Censors, 1955, Singapore: Govern - ment Printing Office. –––– (1959) Colony of Singapore Annual Report, 1958, Singapore: Government Printing Office. –––– (1960) State of Singapore Annual Report, 1959, Singapore: Government Printing Office. Grandview (1955) ‘Grandview’s dubbing department’, 6 (July): 1. Grewal, Inderpal, Akhil Gupta and Aihwa Ong (1999) ‘Guest editors’ introduction’, Positions, 7,1 (Winter): 653–66. Guan, Xinyi (Kwan Sin Ngee) (1952) Xiayu huaji (Amoy-dialect comedies), Singapore: Chunxiao Guangboju Zu. –––– (1992) Interview by Tan Beng Luan, 18 August. Oral History Collection, 1369/14 (Reel 2). Singapore: NAS. Guanghua ribao (Kwong Wah Jit Poh) (1958), ‘Zhuang Xuefang you Gang fei Taiwan’, (‘Chong Sit Fong flies from Hong Kong to Taiwan’), 22 November: 2. Guangyi dianying huabao (Kong Ngee Movie Pictorial) (1952) ‘Bai Yun biandao Minyupian Tang Bohu dian Qiuxiang’ (‘Bai Yun edits and directs the Hokkien film Tang Bohu’s seduction of Qiuxiang’) 50 (June): 8. –––– (1954) ‘Li jing yuan’(‘The Lychee and the Mirror’), 70 (July): 16. Guangyi dianying huakan (Kong Ngee Film Pictorial) (1952) ‘Shen jian sizhi de Bai Yun’ (‘The multitalented Bai Yun’), 56: 7. Guldin, Gregory (1977a) ‘“Overseas” at home: the Fujianese of Hong Kong’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Anthropology. –––– (1977b) ‘Little Fujian (Fukien): sub-neighbourhood and community in North Point, Hong Kong’, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 17: 112–29. –––– (1980) ‘The ebbing of the overseas tide: Fujian, the Philippines and the rise of the PRC’, Asian Profile, 8, 6 (Dec): 506–20. Bibliography 151 Gunn, Edward M. (2006) Rendering the Regional: Local Language in Contemporary Chinese Media, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Guo, Jingning (Kwok Ching-ling) (2003) Xianggang Yingpian Daquan (Disi juan), 1953–1959 (Hong Kong Filmography, Vol. 4, 1953–9), Hong Kong: HKFA. Guo, Jiqing (2003) Gezaixi zai Gaoxiong (Hokkien opera in Kaohsiung), Kaohsiung: Gaoxiong Lishi Bowuguan. Guy, Nancy (2005) Peking Opera and Politics in Taiwan, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Haberer, Claude (2009) Between Tiger and Dragon: A History of Philippine Relations with China and Taiwan, Manila: Anvil Publishing. Harper, T.N. (1999) The End of Empire and the Making of Malaya, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Kristine (1999) ‘ “The Romance of the Western Chamber” and the classical subject film in 1920s Shanghai’, 51–73, in Yingjin Zhang (ed.), Cinema and Urban Culture in Shanghai, 1922–1943, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. –––– (2008) ‘Modern Mulans’, Paper presented at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting, Atlanta. He, Youren (1955) ‘Taiyu yinghou Jiang Fan’ (‘Jiang Fan – the queen of Hokkien film’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 9 November: 2. –––– (1957) ‘Xiao Yan Qiu xiqi yang yang; zhipianren datan aiqing’ (‘Siu Yim Chao looks delighted; the producer discusses love’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 11 December: 2. Hoberman, J. (1991) Bridge of Light: Yiddish Film Between Two Worlds, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Hong, Buren (2007) Xiamen dianying bainian (One hundred years of cinema in Xiamen), Xiamen: Xiamen Daxue Chubanshe. Hong, E (1954) ‘Jieshao Xiamenyupian Li jing yuan’ (‘Introducing the Amoy-dialect film The Lychee and the Mirror’), Guangyi Dianying Huabao (Kong Ngee Movie Pictorial), 67: 15. Hong Kong Government Press (1961) Hong Kong, 1960, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Press. Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno (1973) Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming, London: Allen Lane. Hsiao, Shi-ching (1975) History of Chinese–Philippine Relations, Quezon City: Bookman. Hsuan Tsung (1952) ‘The Chinese stage and screen’, The Straits Times, 21 September: 14. Huang, Jianye (ed.) (2005) Kua shiji Taiwan dianying shi lu, 1898–2000 (yi) (Chronicle of Taiwan Cinema, 1898–2000 (I)), Taipei: Wenjianhui. Huang, Ren (1987) ‘Zhongguo suotanpian de da daoyan Xu Xinfu’ (‘Xu Xinfu: a director of Chinese detective films’), Jinri dianying (Cinema Today), 151: 66–70. –––– (1994) Dianying yu zhengzhi xuanchuan (Film and political propaganda), Taipei: Wanxiang. –––– (2006) ‘Taiyupian ershiwu nian de liubian yu zaizheng’, (‘The development and rebirth of Taiwanese Hokkien films over twenty-five years’), 250–77, in Ren Huang (ed.), Youxiu Taiyupian pinglun jingxuanji (A collection of critiques of outstanding Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Yatai Tushu. –––– (ed.) (2006) Youxiu Taiyupian pinglun jingxuanji (A collection of critiques of outstanding Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Yatai Tushu. 