Jeffrey Lau’s journey to the mainland: strategic hybridization in Hong Kong-mainland film co-production

ABSTRACT

This article explores strategic hybridization in Jeffrey Lau’s four films, which reinterpret the classic Journey to the West, and analyses Hong Kong-mainland film co-productions from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s. Adopting a media industries perspective, it examines how strategic hybridization navigates economic pressures and policy environments influencing production decisions, creative choices, and industrial imperatives. The study illustrates that strategic hybridization is not merely a consequence of co-production but a deliberate strategy reflecting the collaborative dynamics between Hong Kong and the mainland, contributing to an increasingly integrated and mainland-centric co-production model. By analyzing strategic decisions across industrial and production dimensions, the article underscores the impact of policy interventions, cross-cultural collaboration, and financial factors in shaping co-production models. The evolution of co-productions is further demonstrated through a detailed look at Lau’s films, suggesting that strategic hybridization serves as a set of adaptive strategies fostering a symbiotic, albeit mainland-centric, relationship between the two film industries.

KEYWORDS:

• Hong Kong-mainland film co-production
• film industries
• strategic hybridization
• CEPA

Introduction

From the mid-1990s to the late 2010s, Hong Kong and mainland China’s film industries underwent significant and dramatic transformations. Since 2004, the implementation of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), a free trade agreement, has profoundly reshaped the relationship between Hong Kong and mainland film sectors. Before the implementation of CEPA, Hong Kong was treated as a foreign film production site even after the transfer of sovereignty from Britain to China (Berry 2010, 118), and Hong Kong films had to compete with foreign film imports to access the mainland market. CEPA stipulated that films jointly produced by Hong Kong and mainland filmmakers would be treated as local films and granted unrestricted access to the mainland market, bypassing the annual foreign film quotas, which limited entries to 20 in 2003 and 34 in 2012. Hong Kong stands out as a key partner in China’s film co-production landscape. From 2002 to 2012, 68.5% of China’s co-productions were conducted with its Hong Kong counterparts (Peng 2016, 296). As Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh and Shi-yan Chao have argued, Hong Kong filmmakers have demonstrated their ability to ‘revive and extend signature creative strategies of Hong Kong cinema, despite censorship constraints’ (2020, 184). Thus, CEPA offered mutual growth opportunities, significantly benefiting both Hong Kong’s and mainland China’s film industries within the ‘one country, two systems’ framework (Yeh and Chao 2020, 186). Political and economic imperatives have significantly motivated the increasing Hong Kong-mainland co-productions over the past two decades.

Research into Hong Kong and mainland film industries has not only recognized the industrial transition undergone by both sides following Hong Kong’s handover but also debated the consequences resulted from the integration of the Hong Kong film industry into mainland China (Bettinson 2020; Chung and Yi 2016; J. Liu 2024; May and Ma 2014; Sun 2018; Szeto and Chen 2011; Yan 2002; Yau 2015; H. Zhang 2023). Mirana M. Szeto and Yun-Chung Chen propose that Hong Kong’s film production is currently undergoing ‘a process of mainlandization’ (2011, 251). They interpret mainlandization as ‘a survival tactic’ for the Hong Kong film industry, which ‘limits rather than encourages the development of diverse cultural sensitivities’ within the industry (Szeto and Chen 2011, 255). Several recent studies have questioned the concept of mainlandization and called for a more nuanced approach to understanding Hong Kong-mainland co-productions (Bettinson 2020; J. Liu 2024; Sun 2018). For instance, Yi Sun challenges Szeto and Chen’s idea and characterizes mainlandization as a ‘dynamic rather than static process’ (2018, 221), given the impact Hong Kong filmmakers and film companies have on the mainland Chinese media landscape. As Sun argues, the Hong Kong film industry ‘has assumed new roles in transforming the future of the Chinese screenscape’ (2018, 222). Similarly, Gary Bettinson (2020, 17) questions the narrative that suggests Hong Kong cinema is in decline or on the verge of disappearing due to mainlandization. Bettinson argues that Hong Kong filmmakers’ manoeuvre is not merely survival strategies; they have ‘adapted local traditions to contemporary market demands and production exigencies, innovating on past formulas’ (2020, 27). Moreover, they have integrated Hong Kong’s working methods into mainland production techniques and have introduced innovative narratives and aesthetics, tailoring local genre elements to fit contemporary production environments (Bettinson 2020, 17).

However, Jinping Liu (2024, 2) responds to these debates and emphasizes the importance of avoiding the trap of essentialism when discussing mainlandization, as whether in favour or against, the discussions of mainlandization can easily lead to the belief that the pre-existing identity of Hong Kong cinema is either being absorbed by that of Chinese cinema in co-productions or revitalized through them. Liu (2024, 2) points out the uncertainty of whether co-productions have led to a loss of local identity in Hong Kong cinema or if such an identity can even be defined. Additionally, the state’s strict censorship inherently shapes the foundational stages of filmmaking, from the conception of ideas to the selection of themes and subjects (J. Liu 2024, 2). Given the evolving demands of new markets, audiences, investors, and genres, Hong Kong filmmakers are compelled to modify their traditional aesthetic forms and styles (J. Liu 2024, 2). This means the perceived creative decisions embodied in film co-production are driven by the regulatory environment, market, and individual creative personnel. As Liu (2024, 2) notes, a consistent thread in filmmakers’ styles, particularly through intertextual references in co-productions to directors’ earlier local works, may strategically leverage nostalgia for marketing purposes. Therefore, rather than viewing the process solely as mainlandization with potentially negative connotations and binary understandings of cultural absorption or identity loss, this article, adopting a media industry studies perspective, interrogates Hong Kong-mainland film co-productions and examines how the integration of mainland China’s film industries with their Hong Kong counterpart has evolved from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s through the lens of hybridization.

