Chapter 115: Comprehensive Reviews

When Yan Xu left Saigon, it was nearly noon.

Master Seasui had identified the weaknesses among several individuals; he made exorbitant demands. Yet, every extra day that Gui Dong stayed in Hong Kong meant another day of danger. To expedite Gui Dong’s departure, they had no choice but to agree to Seasui’s terms. However, Jimao managed to secure some benefits for both Yan Xu and himself.

The Baizhan Film Company was transferred under Seasui’s name, including subsequent revenues from Mansion No. 1 and its surrounding properties. However, all screening profits from Mansion No. 1 in Hong Kong and other regions were excluded. Meanwhile, the copyrights for the three films Yan Xu directed would remain his own, although Baizhan would retain publishing and distribution rights. Jimao would no longer participate in company management but would receive 20% of Baizhan Film Company’s annual profits.

Though Seasui repeatedly implored Yan Xu to stay and offered to maintain his current待遇, everything in the company had changed beyond recognition. Yan Xu’s resolve to leave was firm. Deep down, he distrusted others; in the face of profit, many would lose their integrity, especially within these unprincipled underworld circles.

“Mansion No. 1—a tragedy of this city!”

Passing by a newsstand, Yan Xu’s car stopped. After a hectic night, he was still unaware of the public reception of Mansion No. 1’s premiere or how critics and journalists had responded. He casually bought several newspapers, first flipping through the Sing Tao Daily. Before reaching the entertainment section, he noticed a prominent headline on the second page’s commentary section, boldly emblazoned with the words “Mansion No. 1.”

Sing Tao Daily typically relegated film content to the entertainment pages, so seeing it featured in the commentary section piqued Yan Xu’s curiosity.

“Mansion No. 1 is the third film by young director Yan Xu. This time, he focuses his lens on the housing market. Though fictional, the film’s opening data and the subtle developments throughout the plot reflect reality. Slogans like ‘Gangster government, oppressing the ants’ and ‘Collusion between officials and businessmen, provoking public outrage’ are everywhere in the city. How familiar, how resonant. These scenes are common in many parts of Hong Kong. Unsavory tactics—power cuts, provocateurs, paint attacks, relentless gang harassment—many ordinary citizens have experienced or are still enduring these. The film’s portrayal strikes a chord with the city’s lower classes...”

“As the real estate industry continues to develop and housing prices soar, Hong Kong faces severe polarization. On one side, wealth increasingly concentrates in the hands of the rich; on the other, the middle and lower-income classes lose access to essential assets like land and property...”

“High-income homeowners accumulate more properties, generating increasing wealth—not only material but social as well. Meanwhile, many in the middle and lower classes sacrifice a lifetime’s quality of life just to afford a single overpriced home...”

“The rapid expansion of the real estate market and the proliferation of high-priced housing only consolidate wealth among property owners. Due to stark inequities in wealth redistribution, the social status and dignity gap between the lower classes and property owners widens, inevitably exacerbating societal tensions...”

“The city develops. The economy takes flight. Yet the cost is the widespread sacrifice of citizens’ interests. Truly, this is a tragic era...”

The article began with Mansion No. 1 but quickly extended its gaze to Hong Kong’s real estate trends and the resulting economic and social conflicts. If it was a review of the film, it was less a critique and more a vivid depiction and denunciation of the industry’s current state. Yet, within this critique, it served as effective promotion for Mansion No. 1, at least stirring the interest of many ordinary citizens.

“Don’t stand on a moral high ground to condemn us, saying our misfortunes stem from laziness or missed opportunities—that’s nonsense. Look at society today: how many people shirk work? Most toil like ants for just a few hours a day, exhausted as dogs. After work, there’s no place to call home. Raises and promotions are mere hopes; buying a house is a distant dream. What are we supposed to do? Fine, I might not expect much, but prices keep rising—water, electricity, gas, rent, food—even the demands of one’s mother-in-law climb higher. What am I supposed to do in this city? I might not succeed, but I need to live. I need to survive here...”

“For a generation of Hong Kong youth with no hope of owning property, a pressing question remains: what unspeakable crimes must one commit to buy a place to call their own? The so-called housing initiatives? They’re just the government taking away your shelter, then tossing you a tiny doghouse and expecting gratitude...”

