The abortive revolution: The South China Film Company in early Cold War Hong Kong (1949–1952)

AbstractAlthough existing scholarship is paying increasing attention to leftist cinema in Cold War Hong Kong, few works fully examine the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) revolutionary filmmaking practices during the early Cold War. Centering on the short-lived leftist studio South China Film Company (1949–1952), this paper argues that the studio’s development epitomized the CCP’s efforts to transform cinematic representation for multiple revolutionary purposes and strengthen the Party’s mobilization of filmmaking communities, which were eventually crushed by escalating conflicts between colonial authorities and the CCP. The films produced by South China Film Company exemplified the CCP’s ambitions to appeal to a Cantonese-speaking local audience and later, to carry out more radical ideological campaigns, influence overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, and conduct thought reform of intellectuals. Film production was accompanied by mobilization of leftist filmmakers. The ideological message and mobilization led to a crackdown by colonial authorities and further drove the CCP to adopt a more implicit approach to launching ideological campaigns. This paper revises the history of South China Film Company and unsettles the existing historiography of Hong Kong leftist cinema that centers mainly on moderation and balance.Keywords: Cold WarHong Kong leftist cinemaSouth China Film CompanyCCP AcknowledgementsI appreciate the insightful comments from Raymond, Tom, and the anonymous reviewer. I would like to thank Daisy Du, Shengqing Wu, and Rita Lin for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I also thank Yiqiao Wang for her invaluable assistance in fact checking materials at the HKFA during this pandemic that makes cross-border research travel extremely difficult.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 ‘Communist Infiltration of Hong Kong Film Industry,’ from Alfred le S. Jenkins to the Department of State, July 26, 1950. Hong Kong U.S. Consulate General, RG 84, Entry 2689, Box 2, Stack 350, Row 60, Compartment 20, Shelf 2, Folder ‘Miscellaneous 1954’, NARA.2 On October 7, 1949, Cai (Citation2006, 318) recorded in his diary that he ‘received a letter from Hong Kong stating that our studio was qiangxing shouhui/ confiscated by the Hong Kong government…I feel worried about the future of South China.’ I could not find more details about this incident, and I am not sure whether the action was targeted at Tears of the Pearl River. However, it seems that the colonial government tried to interrupt the early productions of South China Film Company at least once.3 ‘Communist Infiltration of Hong Kong Film Industry,’ from Alfred le S. Jenkins to the Department of State, July 26, 1950, page 4.4 The cited website 1967.hk.com was created by Wu Dizhou’s family, featuring a biography of Wu and original documents collected by Wu. Some of these documents were published in Wu (Citation2022).5 For more information about the Chaozhou-dialect film, see ‘Haiwai’ (n.d.).6 ‘Communist Infiltration of Hong Kong Film Industry,’ from Alfred le S. Jenkins to the Department of State, July 26, 1950.7 ‘Communist Infiltration of Hong Kong Film Industry,’ from Alfred le S. Jenkins to Department of State, July 26, 1950.8 Shen Ji, who served as the staff representative in the negotiations with Li Zuyong and was deported on January 10, 1952, gives two contradictory versions of the story. In an earlier version, he said he refused Li Zuyong’s deal and actively wrote the denunciation for Ta Kung Pao (Shen Citation2008, 176). In a recent oral history, he said he reached a deal with Li Zuyong and decided to call for an end to the strike, but his article invited by the reading group about the strike was revised by an active member of the reading group and published in Ta Kung Pao without consulting him. Li Zuyong, after reading the article, felt betrayed and fired Shen Ji and Yang Hua, another staff representative (Shen Citation2015, 147-160). In both versions, the article in Ta Kung Pao exacerbated conflicts between Li and filmmakers; after being fired, Shen noticed he was monitored by an agent.9 For more discussion about the year of 1952 and the Party’s changes of cultural policies in Hong Kong, see Wu (Citation2022: 59, 61).Additional informationNotes on contributorsMian ChenMian Chen is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of History at Northwestern University. His research focuses on Communist propaganda in China and the Sinophone world.