Marwan M. Kraidy defines hybridization as ‘the fusion of two hitherto relatively distinct forms, styles, or identities, through cross-cultural contact, which often occurs across national borders as well as across cultural boundaries’ (2005, 5). Transnational film co-productions are often imagined as films produced by crews and cast from different countries with storylines and characters with a global appeal (Berry 2021, 193). Since Hong Kong is regarded as a post-colonial global city with a diasporic character, characterized by its distinctive cultural hybridization of Eastern and Western influences (Fung and Pun 2021, 294), Hong Kong cinema has benefited from cultural hybridization. Academic discussions on hybridization largely center on blending cultural elements in various cultural expressions and products (see, for example, Holton 2000; Lull 2000; G. Wang and Yeh 2007). This highlights how hybridization has emerged as a significant consequence of co-productions, indicating that the inherently collaborative nature of such productions fosters the integration of diverse cultural influences. Apart from textual and narrative approaches, Chan and Fung (2011) argue that hybridization is not merely a textual phenomenon but also happens structurally in Hong Kong-mainland film and television co-productions. Chan and Fung’s insights reveal how co-productions catalyze pivotal shifts in various facets of the filmmaking process, from management and investment to creative aspects like scriptwriting and post-production. Drawing from and extending beyond Chan and Fung’s concept of structural hybridization, this paper focuses on the strategies employed by filmmakers to navigate the complex interplay between Hong Kong’s cinematic tradition and the mainland’s burgeoning film industries. This article uses the term ‘strategic hybridization’ as an analytical perspective to delve into the co-production processes that underpin these structural changes. It examines how filmmakers and production companies strategically engage with and adapt to the regulatory, financial, and cultural environments of mainland China. While this approach highlights the deliberate strategies that contribute to hybridization, it is also important to recognize that some aspects of hybridization may naturally emerge as an outcome of the collaborative and cross-cultural dynamics inherent in co-productions.

Previous studies have concentrated on the Chinese state’s top-down policy-making and government intervention in shaping Hong Kong-mainland co-productions, recognizing the role of the Chinese state’s strategic policies in expanding the ‘circulation of Chinese cultural products’ and also fostering content control (Yau 2015, 19). Although this article does not intend to assert that the state intervention and policy solely shape co-productions and development of Chinese film industries, this article provides an examination of Hong Kong-mainland co-productions that considers both macro-level factors, such as state policies, and micro-level dynamics, such as individual production strategies. Thus, this article revolves around director Jeffrey Lau and his several films, directly or indirectly inspired by Journey to the West, including two-part A Chinese Odyssey Part One: Pandora’s Box (Lau 1995) and Part Two: Cinderella (Lau 1995), A Chinese Tall Story (Lau 2005), Just Another Pandora’s Box (Lau 2010) and A Chinese Odyssey Part Three (Lau 2016). Except for the two-part A Chinese Odyssey, which was co-produced before CEPA’s implementation, Lau’s other three films were co-produced every five or six years from 2005 to 2016. This timeline uniquely covers several stages of Hong Kong-mainland co-production, where policy not only played a significant role in shaping these co-productions, but also demonstrated how individuals strategically adjusted their production decisions in response to evolving policies.

This article adopts a mixed-methods approach to uncover the nuances of strategic hybridization in co-productions, drawing on a diverse range of data sources including industry annual reports, trade publications, and detailed interviews with production personnel collected from online trade press, newspapers, blogs, and magazines. Although reliance on published sources and possible self-reporting biases in interviews might constrain the depth of insight into co-production strategic considerations, analyzing aspects such as casting choices, the involvement of production companies, and specific promotional strategies reveals strategic hybridization within film industries. This approach highlights how these elements reflect broader industrial dynamics and strategic decision-making processes.

This article begins by establishing that strategic hybridization can be viewed as an analytical perspective to explore the Hong Kong-mainland co-productions from industrial, production, and textual dimensions. It examines Lau’s co-productions, primarily focusing on two aspects: the industrial aspect, encompassing film businesses and companies’ practices, and the production aspect, involving the filmmaking process conducted by individuals and groups. Additionally, although this article does not primarily focus on analyzing textual hybridization, it is worth noting elements such as plot, characterization, setting, and visual and audio components largely mirror industrial and production decisions. Therefore, it includes examinations of textual hybridization to shed light on how production decisions are reflected in the textual aspects of Lau’s co-productions. This article argues that a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of Hong Kong-mainland co-productions necessitates an in-depth examination of strategic decisions within industrial and production dimensions. It specifically highlights the role of policy interventions, cross-cultural collaboration involving shared creative visions and practices, and targeted economic strategies, including funding models and market positioning, critically shaping the Hong Kong-mainland co-production model. Through examining the co-production process of Lau’s films, this article posits strategic hybridization – not merely as an outcome but as a deliberate set of adaptive strategies – leading to a progressive establishment of a symbiotic but mainland-centric relationship between Hong Kong and mainland film industries from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s.

Understanding strategic hybridization in analyzing film co-production

Georgette Wang and Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh have pointed out that cultural production allows us to encounter the most convincing and abundant evidence of hybridization through ‘imitation, borrowing, appropriation, mutual learning and representation’ (2007, 78). Hong Kong cinema offers a unique lens for understanding hybridization, which manifests in a blend of genres, transnational film aesthetics and imagery drawn from Japanese, European, and Hollywood films (see, for example, Bordwell 2000; Pugsley 2013). However, hybridization in the context of Hong Kong cinema also extends beyond the textual and aesthetic aspects and presents within the Hong Kong film industry (Chan and Fung 2011; Pugsley 2013). Hong Kong film industry embodies what Peter C. Pugsley has referred to as ‘multilayered hybridization’ (2013, 62), which is evident in its sourcing of funds and filming locations, spanning across transnational, international, regional, municipal, and local levels (Chan and Fung 2011, 86). Thus, hybridization is not a new term for comprehending Hong Kong cinema and its industry, as it has long been an integral part of its evolution.