152 Bibliography –––– (ed.) (2007) Kaituo Taiyupian nüxing xianqu (The female pioneers of Taiwanese Hokkien cinema), Sindian: Nongxue. Huang, Xinzhang (2009) Li Linqiu yu ‘Wang Chunfeng’ de niandai (Li Linqiu and the era of ‘Watching on the spring breeze’), Taipei: Taibeishi Wenxianhui. Huang, Ying-che (2006) ‘Were Taiwanese being “enslaved”? The entanglement of Sinicization, Japanization, and Westernization’, 312–26, in Liao Ping-hui and David Der-wei Wang (eds), Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1895–1945: History, Culture, Memory, New York: Columbia University Press. Huaqiao shangbao (Chinese Commercial News) (1953) ‘Li jing yuan jin kaiying’ (‘The Lychee and the Mirror premieres today’), 10 November: 7. –––– (1955) ‘Niulang zhinü xia yue kaijing’ (‘Filming to start on The Cowherd and the Spinning Girl next month’), 8 May: 5. –––– (1955) ‘Meng Jiangnü’(‘The Maiden Meng Jiang’), 10 May: 7. –––– (1955) ‘Wu Hongbu zai Gang zhankai huodong yu Shaoshi dingyue liubu hetong’ (‘Esteban Ngo expands his activities in Hong Kong, signs an agreement with Shaws for six pictures’), 17 June: 7. –––– (1961) ‘Xianggang Xiayu yingxing jutuan shouwan yanchu jieshou huanying’ (‘The Great Hong Kong Amoy-dialect Film Star Troupe receives a warm welcome on its opening night’), 8 July: 2. –––– (1961) ‘Bai Lan zhi Jindu qi ren, shuo ba ta dang yaoqianshu’ (‘Bai Lan accuses Golden City of cheating her and treating her like a cash cow’), 18 July: 2. –––– (1961) ‘Gang duli zhipian bu jingqi: Chaoyupian que jian you qise; Jinnian yi chupin shiba bu’ (‘Independent film-makers in Hong Kong are no longer finding it lucrative, but Chaozhou-dialect films are taking off; eighteen have already been released this year’), 13 August: 2. Huaqiao xiaobao (Oversea Chinese Periodical) (1953) ‘Ma qiaosheng Zhongguo mingxing Mingzhu zai Gang fu anmianyao zisha’ (‘The Malayan-born Chinese actress “Pearl of the Orient” attempts suicide with sleeping pills in Hong Kong’), 21 May: 3. Hughes, Stephen Putnam (2007) ‘Music in the age of mechanical reproduction: drama, gramophone, and the beginnings of Tamil cinema’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 66, 1: 3–34. Hui, Dao (1959a) ‘Bai Hong Lin Chong zaiyu fan Tai’ (‘Bai Hong and Lin Chong return to Taiwan in glory’), Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly) 15 August: 10. –––– (1959b) ‘Bai Yi zai Xianggang da lao’ (‘Bai Yi’s big scoop in Hong Kong’), Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly) 29 August: 10. Hui, Yidao (1959) ‘Xiao Yan Qiu dinghun zhi mi’ (‘The mystery of Siu Yim Chao’s engagement’), Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly), 12 September: 9. Hunt, Leon and Leung Wing-Fai (2008) ‘Introduction’, 1–13, in Leon Hunt and Leung Wing-Fai (eds), East Asian Cinemas: Exploring Transnational Connections on Film, London: I.B. Tauris. Hwang, T.F. (1952) ‘They don’t want to be film stars’, The Straits Times, 27 July: 8. Idema, Wilt L. (2008) ‘Meng Jiangnü: the development of a legend’, 3–23, in Idema (ed.), Meng Jiangnü Brings Down the Great Wall: Ten Versions of a Chinese Legend, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Jarvie, I.C. (1979) ‘The social and cultural significance of the demise of the Cantonese movie’, Journal of Asian Affairs, 3, 2: 40–50. Bibliography 153 Jian, Shangren (1992) Taiwan geyao (Taiwan songs), Taipei: Zhongwen. Jiang, Fan (1954) ‘Tan Nanyin jinqu’ (‘On Nanyin ballads’), 3–4, in Li jing yuan (The Lychee and the Mirror), Singapore: Yuandong Wenhua Gongsi, film pro- gramme. Jones, Stephen (1995) Folk Music of China: Living Instrumental Traditions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, Frank H.H. (1957) The New Malayan Nation: A Study of Communalism and Nationalism, New York: Institute of Pacific Relations. Klöter, Henning (2004) ‘Language policy in the KMT and DPP eras’, China Perspectives, 56 (Nov–Dec): 56–63. Koek, Cythnia (1954) Annual Report of the Film Censor’s Office, 1954, Singapore: Government Printing Office. –––– (1956), Annual Report of the Film Censor’s Office, 1956, Singapore: Government Printing Office. Kuaile xinwen (Happy News) (1956) ‘Wang Yuanren qian li diao fanghun Lin Yingying hanxiao Kafeishan’ (‘Lim Eng Eng is laid to rest in Bukit Brown; Ong Yen Jin travels hundreds of miles to console her soul’), 11 April: 4. –––– (1956) ‘Zhuang Xuefang jiang wang Gucheng yanchang, qie hai choubei fu Shalaoyue zhi xing’ (‘Chong Sit Fong is to perform in Kuching, and is still preparing for her trip to Sarawak’), 7 April: 4. –––– (1956) ‘Zhang Lailai mingxingmeng fenzui’ (‘Chang Lye-lye’s dream of becom - ing a star is shattered’), 19 May: 4. Lau, Eng Swan (n.d.) Transcript of interview, Oral History Collection, 002874 (Reel 4). Singapore: NAS. Lau, Yee-cheung and Lee Kam-keung (2000) ‘An economic and political history’, 25–55, in Y.M Yeung and David K.Y. Chu (eds), Fujian: A Coastal Province in Transition and Transformation, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Law, Kar (2000) ‘The American connection in Hong Kong cinema’, 44–70, in Poshek Fu and David Desser (eds), The Cinema of Hong Kong: History, Arts, Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––– (2008) ‘Shaw’s