點新聞
Through dots, we connect.
讓世界看到彩色的香港 讓香港看到彩色的世界
標籤

Opinion | Storm in a tea cup

By Philip Yeung, university teacher

PKY480@gmail.com

A controversy is raging in Hong Kong. This time it has nothing to do with politics, sex or money. It has to do with a storm in a tea cup, over a documentary which chronicles the lives of six students from Ying Wa Girls School.

Titled "To my 19-Year-Old Self", the film was directed by Mabel Cheung Yuen-ting. It was quickly named the best movie by a panel of film critics. It is a "coming-of-age" story that followed the girlhood experiences of the chosen six. The film was part of the school's fundraising effort to pay for the renovation of its aging buildings.

So far so good. The subject is wholesome, the purpose noble. But in a strange twist, it has turned into something ugly and petty, the boiling center of a boiling controversy—and all because a couple of the girls claimed that they have never given their consent for the film's public release. In fact, some even object to the film's private screenings.

This is baffling. For one thing, all the parents had duly signed the consent form on behalf of the girls who were underage at the time. What they have signed is legally binding.

But suddenly, a couple of the girls cried foul, accusing the director and producer of infringing on their privacy rights, and now even the Privacy Commissioner has been dragged into this saga.

This is utter nonsense. They willingly took part in the filming over a 10-year period. They must know that a production that spans a decade must eventually see the light of day, and would not end up gathering dust in the school's archives. After all, it is no secret that the whole purpose of the movie is to publicly fundraise for the school. How do you publicly fundraise without the public seeing it? Ying Wa's blessing for the project is an iron-clad guarantee that its students would emerge looking good. These girls are either naïve or confused.

The timing of the complaints is interesting—when the film is poised to become a box office hit.

This war of words points to two things: this coming-of-age story offers little by way of controversy---just boring innocent school-girl stuff. Why should the featured students react so strongly as if they had aired their dirty linen in public? Could it be that they now see that they don't come out looking perfectly angelic (but then none of us is perfect). They have no reason to belatedly kick up a fuss over something they have willingly taken part in over a period of 10 long years. Now they claim they had been hoodwinked into the project--a case of "He says, she says" except their parents' consent has effectively negated their argument.

Even without watching the movie, I can be 100% certain that there is nothing humiliating about the girls when its purpose is patently educational and is designed to sing the school's praises.

Either the complaining girls are emotionally brittle, and squeamish even about sharing innocent details of their lives, or given the box office appeal of the movie, it is now necessary to consider whether the girls should be financially compensated for their contribution.

There is another bizarre twist. Hong Kong's golden girl cyclist Sarah Lee Wai-Sze had also weighed in, claiming that the director's interview with her took place without the interviewer obtaining a press pass. I am disappointed in Lee's pettiness when she huffed that she would not watch the movie nor would she encourage others to do so. This is much ado about nothing. She was interviewed only because, in the words of the Standard, she represents the "perfect model for our can-do spirit". She is not even a Ying Wa old girl, and strictly speaking, doesn't belong to the script. She came in tangentially, only because her story has a larger moral message of rising from poverty and overcoming her anemia to win gold at the Asian Games and Bronze at the Olympics. She reacted peevishly, and her ill-humored overreaction has diminished her standing in the community.

In fairness to the director, the movie is a labor of love for her alma mater. And now it appears that a project that has consumed 10 years of her life may be shelved or mothballed. A good movie is a work of art. The public has every right to see it, given the signed consent of the girls' parents. Having second thoughts or wanting to look perfect is no excuse for backing out of an agreement. To object when the filming is done after a decade and ready for release is willful sabotage. I have never seen a case where the glorified subjects of a positive documentary turn against their director. I am sure the girls would come out smelling like roses in the documentary. After all, they were chosen because they represent the best of one of the most respected schools in Hong Kong.

The girls can either choose to live in immortality, or be remembered for their ill-tempered and petty controversy.

This is not a case for the Privacy Commissioner. It is a case for the courts and the court of public opinion.

I, for one, would love to see the movie. If nothing else, I want to see what the fuss is all about.

 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Philip Yeung:

Opinion | No end to the tragedy in Ukraine? Try befriending China

Opinion | Unfit to lead—America as a danger to the world

Opinion | How to get Hong Kong humming again---with a single stroke

Opinion | Prosecute Trump—Lock Him Up

Comment

Related Topics

New to old 
New to old
Old to new
relativity
Search Content 
Content
Title
Keyword