As Kraidy (2005, xi) has argued, co-production is one of the industrial practices that give rise to hybridized media content, which emerges and is consumed in the globalized context under certain political and economic environments. Understanding co-production from a media industries perspective allows us to delve into the strategic motivations behind these hybridized media content creations. Kraidy highlights the significance of examining how industrial structures shape the production of hybridized media content, what motivates media companies to engage in co-production, and how the concept of hybridity can be applied to scrutinise industrial practices such as co-production. Thus, Hong Kong-mainland film co-production offers a perspective to delve deeper into the mechanisms, and consequences of hybridization from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s. Chan and Fung (2011) have adopted the concept of ‘structural hybridization’ when analyzing Hong Kong-mainland co-production. They demonstrate that hybridization can result in ‘important changes in the operation and organization of audiovisual production’, involving ‘management, investment, scriptwriting, shooting, artists and talent composition, organization of the filming crew, postproduction, marketing efforts, and strategies’ (Chan and Fung 2011, 80). They argue that Hong Kong-mainland co-production has led to ‘the hybridization of norms, values and ideologies coming from sources in Hong Kong and China’, which, in turn, ‘has given rise to fundamental changes in the structure and organization of Hong Kong cultural production’ (Chan and Fung 2011, 77).

Thus, in respect of Chan and Fung’s idea of highlighting the hybridization that occurs in the co-production process, this article explores strategic hybridization across interrelated industrial and production dimensions. Interrogating these facets unveils how strategic decisions within Hong Kong-mainland co-productions contribute to shaping a predominantly mainland-centric industry structure while navigating the complex interplay between cultural identities, regulatory frameworks, and market dynamics. At the industrial level, I explore structural, collaborative, and financial dynamics within Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. The production perspective delves into the operational aspects, such as scriptwriting, casting and sound designing, and their alignment with market and regulatory expectations. These interconnected dimensions demonstrate that the creative forces behind co-productions are not limited to directors but encompass a wider array of stakeholders, despite directors often taking on the role of spokespersons for film co-productions and are assumed to be primary creative forces behind such projects. It is essential to recognize the significant contributions of other stakeholders, whose contributions are often not adequately represented in industry and press discourses, and many decisions about production details occur behind closed doors and are not accessible to the public. This article does not attempt a comprehensive analysis of every production company involved in co-productions; instead, it focuses on key companies identified by their investment share and visibility in film credits, to shed light on the potential underrepresented yet pivotal decision-making processes within the co-productions. Insights from trade press interviews and statements from creative personnel, featured in newspapers and magazines, provide a unique window into the industrial practices and production processes shaping the Hong Kong-mainland co-production landscape from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s.

Hong Kong-mainland co-production in the mid-1990s

In the 1980s and the 1990s, although there were no formal policies governing all aspects of Hong Kong-mainland co-production, several policies were introduced to align mainland China’s film industry with the Reform and Opening Up policy initiated in the late 1970s. In 1993, the Chinese Ministry of Radio, Film, and Television issued the ‘Several Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Film Industry Mechanism’, signalling a significant shift away from exclusive state investment in film financing. This document allowed for investments from various enterprises, including joint ventures with Hong Kong and foreign capital. It represented a vital moment in the reform of mainland China’s film industry system, prompting production companies to embrace market-based reforms and navigate the economic dynamics between production, distribution, and exhibition in accordance with market economy principles.

Examining Hong Kong and mainland co-productions in the mid-1980s and the early 1990s reveals a reciprocal exchange and the beginning of strategic integration of resources, creative inputs, and geographic advantages. Such co-productions were marked by Hong Kong film companies providing financial support and taking the lead in the creative process with their established cinematic expertise. Mainland partners contributed essential logistical support, including providing extras, technical equipment, and access to various filming locations ranging from natural landscapes to culturally historical sites. Scholars Hong Yin and Mei He (2009, 41) highlight that these early co-productions were not primarily focused on penetrating the mainland market. Instead, Hong Kong’s film industry sought to capitalize on the mainland’s extensive outdoor filming locations and to mitigate costs associated with film production and labour. On the other side, mainland companies viewed these co-productions as opportunities to secure economic gains and stave off business downturns (Yin and He 2009, 38). Thus, the co-productions of the late 1980s and early 1990s serve as an early example of strategic hybridization, showcasing how Hong Kong and the mainland each leveraged their unique strengths. This section, using Jeffrey Lau’s two-part A Chinese Odyssey, exemplifies one of the widely utilized co-production models between Hong Kong and the mainland in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The mid-1990s co-production of A Chinese Odyssey demonstrates the process of strategic hybridisation in both industrial and production aspects between Hong Kong’s commercial film sector and mainland’s state-owned film studios. Although this co-production was driven by shared economic interests, both sides had different production cultures. Hong Kong Choi Sing Film Company (also known as Color Star Films), together with Xi’an Film Studio, co-produced A Chinese Odyssey. Stephen Chow, playing the protagonist, is also the co-founder of Choi Sing Film Company. Driven by a mutual interest in adapting Journey to the West into a film, Jeffrey Lau and Stephen Chow initiated the co-production process. Their decision to film in mainland China was strategically made to utilize the desert landscapes, leading to their collaboration with Xi’an Film Studio (L. Jin 2009). In the 1980s, Chow and Lau established their reputation through the mo lei-tau comedy genre¹ in Hong Kong cinema (Yu 2010, 214). Films starring Stephen Chow, such as All for the Winner (Lau 19901995) and Flirting Scholar (Lee Lik-Chi 1993), achieved huge commercial success, grossing over 40 million Hong Kong dollars (equivalent to roughly 5.13 million US dollars) (Y. Zhang 2005). In A Chinese Odyssey, Lau reinvented the characters from Journey to the West, creating a unique blend of mo lei-tau comedy and romance that targeted contemporary audiences from both regions (He and Chan 2006). Specifically, Lau aimed to attract female viewers, as Chow’s previous films primarily appealed to male audiences (He and Chan 2006). Incorporating a complex love story in A Chinese Odyssey was a deliberate way to broaden the demographic reach and enhance its commercial appeal.