Cantonese productions and their interactions with contemporary local and Hollywood cinema’, 56–73, in Poshek Fu (ed.) China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Leary, Charles (2008) ‘Electric shadow of an airplane: Hong Kong cinema, world cinema’, 57–68, in Leon Hunt and Leung Wing-Fai (eds), East Asian Cinemas: Exploring Transnational Connections on Film, London: I.B. Tauris. Li, Daoming (2002) Juqingpian quan pianmu (Full catalogue of feature films), Taipei: Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan. Li jing yuan (The Lychee and the Mirror) (1954) Singapore: Yuandong Wenhua Gongsi, film programme. Li, Siu Leung (2008) ‘Embracing glocalization and Hong Kong-Made musical film’, 74–94, in Poshek Fu (ed.), China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Li, Tianxi (2002) Pujiang huaqiao yishi (Anecdotes about overseas Chinese from Pujiang), Xiamen: Xiamen Daxue Chubanshe. Li, Xiangxiu (Lee, Hsiang-hsiu) (1999) Xiaoshi de wangguo (The lost kingdom), Taipei: Shixin Daxue, DVD. 154 Bibliography Li, Yongquan (1994) ‘Mosuo yu kaichuang: Zishen daoyan Li Quanxi fangtanlu’ (‘Starting out: an interview with the experienced director Li Quanxi’), 53–62, in Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan (ed.), Taiyupian shidai (The era of Taiwanese Hokkien cinema), Taipei: Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan. –––– (1998) Taiwan dianying yuelan (Taiwan cinema: an illustrated history), Taipei: Yushanshe. Lianhebao (United Daily News) (1957) ‘Xiao Yan Qiu zai Xianggang paipian yu Jiang Fan naofan’ (‘While shooting a film in Hong Kong, Siu Yim Chao fights with Jiang Fan’), 2 January: 3. –––– (1957) ‘Jiang Fan piaofang jiazhi yiluo qianzhang’ (‘Jiang Fan’s box office value collapses’), 13 January: 6. –––– (1957) ‘Yuetan jutan shuangqi sujiang Yang Weixi’ (‘Yang Weixi, a veteran of both theatre and music’), 8 March: 6. –––– (1957) ‘Xiao Yan Qiu pianran guilai; duanqi nei you jiang zai wang Xianggang (‘Siu Yim Chao flies back home; will return to Hong Kong soon’), 15 April: 4. –––– (1957) ‘Taiyupian de qiantu’ (‘The outlook for Hokkien dialect films’), 20 May: 20. –––– (1957) ‘Lu Hong deng pai xinpian’ (‘Lu Hong and others make a new film’), 6 June: 6. Liao, Jinfeng (2001) Xiaoshi de yingxiang: Taiyupian de dianying zaixian yu wenhua rentong (Vanishing images: the re-appearance of Taiwanese Hokkien films and cultural identity), Taipei: Yuanliu. Lidehusheng gequ xuan (A selection of songs from Rediffusion) (1948) Singapore: Tiger Press. Liew, Kai Khiun (2003) ‘Limited pidgin-type patois? Policy, language, technology, identity and the experience of Canto-pop in Singapore’, Popular Music, 22, 2: 217–33. Lim, Kean Fan (2006) ‘Transnational collaborations, local competitiveness: mapping the geographies of film-making in/through Hong Kong’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 88, 3: 337–57. Lim, Song Hwee (2009) ‘15: the Singapore failure story, “slanged up”’, 9–16, in Chris Berry (ed.), Chinese Films in Focus II, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Lin, Ching-yuan (1981) ‘The 1949–53 Land Reform’, 140–4, in James C. Hsiung (ed.), Contemporary Republic of China. The Taiwan Experience, 1950–1989, New York: The American Association for Chinese Studies. Lin, Mao (2007) ‘Taiyupian diyi wei shuangliao yinghou Bai Lan’ (‘Bai Lan, the first bilingual queen of Taiwanese Hokkien cinema’), 102–7, in Huang Ren (ed.) Kaituo Taiyupian nüxing xianqu (The female pioneers of Taiwanese Hokkien cinema), Sindian: Nongxue. Lin, Zhiyi (ed.) (1955) Ying Yan geji (Songs by the Lim Sisters), Singapore: Ying Yan Xinjutuan. Ling Po, Ivy (2000) Interview by Donna Chu, 19 January. Oral History Collection. Hong Kong: HKFA, unpublished transcript. Liu, Meifang (1993) ‘Chen San Wu Niang yanjiu’ (‘A Study of Chen San and Fifth Madam’), Masters thesis, Department of Chinese Literature, Soochow University, Taiwan. Liu, Xiancheng (1997) Taiwan dianying, shehui yu guojia (Taiwanese cinema, state and society), Xinzhuang: Shijue Chuanbo Yishu Xuehui. Bibliography 155 Liu, Xing (1961) ‘Xiao Juan yao zuo sanqi dongwu’ (‘Seow Kuen wants to be a multilingual creature’), Yinhe huabao (Milky Way Pictorial) 35 (Jan): 28–9. Long, Susan (1997) ‘Have to work hard. Got no choice’, The Straits Times, 25 May: 20. Lou, Tsu-k’uang and Wolfram Eberhard (1972) Asian Folklore and Social Life Monographs, vol. 23, Taipei: The Orient Cultural Service. Lu, Bin (1955) ‘Liang wei Mazu de bijiao’ (‘A comparison of the two Mazus’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 7 November. Lu, Fei (1953) ‘Yingying dadan de changshi’ (‘Eng Eng’s brave effort’), no page numbers, in Enqing shen si hai (Love as Deep as the Sea), Singapore: Wanli Yingpian Gongsi, film programme. Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng (1997) ‘Dialect and modernity in 21st-century Chinese dialect cinema’, Jump Cut, 49. –––– (1997) ‘Historical introduction: Chinese cinemas (1896–1996) and transnational film studies’, 1–31, in Lu (ed.), Transnational Chinese Cinemas: Identity, Nation- hood, Gender, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng (ed.) (1997) Transnational Chinese Cinemas: Identity, Nationhood, Gender, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Lu, Qingrong (2008) Taiwan yingshige renwu zhi (Gazetteer of Taiwanese media personalities), Taipei: Xinwenju. Lü, Sushang (1961) Taiwan dianying xiju shi (A history of film and drama in Taiwan), Taipei: Yinhua Chubanbu. Lü, Ye (1956; 2006) ‘Ping Yunhe qiyuan’ (‘On Tragedy by a Canal’), 64–5, in Huang (ed.), Youxiu Taiyupian pinglun jingxuanji (A selection of critiques of outstanding Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Yatai Tushu. Maltby, Richard (2007) ‘How can cinema history matter more’, Screening the Past 22 (Dec). Available at: http://latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/22/board-richard-maltby. html#fn1. Manila Merchants’ Association (1908) Manila: The Pearl of the Orient, Manila: Manila Merchants’ Association. The Manila Times (1964) ‘P100-M fire hits Chinatown: 8 blocks in crowded area razed’, 22 February: 1, 2-B. Millet, Raphaël (2003) Le cinema de Singapour: paradis perdue, doute existential, crise identitaire et mélancolie contemporaine (Singapore cinema: paradise lost, existential doubt, the crisis of identity and contemporary melancholy), Paris: Editions L’Harmattan. –––– (2006) Singapore Cinema, Singapore: Editions Didier Millet. Milne, R.S. (1966) ‘Singapore’s exit from Malaysia: The consequences of ambiguity’, Asian Survey, 6, 3 (Mar): 175–84. Minlila Huaqiao Gongshang Minglu (Manila Chinese Trade Directory) (1954) Manila: Huaqiao Shangbao. Miyahara, Gyo (1997) ‘The status of the Chinese Filipinos in the 1950s Cebu: an analysis of articles in two local newspapers’, 73–90, in Teresita Ang See (ed.), The Ethnic Chinese as Filipinos (Part II), Quezon City: Philippine Association for Chinese Studies. Morgan, Lloyd (1958) ‘Today’s profile: a rare flower in bloom’, The Straits Times, 14 December: 6. Nanguo dianying (Southern Screen) (1959) ‘Wang Ge yu Liu Ge’ (‘Brother Wang and Brother Liu’), 14 (April): 66–7. 156 Bibliography –––– (1959) ‘Fuqi xiang ma’ (‘Bickering mates’), 15 (May). –––– (1959) ‘Yijiu wujiu nian Xianggang Shaoshi zhipianchang kaipai xinpin yi lan’ (‘An overview of new films being shot at Shaw studios in Hong Kong in 1959’), 16 (June): 32–3. –––– (1959) ‘Girl from Amoy’, 17 (July): 45 –––– (1959) ‘Talented Chang Hsiao-fung joins Shaws’, 18 (Aug): 67. –––– (1959) ‘Sanshisan hao nü jiandie’ (‘Agent Number 33’), 22 (Dec): 72–3. Nanyang shangbao (Nanyang Siang Pau) (1960) ‘Yinghou Xiao Juan xiaojie wei Guojia Xichang yi chang’ (‘Film queen Seow Kuen sings to help raise money for the National Theatre’), 24 November: 7. National Theatre Trust (1961) Annual Report, 1961, Singapore: National Theatre Trust. Needham, Gary (2008) ‘Fashioning modernity: Hollywood and the Hong Kong musical’, 71–87, in Leon Hunt and Leung Wing-Fai (eds), East Asian Cinemas: Exploring Transnational Connections on Film, London: I.B. Tauris. Ng, Kenny K.K. (2008) ‘Inhibition versus exhibition: political censorship of Chinese and foreign cinemas in postwar Hong Kong’, Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 2, 1: 23–35. Ng, Maria N. and Philip Holden (2007), ‘Introduction’, 1–13, in Maria N. Ng and Philip Holden (eds), Reading Chinese Transnationalisms: Society, Literature, Film, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ong, Aihwa (1999) Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ong, Aihwa and Donald M. Nonini (eds) (1997) Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism, New York and London: Routledge. Pan Jinlian (Lotus Pan) (1961) Hong Kong: Riyue Yingye Gongsi, film programme. Pan, Lynn (ed.) (1999) The Encylopedia of the Chinese Overseas, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pang, Laikwan (2004) ‘Magic and modernity in China’, Positions, 12, 2: 299–327. Pang, Nai Yeow (n.d.) Transcript of interview by Cheong Yan Peng, Oral History Collection, 002867 (Reel 5). Singapore: NAS. Philippine-Chinese Business Guide and Pictorial Directory (1953) Manila: Philippine Konghooy Publications. Raju, Zakir Hossain (2008) ‘Filmic imaginations of the Malaysian Chinese: “Mahua cinema” as a transnational Chinese cinema’, Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 2, 1: 67–79. Rao, Liji (ed.) (n.d.) Modeng Fujian gequ (Modern Hokkien songs), Singapore. Rong, Hanshi (1954) ‘Xiayupian de zhanwang’ (‘The outlook for Amoy-dialect films’), 24–5, in Li jing yuan (The Lychee and the Mirror), Singapore: Yuandong Wenhua Gongsi, film programme. Roy, Denny (2003) Taiwan: A Political History, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ruan, Langgui (1950) ‘Cong Xiayupian Tang Bohu dian Qiuxiang zhanwang fangyan dianying zhi qiantu’ (‘Examining the outlook for dialect films by considering the Amoy-dialect movie Tang Bohu’s seduction