“Admittedly, the film is bloody—sometimes nauseatingly so. But what of it? That bloodshed captures the city’s brutal reality. To survive, you must fight fiercely, even ruthlessly. The so-called social morals? They’re just excuses used by the privileged to exploit the ordinary...”

“Although A Chang, the protagonist, is extreme—some say insane—her neglect of her father’s plight, her mad killing spree, sparing not even pregnant women, it all stems from a desperate desire to claim a home in this city. Her madness reflects the invisible pressures society exerts, pressures that inevitably drive a person to madness...”

The article in Ming Pao was penned by Huang Zhan. Only someone as audacious as Uncle Zhan would dare to unleash such scathing diatribes in print, and only his writing escaped editorial censorship.

Having received reviews from Huang Zhan for two of his three films was a great honor for Yan Xu, but it also left him with some regret. Huang had attended two of Yan’s premieres, yet Yan hadn’t noticed his presence either time. As one of Hong Kong’s four prodigious talents, a genius among the city’s top three commentators, and a free spirit, Huang had long been an object of Yan’s admiration.

Compared to the above, the commentary in the Hong Kong Economic Journal was more conventional, focusing less on housing issues and more on the film itself.

“Bloodshed is my dominant impression after watching the film. Shock follows close behind. Such gory thrillers have a market in Hollywood, but none match the realism of Mansion No. 1. Hong Kong’s special effects makeup surpasses Hollywood in my view; from wounds to blood plasma, everything seems authentic...”

“The film presents a variety of killing methods, likely the most brutal in all of Chen Long and Principal’s films. I won’t spoil the details here, but the executions are novel, intriguing, and skillful, tinged with black humor and a chaotic mix of styles—improvisational and coincidental alike. I’m genuinely curious about the mind of genius director Yan Xu, able to orchestrate such tightly packed, innovative, and non-repetitive carnage...”

“The film employs a cross-narrative structure to recount the protagonist’s family’s decades-long ‘cocooned’ existence. Memories intersperse with brutal killings, offering viewers brief respite to prevent aesthetic fatigue, while underscoring the hardships of surviving in Hong Kong. As the mystery unravels near the end, audiences realize A Chang’s bloody rampage is borne of societal pressures, not mere psychopathy...”

“Having said so much, how bloody is the film? What story does it truly tell? What novel fates befall those doomed actors? These are questions best answered by visiting the cinema.”

“A mad city demands madness for survival.”

As Hong Kong’s highest-circulation paper, the Oriental Daily devoted extensive coverage to yesterday’s premiere, even adopting the film’s opening subtitle as its headline.

“Over twenty years, our average income tripled, but housing prices surged over a hundredfold. The film’s characters and values reveal a significant segment of Hong Kong society whose income growth can’t keep pace with housing costs. Though the murders represent an extreme individual response, that mindset is widespread, lending the film a sharp critical edge...”

“Viewers will notice the gore, but Mansion No. 1’s most visceral element is its merciless critique of profiteering real estate developers. This story, resonant with lower-middle-class citizens everywhere, will not deter audiences despite its violence...”

“Today’s society is like a bulldozer demolishing the fragile hopes you painstakingly built. No matter the effort, it’s all in vain. A Chang’s ideal life is merely a place to rest, yet even this basic survival need goes unmet. Within each of us lies a ‘Mansion No. 1’—our yearning to become its owner...”

“Director Yan Xu progresses from the socially conscious Rainy Night Butcher to the taxi industry exposé Taxi Judge, and now to Mansion No. 1’s focus on Hong Kong’s housing market. Each film uncovers the city’s wounds, increasingly highlighting the plight of the lower and middle classes. We eagerly anticipate more such works, and his next film...”

Reading the last line in the paper, Yan Xu smiled faintly. He was far less lofty than the press portrayed. The simplest reason for making these films was that they were profitable and exciting to watch. As for social impact or connecting with the masses—that was nonsense. It was all about making money. For such B-grade productions without flashy scenes or special effects, tapping into socially relevant issues was the best way to attract attention.

(To be continued...)