Unlike Hong Kong’s film sector, known for its high-intensity, efficiency-driven production culture that aims to maximize output within tight schedules (Zhong 2000, 87), the mainland film industry, particularly at state-funded studios like Xi’an Film Studio, had less experience with the demands of commercial film production. Xi’an, celebrated for its epic historical and art house films such as Red Sorghum (Zhang Yimou 1988) and King of the Children (1987), initially had reservations about adopting Hong Kong’s slapstick comedic approach (Zhong 2000, 87). However, Xi’an Film Studio and other state-owned studios encountered significant financial hardship due to a reduction in government subsidies (C. Wang 2005, 935). The financial challenges faced by film studios, along with the recognition of Hong Kong cinema’s market success and the market potential of Hong Kong imports in the mainland, prompted Xi’an Film Studio to venture into this co-production. The studio undertook all aspects of the project except content production (Zhong 2000, 87).

The co-production during the mid-1990s unveiled an inherent hierarchy within the collaboration between Hong Kong and the mainland, evident not only in the division of creative and logistical roles but also in the language choices on set. Although the film crew included members from both regions, the majority of them were from Hong Kong (see Table 1). Thus, they faced communication difficulties due to the exclusive use of Cantonese by the Hong Kong crew and Mandarin by the mainland crew. As the supporting actor Lu Shuming noted in an interview, ‘Stephen Chow and other Hong Kong actors deliberately spoke Cantonese, making communication difficult between mainland and Hong Kong actors. On set, I had to mentally count the timing in advance to know when it was my turn’ (L. Jin 2009). Therefore, there was no common language on set, with Hong Kong actors and the director speaking Cantonese and mainland actors speaking Mandarin. This language difference created a barrier that emphasized the superior position of Hong Kong filmmakers in the creative process, as mainland actors and crew members were often placed in positions where they had to adapt to Hong Kong counterparts.

Table 1. Cast Member of A Chinese Odyssey by Region.

Region	Cast member (in the order listed in the opening credits)
Hong Kong	Stephen Chow
	Ng Man-tat
	Athena Chu
	Ada Choi
	Yammie Lam
	Karen Mok
	Law Kar-ying
	Johnnie Kong
Mainland China	Lu Shuming
	Wu Yujin

Thus, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, collaborations between Hong Kong and mainland China in film co-productions largely saw the mainland contributing essential support in the form of below-the-line labour, extras, and diverse shooting locations. In contrast, Hong Kong entities often assumed leadership roles in creative decisions. For instance, Lau adopted a director-centred and improvisational approach for A Chinese Odyssey, reflecting the Hong Kong film industry’s ‘guerrilla filmmaking’ style, where directors embarked on filmmaking with only a loose plot (Li, Huang, and Dee 2019, 150). Although Stephen Chow was invited and co-created with Lau to improve the scripts, several actors in the film, such as Law Kar Ying, Lu Shuming, and Wu Yujin, all mention they had very limited knowledge of the story or script on set (L. Jin 2009). Not only was this direction style quite novel to mainland film studios, which traditionally did not employ such an unstructured approach to filmmaking, but the casting choices, apart from offering martial arts actors, were also primarily made by Hong Kong counterparts (L. Jin 2009). Scholars and film critics such as Yin and He (2009, 80) and Wei (2019, 606) have referred to the co-production model in the pre-CEPA context as ‘assisted co-production’, signifying that the co-production was financed by Hong Kong, filmed in mainland China, and the mainland provided assistance in the form of equipment, facilities, locations, and compensated labour. Nevertheless, although Hong Kong film companies predominantly shaped creative decisions in production aspects such as directorial approaches and casting choices, the soundtrack production for A Chinese Odyssey exemplifies strategic hybridization at both production and textual levels.

The collaboration between mainland Chinese composer Zhao Jiping and Hong Kong musician Lowell Lo produced a culturally diverse score that not only supports the film’s narrative but also showcases the hybrid cultural identities involved. Zhao merged Western orchestration techniques with traditional Chinese folk music, utilizing instruments such as brass, strings, and woodwinds to intensify scenes featuring demons, battles, and disasters. He also incorporated traditional Chinese music elements, including Peking opera, the erhu (a traditional Chinese two-stringed fiddle) and the xiao (Chinese bamboo flute) to evoke a sense of Chineseness in sound design (C. Liu 2000, 73). Meanwhile, Lowell Lo, influenced by his diverse musical background in Seattle encompassing American folk-based pop, soul, blues, and country (Lynam 2016), infused the film’s thematic opening and closing songs with these genres. Additionally, drawing on his heritage in a family of Cantonese opera singers, Lo integrated Cantonese opera elements into the soundtrack. Together, Zhao’s and Lo’s contributions exemplify the incorporation of diverse cultural elements, demonstrating how soundtrack production in co-productions can facilitate a dynamic cultural hybridization. This musical collaboration is significant as it foreshadows the evolving trend in later Hong Kong-mainland co-productions, where the blending of diverse cultural elements becomes a key strategy to appeal to broader audiences and navigate differing cultural landscapes. By integrating varied musical traditions, the film not only enriched its auditory experience and cultural resonance but also strategically positioned itself to resonate with both Hong Kong and mainland audiences, illustrating a microcosm of the broader cultural hybridization in the Hong Kong-mainland co-production process.