of Qiuxiang’), 3–4, in Ji Buxi (ed.), Tang Bohu dian Qiuxiang (Tang Bohu’s seduction of Qiuxiang), Singapore: Zhongnan Yingye Gongsi, film programme. Rudolph, Jürgen (1996) ‘Amusements in the three “worlds”’, 21–33, in Sanjay Krishnan, Sharaad Kuttan, Lee Weng Choy, Leon Pereira and Jimmy Yap (eds), Looking at Culture, Singapore: Artres Design & Communications. Bibliography 157 Salumbides, Vicente (1952) Motion Pictures in the Philippines, Manila: Vicente Salumbides. Sanchez-Lacson, Elizabeth (2008) ‘Anchor Land sets aside P4.5B for new condos’, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 March. Sen, Krishna (2006) ‘“Chinese” Indonesians in national cinema’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 7, 1: 171–84. Shahar, Meir (1998) Crazy Ji: Chinese Religion and Popular Literature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Shandler, Jeffrey (2003) ‘Imagining Yiddishland: language, place and memory’, History and Memory, 15, 1: 123–49. Shangguan, Liuyun (Seong Koon Low Won) (1996) Wuye xiang wen (Sweet kisses at midnight), Singapore: Lingzi Dazhong zhuanbo zhongxin. Shen, James C.H. (1962) China Yearbook, 1961–1962, Taipei: China Publishing. –––– (1966) China Yearbook, 1965–1966, Taipei: China Publishing. Shi, Po (1959) Wang Ge Liu Ge (Brother Wang and Brother Liu), Hong Kong: Shaw Brothers, film script. Shou, Jing (1952) ‘Zhang Xiaofeng yu man Xingzhou’ (‘Chang Hsiao-fung is famous all over Singapore’), Nanfang wanbao (Nanfang Evening Post), 26 February: 4. Spector, Stanley (1956) ‘Students and politics in Singapore’, Far Eastern Survey, 25, 5 (May): 65–73. Stock, Jonathan (2005) ‘Liyuanxi’, 495, in Edward L. David (ed.), Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture, London: Routledge. The Straits Times (1950) ‘First Hokkien records made’, 18 June: 5 –––– (1952) ‘They don’t want to be film stars’, 27 July: 8 –––– (1958) ‘The big rush to be film stars’, 16 October. –––– (1958) ‘3,000 fans at airport, so pretty film star uses secret escape route’, 22 December: 6 –––– (1959) ‘Angry star Ting Lan says: I have never been snubbed like this in all my life’, 6 May: 9 –––– (1963) ‘Police to rescue as fans mob Ting Lan’, 1 April: 9 –––– (1963) ‘Hokkien film stars’, 10 October: 13. –––– (1979) ‘Hokkien, Teochew films: no more stocks’, 24 February: 19. Sun, Wanning (2005) ‘Media and the Chinese diaspora: community, consumption, and transnational imagination’, Journal of Chinese Overseas, 1, 1 (May): 65–86. Sun, Xingqun (1996) Qiangu juechang: Fujian Nanyin tanjiu (A masterpiece for the ages: a study of Fujian Nanyin), Fuzhou: Haixia Wenyi Chubanshe. Szonyi, Michael (2008) Cold War Island: Quemoy on the Front Line, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tan, Antonio S. (1972) The Chinese in the Philippines, 1898–1935: A Study in their National Awakening, Quezon City: R.P. Garcia Publishing. Tan, Chee-Beng (2007) (ed.) Chinese Transnational Networks, London and New York: Routledge. –––– (2007) ‘Introduction: Chinese overseas, transnational networks and China’, 1–19, in Tan (ed.) Chinese Transnational Networks, London: Routledge. Tan, Sooi Beng (2000) ‘The Chinese performing arts and cultural activities in Malaysia’, 316–41, in Lee Kam Hing and Tan Chee-Beng (eds) The Chinese in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Taohua Jiang (Peach Blossom River) (1957), Hong Kong, film programme. 158 Bibliography Taylor, Jeremy E. (2004) ‘Pop music as postcolonial nostalgia in Taiwan’, 173–82, in Allen Chun, Ned Rossiter and Brian Shoesmith (eds), Refashioning Pop Music in Asia: Cosmopolitan Flows, Political Tempos and Aesthetic Industries, London: RoutledgeCurzon. –––– (2005) ‘Images of the home town: the clash of city and village in Taiwanese popular songs’, Chime, 16/17 (Dec): 72–87. –––– (2008) ‘From transnationalism to nativism? The rise, decline and reinvention of a regional Hokkien entertainment industry’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 9, 1 (Mar): 62–81. –––– (2009) ‘“Our native place – our cinema”: nation, state, and colony in the Amoy- dialect film industry of the 1950s’, Journal of Chinese Overseas, 5, 2 (Nov): 235–56. Teo, Stephen (1997) Hong Kong Cinema: The Extra Dimensions, London: BFI Publishing. Tilman, Robert O. (1973) ‘Philippine-Chinese youth today’, 36–49, in Charles J. McCarthy (ed.), Philippine-Chinese Profile: Essays and Studies, Manila: Pagkakaisa Sa Pag-unlad. Toffell, Gil (2009) ‘“Come see, and hear, the mother tongue!” Yiddish cinema in interwar London’, Screen, 50, 3: 277–98. Topley, Marjorie (1969) ‘The role of savings and wealth among Hong Kong Chinese’, 167–227, in I.C. Jarvie (ed.), Hong Kong: A Society in Transition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tsai, Ventine (2004) ‘The sound of “country”: Nanguan appreciation in the Philippines’, 192–221, in Ventine Tsai (ed.), Hold that Note! Stories from Taiwan’s Stage, Taipei: Sinorama Magazine. Tu, Wei-ming (1991) ‘Cultural China: the periphery as