Movies

Patrick Tse Didn’t End Hong Kong’s Golden Age. He Outlived It

The tributes reach for the word 'legend.' The one film they skip explains why the era they mourn had already closed.
Camille Lefèvre

The obituaries have reached, almost in unison, for a single word: legend. It is the courteous word, the one that lets a career be honored without being read. Yet the golden age said to have closed with Patrick Tse had, in truth, closed long before — and no leading man’s body of work charts that vanishing more exactly than his.

Tse belonged to the founding generation of Cantonese-language cinema, the face an industry wore while it was still inventing its own grammar. To watch him at his height is to watch Hong Kong film discover what it would become; the swagger later directors would canonize as style was, in his hands, simply presence. He was there before there was a school to belong to.

The proof sits in a film the tributes tend to skip. In 1967 Tse starred in Patrick Lung Kong’s The Story of a Discharged Prisoner, a crime drama that carried a Chinese title later audiences would come to know by heart: Ying Hung Boon Sik. Two decades on, John Woo borrowed that title — and much of the film’s moral architecture, its ex-convict trying and failing to go straight — for A Better Tomorrow, the 1986 picture usually filed as the birth certificate of Hong Kong’s golden age. The birth was a reprise. The heroic bloodshed the industry would export to the world was already latent in the Cantonese cinema Tse had starred in, waiting to be reworked.

That is the auteurist rub the eulogies avoid. Tse’s own directing in the 1970s — If Tomorrow Comes, Love in Hawaii — has largely dissolved from view; his on-screen persona, the impeccably vain “Sei Gor,” Fourth Brother, became a self-authored myth that outgrew any single role. He mattered less as a filmmaker than as a fixed point: the continuity a fast-mutating industry kept measuring itself against.

The obituary economy prefers other stories — the hundred-million-dollar estate, the grandsons, the long romances, the son who became a bigger star than the father. All true, all beside the point. Reduce Tse to Nicholas Tse’s father and you invert the lineage: it was the father’s cinema that set the terms the son’s era inherited and monetized.

Which is why his last act reads not as triumph but as symptom. In Time he played an aging contract killer coaxed out of retirement; for it he became, at eighty-five, the oldest Best Actor winner in the history of the Hong Kong Film Awards. The industry told itself a comeback story. Look again and it is closer to an elegy the industry sang to itself — a cinema so short of a present tense that it reached back to its origin generation to feel the weight of its own past.

So when the tributes say an era ends with him, the sentence is true only if you move the date. The studios that made Tse a star are gone; the volume and confidence of Hong Kong’s output thinned for years; the golden age was already a memory the market was living off. His death does not close the era. It confirms, one last time, that the closing had already happened — and that the lights had been kept on out of affection.

His son Nicholas announced the death with the line his father lived by: the show must go on. It is the right sentiment and the wrong prognosis. The show that made Patrick Tse possible ended some time ago. What goes on is the remembering.

Tags: , , , ,

Discussion

There are 0 comments.