The co-production of A Chinese Odyssey exemplified how Hong Kong contributed financial resources and creative talent, while the mainland film studios assumed a subordinate role, primarily offering logistical support and shooting locations. Despite the emergence of Hong Kong-mainland co-production as a viable solution to counteract the decline in film production during the mid-1990s, the number of co-productions significantly decreased from 57 in 1993 to 25 in 1997, and further to 7 in 1998 (Peng 2015, 123). The decline in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions was attributed to several factors, including economic and social upheavals surrounding the 1997 handover and the Asian Financial Crisis. Additionally, it was partly due to the practice within such film co-productions where state-owned studios sold their labels to Hong Kong companies without actively participating in the production process, leading to ‘fake co-productions’ (H. Wang 2006, 432). In response, the mainland Administration of Film imposed restrictions in 1996, stipulating that ‘the key creative personnel, apart from directors, screenwriters, and cinematographers, should primarily consist of domestic residents, and domestic residents should generally account for no less than 50% of the main roles’ (Yin and He 2009, 42). The Film Bureau reinforced the principle of conducting ‘China-led’ co-productions at a national film conference (Yin and He 2009, 42), meaning mainland China intended to assert more control over film co-production. While the co-production model in the mid-1990s suggested that Hong Kong had more creative control over its mainland counterparts, as Anthony May and Xiaolu Ma argue, Hong Kong ‘had not gained the internal advantage of being a territory of China until signing the CEPA’ (2014, 45). The Hong Kong-mainland co-production consequently entered a new chapter with the implementation of CEPA in 2004.

Hong Kong-mainland co-production in the post-CEPA context

Under CEPA, Hong Kong-mainland co-productions benefit from preferential policies, treated as mainland productions for distribution in mainland China. While there are no restrictions on the percentage of key creative personnel from Hong Kong, at least one-third of the lead actors must be from the mainland, and the storyline or main characters must have connections to the mainland. In the post-CEPA context, Lau’s three co-productions consistently used mainland landscapes and attractions as shooting locations, such as Shennongjia Forestry District in A Chinese Tall Story, Sand Lake and Binggou Grand Canyon in Just Another Pandora’s Box, Shuidong Valley in A Chinese Odyssey Part Three. However, more nuanced dynamics of strategic hybridization embodied in the industrial and production dimensions are evident across these three films, which will be explored in the following sections.

A Chinese Tall Story

In the mid-2000s, following the implementation of CEPA, the Chinese state introduced several key regulations that shaped the global-local dynamics of film production. State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) issued the ‘Interim Provisions on the Administration of Sino-Foreign Cooperative Radio and Television Program Production and Operation Enterprises’ (2005), which limited foreign enterprises to establishing only one joint venture production company each in China. This policy was aimed at curbing the rapid expansion of foreign giants such as Warner, Sony, Viacom, and News Corporation, providing mainland Chinese domestic enterprises with a period for growth by restricting foreign competition (Yin and He 2009). In contrast, the mainland market further opened up to Hong Kong capital through supplementary provisions issued in accordance with CEPA. These provisions allowed Hong Kong and Macau service providers to establish, renovate and operate cinemas in the mainland as joint ventures, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. The new regulations enabled Hong Kong capital, as well as foreign capital cooperating with Hong Kong, to directly enter the mainland market as investment entities, significantly promoting the burgeoning domestic Chinese film industry (Yin and Zhan 2006). This shifting regulatory landscape reflects the mainland’s strategic integration of Hong Kong’s capital and cinematic expertise into the mainland film sector, facilitating a symbiotic collaboration through film co-productions.

Co-productions have since become ‘a dominant force in the Chinese domestic film industry’, as a way of managing risks, leveraging mutual strengths, and expanding market reach (Yin and Zhan 2006). The trend is evident in the mid-2000s, where most box office hits were Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. For instance, in 2004 and 2005, Hong Kong-mainland co-productions dominated the box office, accounting for over 70% of total revenue and showcasing huge commercial success (Yin and Zhan 2006). These co-productions strategically pooled resources and talents to achieve greater financial and creative success, with Hong Kong’s involvement bringing expertise, established market presence, and financial backing, and mainland China offering vast market potential and diverse filming locations.

Released in 2005, A Chinese Tall Story (hereafter, Tall Story) exemplified an early model of Hong Kong-mainland film co-production. The opening credits of Tall Story underscore the significant role played by Hong Kong’s Emperor Motion Pictures in the early post-CEPA co-productions, suggesting a continuation of Hong Kong’s financial and creative influence in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. The opening credits also reveal an evolving landscape, with increasing involvement from mainland Chinese entities such as Western Movie Group, Xi’an Film Studio Corporation, and Huayi Brothers Investment Company (see Table 2). This marks a trend towards a more collaborative approach, with state-owned enterprises and private capital from the mainland contributing more substantially to the co-production process.

Table 2. Production Companies Involved in Tall Story.

Presenting Company	Associated Company
Emperor Classic Films (HK)	Western Movie Group (Mainland)
	Xi’an Film Studio Corporation (Mainland)
	Huayi Brothers Film Investment Company (Mainland)

The restructuring of Xi’an Film Studio and the founding of Huayi Brothers indicate a strategic shift in the mainland film industry, reflecting significant transitional developments toward establishing a more market-driven film sector. Xi’an Film Studio underwent shareholding reform in 2000, leading to the establishment of Xi’an Film Studio Corporation (Chu 2013, 43). In 2003, Western Movie Group was founded, with Xi’an Film Studio Corporation as one of its subsidiaries. Huayi Brothers, established in 2000, had captured 35% of the domestic box office by 2004, contributing to one-third of the mainland’s total production (Wen 2008). Their expansion strategy involved private placements, combining equity financing and stock buyback strategies to raise financial resources (Wen 2008). Huayi Brothers’ financial strength played a crucial role in facilitating the co-production partnership of Tall Story with the Hong Kong Emperor Group (Wen 2008). While Emperor Motion Pictures continued to lead co-production initiatives in the early post-CEPA stage, mainland state-owned holdings and private capital emerged as significant partners, paving the way for the development of a hybridized co-production model in subsequent stages.