the center’, Daedalus, 120, 2: 1–32. Tuohy, Sue (1999) ‘Metropolitan sounds: music in Chinese films of the 1930s’, 200–20, in Yingjin Zhang (ed.), Cinema and Urban Culture in Shanghai, 1922–1943, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Uhde, Jan and Yvonne Ng Uhde (2000) Latent Images: Film in Singapore, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Velayutham, Selvaraj (2008) ‘Introduction: the cultural history and politics of South Indian Tamil cinema’, 1–15, in Selvaraj Velayutham (ed.), Tamil Cinema: The Cultural Politics of India’s Other Film Industry, London: Routledge. Wang, Ailing (Wong, Ain-ling) and Sheng Anqi (Angel Shing) (eds) (2007) Xianggang yingren koushu lishi congshu zhi si: Wang Tianlin (Oral History of persons involved in the Hong Kong film industry 4: Wong Tin Lam), Hong Kong: HKFA. Wang, Gungwu (1985) ‘South China perspectives on overseas Chinese’, The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 13 (Jan): 69–84. Wang, Qinghe (Wong, Ching-ho) (2002), Interview by Yuen Tsz-ying, Kwok Ching- ling and Wong Ain-ling, 29 October. Hong Kong: HKFA, unpublished transcript. –––– (2003) ‘A unique genre of Hong Kong cinema: the rise and decline of Amoy films’, Hong Kong Film Archive Newsletter, 23 (Feb), trans. Teri Chan. Wang, Yiman (2008) ‘The “transnational” as methodology: transnationalizing Chinese film studies through the example of The Love Parade and its Chinese remakes’, Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 2, 1: 9–21. Wang, Ying-fen (2003) ‘Amateur music clubs and state intervention: the case of nanguan music in postwar Taiwan’, Journal of Chinese Ritual, Theatre and Folklore, 141 (Sep): 95–167. Bibliography 159 Wang, Zhaofen (1994) ‘“Zhou Cheng guo Taiwan” gushi de xingcheng ji yanbian’ (‘The formation of and changes to the story of “Zhou Cheng makes the crossing to Taiwan”’), Masters thesis, Department of Chinese, Tung Hai University, Taiwan. Wang, Zhenchun (2006) Xinjiapo getai shihua (Historical jottings on Singapore’s getai scene), Singapore: Qingnian Shuju. Wank, David L. (1999) Commodifying Communism: Business, Trust, and Politics in a Chinese City, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weightman, George Henry (1960) ‘The Philippine Chinese: a cultural history of a marginal trading community’, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, Cornell University. Wickberg, Edgar (1992) ‘Chinese in the Philippines: yesterday and today’, Philippiniana Sacra, 2, 81: 491–504. –––– (1999) ‘The Philippines’, 187–99, in Lynn Pan (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––– (2007) ‘Hokkien–Philippines familial transnationalism, 1949–1975’, 17–36, in Maria N. Ng and Philip Holden (eds), Reading Chinese Transnationalisms: Society, Literature, Film, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Winckler, Edwin A. (1994) ‘Cultural policy on post-war Taiwan’, 22–46, in Stevan Harrell and Huang Chün-chieh (eds) Cultural Change in Post-war Taiwan, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wo de geji (My songs) (1952), Singapore: Zhongguo Maoyi Gongsi. Wong, Ain-ling (2003) ‘Foreword’, in Hong Kong Filmography, Volume IV (1953– 1959), Hong Kong: HKFA. Available at: http://lcsd.gov.hk/CE/CulturalService/ HKFA/en/4-1-32b.php, accessed 18 April 2011. –––– (2006) ‘Preface’, 16–21, in Ain-ling Wong (ed.), The Glorious Modernity of Kong Ngee, Hong Kong: HKFA. –––– (ed.) (2006) The Glorious Modernity of Kong Ngee, Hong Kong: HKFA. –––– (2008) ‘The black-and-white wenyi films of Shaws’, 115–32, in Poshek Fu (ed.), China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Wu, Ronghua (Goh Eng Wah) (1963) ‘Kan qianhua’ (‘Programme foreword’), no page numbers, in Zheng Tianyin and Zhang Rong (eds), Ronghua Yingye Gongsi Xiayu yanyuan nanyou dengtai yanchang tekan (Programme for the southern tour of Eng Wah Amoy-dialect stars), Hong Kong: Eng Wah Organization. –––– (1997), Interview by Chua Chee Huan, 7 July. Oral History Collection, 1907 (Reel 9). Singapore: NAS. Wu, Huiying (2009) ‘Chuan meiti yu xiqu bianqian: cong Xiayupian dao Taiwan dianying gezaixi’ (‘The media revolution and Chinese opera transformation: from Amoy-dialect films to Taiwanese Hokkien opera films’), Jimei Daxue Xuebao (Journal of ), 12, 2: 109–15. Wu, Junhou and Lin Wenpei (1994) ‘Jing ji di li gouzhu mengtu: Huaxing gongzuo renyuan tanjilu’ (‘Planting dreams among the thorns: a record of conversations with employees of Huaxing’), 85–108, in Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan (ed.), Taiyupian shidai (The era of Taiwanese Hokkien cinema), Taipei: Guojia Dianying Ziliaoguan. Xiamen Huaqiaozhi Bianji Weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee on the Xiamen Over- seas Chinese Gazetteer) (1991) Xiamen Huaqiao zhi (Xiamen Overseas Chinese Gazetteer), Xiamen: Lujiang Chubanshe. 