「襟兄弟」與「自己友」：從親密性談《低俗喜劇》的本土主義與中港合拍片想像

Male Bonding and Cronyism: The Intimate Economies of Vulgaria

本文將在特區新浪潮電影的脈絡中，取徑文化研究，借用親密性（intimacy）的概念，分析彭浩翔導演之《低俗喜劇》影片建構的香港本土意識與電影業北進的想像，說明香港的主體性如何因應中港的文化產業關係而被（再）生產，以釐清文化文本在資本流動與區域合作的情境下對形塑本土身份的影響。影片以人獸交等低俗情節陳述電影業北進的故事，提供思考港片面對內地市場與轉型的可能性，以及觀察香港近年本土意識變化的視角。本文將說明《低俗喜劇》以性及粗口（髒話）操作的「低俗」，結合了兩種類型的親密經濟（intimate economy），在虛構與現實中形構的兩個北進敘事：一是影片中呈現的中港電影產業合作關係所開拓的合拍片模式，二是在現實中放棄內地、但香港票房大放異彩的本土市場。前者由男性情誼與地緣親密性所促成，後者的操作邏輯則為召喚在地主體，訴求文化親近性與族群意識，進而號召支持本土電影。而這兩種親密經濟的成功，皆有賴於將性別政治隱藏於本土主義中，並將保守的男性中心意識型態轉化吹捧為激進的族裔政治。

This essay attempts to contribute to an understanding of the recent shifts in the Sino-Hong Kong relationship, towards one in which they are economically inseparable yet emotionally detached, through an examination of the political subtext of one particular Hong Kong film. Since the signing of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), more and more joint-venture films have been telling stories about Hong Kong whilst simultaneously attempting to appeal to Mainland audiences, as well as towing the line in terms of China’s censorship policy. This essay focuses on the film Vulgaria (2012) by Hong Kong director Pang Ho-cheung, a film which emerged against this backdrop but claims to have forsaken the Mainland market to cater exclusively to local audiences. Drawing on Ara Wilson’s work on “intimate economies,” this essay analyzes the strategies of representation and promotion in an attempt to demonstrate how nativism, entangled with vulgarity, is (re)discoursed and mobilized to boost the local box office, whilst the film simultaneously constructs an image of the Mainlander as “an intimate other” in the geopolitics of the Pan Pearl River Delta to tell the story of a “successful” co-production between the Mainland and Hong Kong. By employing multiple effects of intimacy (linguistic, geopolitical and cultural) and capitalizing on the power of rising nativism in Hong Kong, the film negotiates the tension between taking advantage of the Mainland economic benefits and asserting Hong Kong’s subjectivity.