The casting of Tall Story strategically aligns with the CEPA policy requirements and reflects the co-productions that have been used to promote Hong Kong stars within the mainland market. CEPA requires that at least one-third of the leading roles come from both sides. Table 3, which specifically lists the three lead cast members, showcases the strategic adherence to policy requirements in the film’s casting. Two of the three principal roles were assigned to two first-rate Hong Kong contracted stars from Emperor Entertainment Group, the parent company of Emperor Motion Pictures, Nicholas Tse and Charlene Choi. Alongside them, Fan Bingbing, a prominent mainland actress associated with Huayi Brothers, was cast in a significant yet brief role. Though Fan’s on-screen presence was limited to less than 10 minutes, her involvement in the film underscores the implementation of policies aimed at incorporating mainland talent and highlights how production companies strategically navigate these regulatory expectations.

Table 3. Lead Cast of Tall Story by Region.

Region	Lead Cast
Hong Kong	Nicholas Tse
	Charlene Choi
Mainland China	Fan Bingbing

The casting of Hong Kong stars Nicholas Tse and Charlene Choi exemplifies how Hong Kong-mainland co-production was strategically turned into a cross-market promotional platform, facilitating the entry of Hong Kong’s entertainment talents into the mainland market. Tse, a Cantopop singer and actor, made a substantial contribution to Emperor Entertainment Group’s revenue, as he himself disclosed in a 2003 interview, stating that his work was responsible for 56% of the company’s income (Drake 2003). Choi, a member of the Cantopop group Twins established in 2001, released their first Mandarin Trainee Cupid in March 2005, eight months before releasing A Chinese Odyssey. As Pugsley notes,

the marketability of HK stars in the mainland (often in tandem with their careers as Cantopop singing stars, where they generally concede to include a few songs in Mandarin on each album) also aids in the promotion of films in China and into the global diaspora. (2013, 60)

This strategic use of film co-productions by Emperor Entertainment Group not only enhances the visibility of its stars in the mainland market, where film projects often coincide with concerts and album releases (Wei 2019, 615), but also demonstrates a cross-sector approach by integrating singers into film projects. By leveraging Hong Kong’s established entertainment talent, the mainland film sector adopts talent strategies and harnesses the commercial appeal of the Hong Kong media industry to strengthen its own film industry.

Through strategic navigation of policy requirements, including the casting of mainland talent like Fan in leading roles, this co-production demonstrated a visible shift from pre-CEPA collaboration. In the mid-2000s, Hong Kong-mainland co-productions highlighted the continued prominence of Hong Kong partners in leading creative aspects of production and employing co-production mechanisms for market expansion. While mainland production entities predominantly assumed supportive roles, providing essential resources such as equipment, locations, and below-the-line personnel, the involvement of mainland China’s production companies in Tall Story became visible with private capital beginning to play a transformative role in the nascent film industry. It illustrated the ongoing transformation of the mainland film sector toward a market-driven model, facilitated by strategic partnerships and compliance with evolving regulatory landscapes.

Just Another Pandora’s Box

In the mid-2000s and early 2010s, mainland film companies transitioned from a ‘labour-intensive investment structure’ (Wei 2019, 609) – where they primarily provided labour, services and filming locations – to becoming the primary funding source for Hong Kong-mainland co-productions (Kang 2013). Yu-Ping Kang highlights that funding has been a crucial factor in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. According to the Former Secretary-General of the Hong Kong Film Development Council, Wellington Fung:

After CEPA, there was not much funding in the mainland, mainly from Hong Kong … . The mainland provided labour, and Hong Kong provided the money, but this model gradually changed as the mainland’s capital grew abundantly, and Hong Kong’s financial contribution became 55%. However, now (by 2012), mainland capital predominantly funds these co-productions. Then, if the mainland needs Hong Kong packaging, Hong Kong stars, Hong Kong directors, Hong Kong companies… package it into a co-production as the leading role in funding has shifted to mainland capital. (Fung 2012, cited in Kang 2013, 97)

This statement indicates significant changes in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions, signifying a move from a labour-intensive investment structure to a capital-driven approach. Released in 2010, the co-production of Just Another Pandora’s Box (hereafter: Pandora’s Box) epitomises this shift in Hong Kong-mainland collaboration, with increased visibility of mainland participation, particularly in terms of co-production investment, which is also reflected in casting.

In the co-production of Pandora’s Box, both state-owned enterprises and emerging private companies in the mainland play pivotal roles. According to the opening credits of Pandora’s Box, three mainland companies, Pearl River Film Co., Beijing Galloping Horse Film Co., and Beijing Bona Culture Exchange, stand as presenting companies. Pearl River Film Co., formerly state-owned, transformed into a wholly state-owned enterprise in 2006 and held over 50% of the investment in Pandora’s Box. Chen Yiqi, the general manager of Pearl River, emphasized that their decision to participate in this co-production was driven by recognizing the commercial potential of the co-production (Long 2010). They regarded their Hong Kong counterparts as pioneers in producing commercial films (Long 2010). Chen’s statements suggest that the state-owned film enterprises were strategically utilizing Hong Kong-mainland co-productions as an opportunity to adapt Hong Kong’s commercial filmmaking strategies to reposition themselves within the increasingly competitive market, transitioning from state-owned film studios to commercialized film companies.