160 Bibliography Xiamen ribao (Xiamen Daily) (1955) ‘Tantan “Chen San Wu Niang” zhong de Xiu Huluan’ (‘On [the character of] Xiu Hu Luan in the story of Chen San and Fifth Madam’), 4 March: 3. Xiang, Zi (1953) ‘Fa kan qianyan’ (‘Preface to the first issue’), 1, in Enqing shen si hai (Love as Deep as the Sea), Singapore: Wanli Yingpian Gongsi, film programme. Xianggang nianjian (Hong Kong Almanac) (1965) Hong Kong: Huaqiao Ribao. Xiao Liu (1959) ‘Bai Lan, Bi Hu, Lu Fen: da nao sanjiao lianai’ (‘Bai Lan, But Fu and Lu Fen – one big love triangle’), Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly), 12 September: 9. Xiao Yan Qiu (Siu Yim Chao) (1958a) ‘Xianggang xing, san’ (‘Sojourn in Hong Kong, part 3’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 19 January: 2. –––– (1958b) ‘Xianggang xing, wu’ (‘Sojourn in Hong Kong, part 5’), Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News), 21 January: 2. Xiao, Zhiwei (1999) ‘Constructing a new national culture: film censorship and the issues of Cantonese dialect, superstition, and sex in the Nanjing Decade’, 183–99, in Yingjin Zhang (ed.), Cinema and Urban Culture in Shanghai, 1922–1943, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Xingdao ribao (Sing Tao Daily) (1955) ‘Xianggang ziyou lingyingjie zutuan huiguo qingshou laojun’ (‘Anti-communist performers from Hong Kong form delegation to return home and support the troops’), 26 October. Xinhuawang (2005) ‘Fujiansheng Quanzhou shi zhengfu shubei biaozhang aiguo qiaoling He Yaohuang’ (‘The Quanzhou City Government commemorates He Yaohuang, the patriotic overseas Chinese leader’), 12 December. Available at: http:// news.xinhuanet.com/overseas/2005-01/12/content_2449048.htm, accessed 6 June 2007. Xinshengbao (1955) ‘Tianqi leng, renqing nuan; dieluo han, bao qigan’ (‘There is a feeling of warmth despite the cold weather; lets come together and rally around the flag’), 30 October. Xu, Dunle (2005) Kanguang tuoying: Nanfang Yinye ban shiji de daolu (Film pioneers: the fifty-year path travelled by Southern Films), Hong Kong: MCCM Creations. Xu, Yandun (1963) Ling Bo de chuanqi (The legend of Ivy Ling Po), Taichung: Ruicheng Shuju. Xu, Yongshun (2009) ‘Wo guo dianyingshi fei tan Xiayupian buke’ (‘Amoy-dialect films must be considered in the history of Singapore cinema’), Lianhe Zaobao, 14 November: 30. Yang, Huabin (1990) Feilübin Zhang Helang Jun She yi bai qishi zhou nian jinian tekan (Special Commemorative Programme for the 170th anniversary of the founding of the Tiong Ho Sia Chinese Music Association), Manila: Feilübin Zhang He Lang Jun She. Yang, Mayfair (1997) ‘Mass media and transnational subjectivity in Shanghai: notes on (Re) cosmopolitanism in a Chinese metropolis’, 287–319, in Aihwa Ong and Donald M. Nonini (eds) (1997) Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism, New York and London: Routledge. –––– (2004) ‘Goddess across the Taiwan Strait: matrifocal ritual space, nation-state, and satellite television footprints’, Public Culture, 16, 2: 209–38. Yang, Ming (1957) ‘Shijie yingye disi ba jiaoyi Xianggang’ (‘Hong Kong: the fourth most important centre in world cinema’), Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly), 7 December: 8. Bibliography 161 Ye, Longyan (1997) Taibei Ximending dianyingshi (A history of cinema in Taipei’s Hsimen District), Taipei: Wenjianhui. –––– (1999) Chunhua menglu: Zhangzong Taiyu Dianying xingshuai lü (Dreams of the spring dew: the rise and fall of authentic Taiwanese Hokkien films), Taipei: Bo Yang Wenhua. –––– (2000) ‘Taiyupian yu Xiayupian da duijue’ (‘Competition between Amoy-dialect films and Taiwanese Hokkien films’), Taibei wenxian (Taipei Archives) (March): 105–37. Yeh Yueh-yu (1998) ‘New Chinese cinemas: forms, identities, politics: defining “Chinese”’, Jump Cut, 42: 73–6. –––– (2002) ‘Historiography and Sinification: music in Chinese cinema of the 1930s’, Cinema Journal, 41, 3: 78–97. Yichun liu san (Yichun Leaves an Umbrella) (1959), Hong Kong: Nantian Shuye Gongsi, film programme. Yi, Chen (1964) Taiyu yingxing fuchen lu (The rise and fall of Taiwanese Hokkien film stars), Taipei: Yuchen Shubaoshe. Yi, Shui (1959) Malaiyahua Huayu dianying wenti (The question of Malayan-style Chinese-language films), Singapore: Nanyang Yinshuashe. Yingju zhoubao (Film and Drama Weekly) (1958) ‘Lu Hong zai Gang jiehun’ (‘Lu Hong gets married in Hong Kong’), 22 March: 4. –––– (1959) ‘Bai Hong huainian zuguo youren’ (‘Bai Hong misses her friends in the homeland’), 10 January: 10. –––– (1959) ‘Bai Hong Xiangdao lai hong’ (‘Bai Hong strikes it lucky in Hong Kong’), 11 March: 11. –––– (1959) ‘Da pi mingxing luopo Xianggang’ (‘Many stars are down and out in Hong Kong’), 21 March: 9. –––– (1959) ‘Zhuang Xuefang nongpo cuweng’ (‘Chong Sit Fong breaks the vinegar jar’), 26 September: 9. –––– (1959) ‘Zhuang Xuefang huainian zuguo’ (‘Chong Sit Fong misses the motherland’), 10 October: 9. –––– (1959) ‘Dianying gushi: Hao fuqi’ (‘Film synopsis: A Good Couple’), 24 October: 10. –––– (1959) ‘Bai Lan qiaoran fan Tai’ (‘Bai Lan returns quietly to Taiwan’), 7 November: 10. –––– (1959) ‘Xia Qinxin wei he yu Shaoshi jieyue?’ (‘Why did Xia Qinxin end her contract with Shaws?’), 7 November: 10. –––– (1959) ‘Rong Hua libang xinren Xu Lai’ (‘Eng Wah’s new talent Xu Lai’), 5 December: 9. –––– (1959) ‘Kuxiao Hu Die de Bai Lan’ (‘The Hu Die-like Bai Lan’), 19 December: 8. –––– (1960) ‘Zhuang Xuefang zhong zuyi’ (‘Chong Sit Fong stresses kinship ties’), 12 March: 4. Yingyan Xinjutuan (The Eng Ean Hokkien Operatic Troupe) (1955) Yingyan geji: Zuixin Xiayu liuxing gequ (Collection of Songs by the Lim Sisters: the latest popular Amoy-dialect songs), Singapore: Yingyan Xinjutuan. Yinhe huabao (Milky Way Pictorial) (1958) ‘Zhuang Xuefang suipian fu Fei’ (‘Chong Sit Fong goes to the Philippines to suipian dengtai’), 5 (July): 27. –––– (1960) ‘Xiayupian huanghou: Zhuang Xuefang’ (‘Chong Sit Fong: Queen of Amoy-dialect cinema’), 27 (May): 24–5. 162 Bibliography –––– (1961) ‘Zhuang Xuefang shuo: ta sanshi sui cai jiehun’ (‘Chong Sit Fong says no marriage before the age of thirty’), 41 (Aug): 18–19. –––– (1963) ‘Zhuang Xuefang yongyuan daochu manglu’ (‘Chong Sit Fong is forever busy’), 61 (April): 38–9. Yip, June (2004) Envisioning Taiwan: Fiction, Cinema and Nation in the Cultural Imaginary, Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press. Yong, C.F and R.B. McKenna (1990) The Kuomintang Movement in British Malaya, Singapore: Singapore University Press. Yung, Sai-shing (2006) ‘Celebrating modernity, dazzling sounds and sights: Kong Ngee films and urban media’, 24–37, in Wong Ain-ling (ed.), The Glorious Modernity of Kong Ngee, Hong Kong: HKFA. –––– (2008) ‘Territorialization and the entertainment industry of the Shaw Brothers in Southeast Asia’, 133–53, in Poshek Fu (ed.), China Forever: The Shaw Brothers and Diasporic Cinema, Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Yung, Sai-shing and Chan Kwok Bun (2003) ‘Leisure, pleasure and consumption: ways of entertaining oneself’, 153–81, in Chan Kwok Bun, Tong Chee Kiong (eds), Past Times: A Social History of Singapore, Singapore: Times Editions. Zeng, Yongyi (1998) ‘Tai Min gezai guanxi zhi tantao’ (‘A discussion of the relation - ship between Hokkien opera in Taiwan and in southern Fujian’), 25–46, in Taibeishi Xiandai Xiqu Wenjiao Xiehui (ed.), Taiwan Xinjiapo gezaixi de fazhan yu jiaoliu yantaohua lunwenji (Edited volume of papers presented at the Conference on the development and interaction between Taiwanese and Singaporean Hokkien opera), Taipei: Wenjianhui. Zhan, Changyu (2003) ‘Sishi nian qian, Ling Bo er hui Jiang Furen’ (‘Ivy Ling Po met Madame Chiang Kai-shek twice forty years ago’), Lianhebao (United Daily news), 25 October: D1. Zhan, Changyu and Liang Yufang (2005) ‘Ganxie yangmu dui wo buhao, cai you jintian’ (‘I thank my stepmother for being unkind to me, otherwise I would not be where I am today’), Lianhebao (United Daily News), 29 March. Zhang, Yingjin (2004) Chinese National Cinema, New York and London: Rout- ledge. –––– (2010) Cinema, Space and Polylocality in a Globalizing China, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Zhang, Yingjin and Zhiwei Xiao (eds) (1998) Encyclopedia of Chinese Film, New York and London: Routledge. Zheng, Tianyin and Zhang, Rong (eds) (1963) Ronghua Yingye Gongsi Xiayu yanyuan nanyou dengtai yanchang tekan (Programme for the southern tour of Eng Wah Amoy-dialect stars), Hong Kong: Eng Wah Organization. Zhongguobao (The China Press) (1956) ‘Fei dao Qiaoshang zai Tai chou zu Qiaolong Dianying Gongsi’ (‘Overseas Chinese Businessmen from the Philippines prepare to establish the Qiaolong Film Company in Taiwan’), 18 January. Zhongyang ribao (Central Daily News) (1955) ‘Yingxing pianpian lai’ (‘Stars fly over’), 30 October. Zhou, Xiaohong (2001) Mazu. Gaoxiong. Wo. (Matsu. Kaohsiung. Me.), Taipei: Er Ya. Zhu, Ming (1955) ‘Ernü qingshen’ (‘Love’s Obligation’), 2, in Ernü qingshen (Love’s Obligation), Hong Kong: Xianggang Yingyi Chubanshe, film programme. Zhuang, Yongming (1994) Taiwan geyao zhuixiangqu (A lament for Taiwanese songs), Taipei: Qianwei. Bibliography 163 Zili wanbao (Independence Evening News) (1955) ‘Zongtong fufu zuowan guanshang Shengnü Mazu zhuan yingpian’ (‘The president and Madame Chiang Kai-shek attended a screening of the film The Story of Mazu yesterday evening’), 2 Novem- ber: 4. –––– (1957) ‘Fujian xiaojie Lu Hong’ (‘Lu Hong – Miss Fujian)’, 28 December: 2. Zuixin dianying modeng Fujian gequ (Modern Hokkien songs from the most recent films) (1960), Singapore: Xin Ma Wenhua Shiye Gongsi.

Interviews Bi, Kenneth (2010) (son of Ivy Ling Po) Email correspondence with the author, 9 February. Chong Sit Fong (2006) (former Amoy-dialect actress and performer) Interview with the author, Singapore, 21 November. –––– (2009) Interview with the author, Singapore, 25 August. Goh, Cynthia (2007) (president of Eng Wah Organization, Singapore) Interview with the author, Singapore, 9 April. Xu, Shumei (2009) (Hokkien broadcaster with Rediffusion, Singapore) Interview with the author, Singapore, 25 August.