by Tiffany Nah

A few weeks ago, I attended But is the Book Better?: Utter 2014– a film screening of local directors’ adaptations of local short stories in four languages (English, Hokkien, Malay and Tamil). I was intrigued by the variety of languages, as it raises the question of whether it is self-contained and limiting to write in one’s mother tongue or dialect, since the readership would be restricted to speakers of the language if the text is not translated. Although the films were true to the language used in the original text (with the exception of the Mandarin short story Going Home being translated into Hokkien), their social messages were effectively conveyed since the visual quality of film facilitates translation as audiences interpret the messages through mise-en-scene, cinematography and editing. For instance, the close-up of Mr Tan’s perplexed face at the end of Going Home (dir. Kenny Tan) conveyed a strong sense of displacement of older generations although the film was in Hokkien, thereby suggesting that the language barrier has been transcended in film. This demonstrates the power of films making these texts more accessible while preserving the essence and themes through nuanced cinematic techniques. Going Home is an adaptation of Lin Jin’s flash fiction about Mr Tan visiting his former neighbor, Mr Ng, at his old housing estate. Both men seek help from the police as Mr Ng appeared to be locked out of his house by his unfilial son. However, the story ends with the son’s explaining that both men had mistaken the wrong block of flats for their own.

Going Home prompted me to consider the developmental narrative and where memories of collective experiences and histories belong in the modern landscape. The developmental narrative is conveyed with greater urgency as the site of the on-location shooting is scheduled for redevelopment, contributing to the anxiety as to what will happen to the shared memories and histories of the older generation who have lived there after shifting from kampong to the HDBs. Furthermore, the older generation is beginning to confuse their memories, evident from both men’s mistaken identification of their flat. The film ends with a tracking shot of an empty corridor, mirroring Mr Tan’s sense of displacement and loss stemming from the subsumption of landscapes into narratives of modernization and development.

The film also depicts an evolution of community values from the kampong spirit to the impersonal and distanced relationship in modern society, such that modern society now has no place for the older generation and the values that they cherish. The establishing shot of the film depicts Mr Tan exchanging a greeting with a lady and her son, evoking a nostalgic sense of community and communication between its members. However, this ideal community crumbles as the film progresses, revealing how it has evolved in modern society, which has become fragmented through the compartmentalization into private spaces. The distance between residents is palpable in the scene where the Filipino helper, she gave a mistrustful look at Mr Tan and Mr Ng who wanted to seek her help, finally closing the door on them. Furthermore, her employer’s house was barricaded by a grille– reinforcing how people have come to privilege closed and private spaces. This reflects an erosion of the openness and community spirit during the early days of transition from the kampong to the HDB, as seen from the old man’s reflections on about how the corridor was a space where everyone gathered and kids played. The evolution of community spirit is also evident from the neighbors’ reactions to the arrival of the police, where clusters of nosy neighbors gossiping highlights the degradation of community spirit to a sensationalist unity. The title of the film, further exemplifies this problem– what does home mean to us in contemporary times and what does it mean to go home? Does it entail the closing off of communication and interaction between members of a community? This further raises the question of the place of the old generation in today’s society, as they appear to be displaced and uprooted even as they were the ones who laid the foundations for modern society. According to the director’s notes, his film reflects the recent interest in old people with the distribution of the Pioneer Generation Package– an effort to care for the pioneer generation who contributed to nation building in SG’s early independence years.

Overall, I think this event was illuminating in its reflection of how the different perspectives of Singapore were negotiated on various levels. The authors of the short stories voiced their perspectives of Singapore in their written texts, which were subsequently re-interpreted by the directors in the process of translating the textual medium to the filmic medium, where the original story took on new forms and meanings as the directors added their own personal touches to the stories. Subsequently, in viewing these films, audiences too are included in the process of meaning-making as they are free to interpret the films based on their personal experiences of Singapore. As such, I find that filmic adaptations of literary texts are effective in facilitating an environment for shared meaning-making, as audiences at different levels are allowed to inject their own personal flavours in the process of interpretation, thereby creating a holistic and inclusive view of Singapore and a Singapore identity.

For those who are interested, Utter 2013 films as well as a selection of local and regional films are available at www.viddsee.com