Furthermore, the rising involvement of the mainland’s private capital in the co-production of Pandora’s Box is exemplified by Beijing Galloping Horse Film Co. Established in 2003 and entering the film business in 2009, the company not only made its debut as the lead investor and shareholder (Zhai 2011). Pandora’s Box also saw Galloping Horse partnering with Mei Ah Entertainment Group, for distribution responsibilities within the mainland market (Zhai 2011). Li Ming, the founder of Galloping Horse, emphasized the strategic shift towards self-reliance in-house in distribution during an interview, saying ‘Relying on external distributors is no longer the norm; a film company must possess its own distribution capabilities’ (Zhai 2011). Li’s words, to some extent, highlighted the ambition of mainland privately-owned film companies to establish vertical integration with production and distribution capabilities through Hong Kong-mainland co-productions to maximise revenue while ensuring that films could reach their target audiences.

Moreover, as mainland co-production companies have taken on a more substantial role as major investors, this shift is prominently reflected in the casting choices. According to the ending film credit, as detailed in Table 4, among four leading roles, only one mainland actress, Sun Li, plays leading roles, whereas 45% of the main cast comprises mainland talent. Unlike Lau’s earlier co-productions that predominantly feature Hong Kong actors, Pandora’s Box has nearly half of its cast made up of mainland actors, including two crossover artists, Guo Degang and Yu Qian, both renowned for their work in xiangsheng (crosstalk or comic dialogue, a traditional comedic performing art in northern China). Their inclusion not only diversifies the film’s appeal but also embeds traditional mainland cultural elements into the narrative. As Guo mentioned in an interview, he immediately accepted the role because of his shared belief in Lau’s mo lei-tau approach, which aligns with his own xiangsheng performance (He 2009). The involvement of xiangsheng actors reflects the strategic blending of humour forms, incorporating mainland indigenous comedic cultural elements into the mo lei-tau genre to appeal to wider audiences who admire xiangsheng culture. This diversified casting not only exhibits the versatility of the mo lei-tau genre to assimilate various cultural influences but also signals a production strategy increasingly inclined towards embracing elements of mainland popular culture to appeal to its market. By strategically weaving mainland talent and traditional cultural performers into prominent roles, the film underscores a significant facet of strategic hybridization in the production process.

Table 4. Main Cast of Pandora’s Box by Region.

Region	Staring	Co-staring	Special Appearance	Guest Starring	Introducing
Mainland China	Sun Li	Guo Degang Huang Bo		Huang Yi Wu Jing	Sha Yi Li Yixiao Yu Bin Xu Wanqiu
Hong Kong	Ronald Cheng Gigi Leung Athena Chu	Eric Tsang	Gillian Chung Patrick Tam	Yuen Biao Alex Fong Louis Fan Sandra Ng Stephy Tang

A Chinese Odyssey Part Three

During the mid-2010s, Hong Kong-mainland co-productions witnessed significant shifts, reflecting changes in two key dimensions. First, mainland China’s film industry transitioned from playing a secondary role to becoming a key driving force in such collaborations. The co-production process of A Chinese Odyssey Part Three (hereafter, Part Three) epitomises this transformation, with mainland companies evolving from logistical supporters to primary financiers and creative influences. Second, with China’s film market surpassing Japan’s to become the world’s second-largest film market after the US in 2012 (Aranburu 2017, 1), the mainland Chinese film industry faced significant pressure to develop its production capacity to compete with Hollywood mega-productions (H. Zhang 2023, 164). In 2012, Hollywood revenue-sharing imports accounted for 48.2% of China’s total box office revenue (Jia 2022). Consequently, mainland China’s import quota system increased from 20 films per year in 2002 to 34 films annually in 2012 (Papish 2017), with the additional quota of 14 exclusively devoted to IMAX and 3D releases. The increase in import quotas for IMAX and 3D films further emphasised the need for high-quality production, including advanced visual effects expertise (H. Zhang 2023, 164). As a result, mainland filmmakers have been motivated to improve their visual effects capabilities, often drawing on Hong Kong’s established expertise. These two dimensions – market transition and the demand for advanced visual effects – highlight the strategic role of Hong Kong in enhancing mainland film production capabilities.

Economic and policy factors play a significant role in shaping the functions and strategies of production companies. For instance, motivated by the policy ‘Opinions of the State Council on Supporting the Construction of the Kashgar-Horgos Economic Development Zone Horgos’, increasing media companies registered in Horgos thanks to favourable tax exemption policies. Horgos, situated in Xinjiang and aligned with the Belt and Road Initiative, became an emerging Economic Zone with tax exemption policies. According to the regulations, companies registered between 2010 and 2020 enjoyed a total corporate income tax exemption for the first five years, followed by a 40% tax refund in the subsequent five years (Qin 2018). This policy shift attracted a significant increase in media-related company registrations in Horgos, going from 200 to over 600 from 2015 to 2017 (Xie 2017). As highlighted in Table 5, the film opening production credits for Part Three reveal how such policies were strategically utilized by Horgos Dengfeng International Media and two associated companies, Chunqiu Shidai (Horgos) Pictures and Horgos Chunqiu Time Media, to maximize financial advantages and assert greater influence in the film industry. This strategic manoeuvre illustrates the evolving relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China, where mainland companies increasingly leverage economic policies to strengthen their role and influence in co-productions.

Table 5. Production Companies Involved in Part Three.

Presenting Company	Associated Company
Chunqiu Shidai (Tianjin) Pictures	Western Film Group
Yuehua Entertainment	Star Alliance Movies (Beijing)
Horgos Dengfeng International Media	Huayi Brothers Film Investment
	Yunnan Broadcasting Media Group
	Tianjin Galaxy Cool Entertainment Culture Media
	Beijing Weiying Times Technology
	Wuhan Chuanqiren Entertainment
	Fujian Hengye Film
	Beijing Zhuoran Film Industry
	Chunqiu Shidai (Horgoes) Pictures
	Horgos Chunqiu Time Media

In the co-production of Part Three, the financial and operational strategies utilized by mainland companies underscore the evolving landscape of the film industry in the mid-2010s. Chunqiu Time (Tianjin) Pictures emerged as a significant financial player, investing 16 million yuan (roughly 2.4 US dollars), constituting 20% of the total investment (Yueerma 2016). Lü Jianmin, not only one of the mainland producers of Part Three, but also the CEO of Chunqiu Shidai (Tianjin) Picture, also heads two co-presented film companies – Chunqiu Shidai (Horgoes) and Horgos Chunqiu Time Media – all registered in Horgos to capitalize on the region’s tax benefits, acknowledging the area’s reputation as a ‘tax-friendly destination for the film industry’ (Qin 2018). With the shifting financial landscape of co-productions, mainland producers began to exert more influence on the creative processes, actively participating in shaping co-production content with director Lau. In one aspect, Lau mentioned in an interview that ‘After 20 years, I wanted to fill in the blanks and found that the third part could connect the stories of the first two parts into a complete movie’ (H. Yang 2016). In another aspect, mainland producer Lü also highlighted his strategies in co-producing Part Three. In an interview, Lü revealed his hands-on approach during the scriptwriting phase, stressing his involvement to ‘ensure the film is telling a good story as it is the foundation of a film’s success’ (Dai 2016). While Lü did not reveal specifics about which parts he revised or negotiated within the co-production, his statements and strategic involvement explicitly frame him as an integral part of the creative process. This reflects a broader trend where mainland partners are not only financial backers but also key contributors to the creative dialogue with their Hong Kong counterparts, marking a significant increase in their visibility and participation in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions.

Part Three was also co-produced by Horgos Dengfeng International Media, a subsidiary of Beijing Dengfeng International Media. This company, registered in Horgos in 2015, underwent restructuring in the following years, reflecting broader industrial changes and regulatory adjustments within the mainland film industry. The restructuring process included changing the company’s address and removing ‘film investment management’ from its list of business activities (Pei 2018). Although this reconstructing did not directly impact this co-production, it highlights the industry’s transformation towards stricter tax policies and a more sustainable business model. This shift was driven by increased scrutiny over the use of subsidies, as more than 90% of companies had essentially become shell companies, engaging in profit transfers to evade taxes (Jiang 2018). These changes underscore how mainland companies strategically navigate co-productions, aligning their investment decisions with the evolving economic and policy environment of the mid-2010s. Furthermore, this strategic navigation within the co-production of Part Three reflects a broader industry strategy. Mainland companies are seeking tax breaks and aiming to exert greater control over Hong Kong co-productions. This trend of increasing influence and participation by mainland entities in the creative and operational aspects of these co-productions not only underscores a strategic shift but also signals a fundamental reshaping of the industry’s future direction.

The evolving landscape of Hong Kong-mainland co-productions is markedly apparent in casting choices, where mainland China’s influence has become increasingly significant. Table 6 reveals that the main cast of Part Three is largely comprised of mainland actors, with Han Geng and Tang Yan in the lead roles of male and female leads. The film’s financing, with Yuehua Entertainment Co., providing 80% of the total investment, amounting to 64 million yuan (approximately 9.66 million US dollars), illustrates the financial clout behind this shift towards mainland dominance in the cast (Yueerma 2016). This shift is seen in the gradual replacement of Hong Kong’s actors, who had prominence in the earlier films of A Chinese Odyssey series, leaving only Karen Mok and Gillian Chung in brief supporting roles. Mok’s limited screen time, under 10 minutes, contrasts sharply with the extensive presence of the mainland leads in Part Three as well as the overwhelming involvement of the Hong Kong cast in Lau’s previous Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. This pattern in Lau’s films reveals a trend: from the absence of significant mainland leads in the pre-CEPA context to an increasing share of lead roles post-CEPA – as exemplified by Fan Bingbing’s brief appearance of less than 9 minutes on screen in 2005, gradually evolving in the post-CEPA with mainland actress Sun Li gaining more substantial roles alongside Hong Kong counterparts Ronald Cheng – leading to 2016 with both lead roles being filled by mainland talents. Moreover, the transition in Part Three reflects more than just a shift in casting; it exemplifies the mainland’s rising stature and influence in the co-production process. The significant financial contributions from mainland investors are accompanied by an increased presence of mainland actors in leading roles, indicating a growing influence within the film industry’s collaborative ventures.

Table 6. Main Cast of Part Three by Region.

Region	Staring	Special Appearance	Co-staring	Distinguished Appearance	Guest Starring	Introducing
Mainland China	Han Geng Tang Yan	Wu Jing	Zhang Yao Zhang Chao Xie Nan Wang Yibo Huang Zheng		Hu Jing He Jiong Lü Jianmin Zhou Pu	Lü Gana Cao Chengyan Zhou Yixuan
Hong Kong				Karen Mok	Gillian Chung Jeffrey Lau Corey Yuen

However, the increased involvement of mainland companies and capital does not imply a diminished role for Hong Kong in co-productions. On the contrary, Hong Kong’s expertise in post-production, particularly in visual effects, has continued to play a crucial role. In Lau’s co-productions in the post-CEPA context, visual effects directors and visual effects companies are all assembled from Hong Kong (See Table 7). However, Part Three marks a slight shift, where although the visual effects director and leading post-production company were still from Hong Kong, the execution was largely undertaken by mainland local visual effects companies. FX Free Production Co., led by the CEO as well as the visual effects director, Cecil Cheng, took responsibility for coordinating visual effects for Part Three. Cheng mentioned in an interview that he assembled a team with 10 other companies for visual effects post-production (CineHello 2016). Due to budget constraints, they involved lesser-known mainland companies and smaller teams, guiding them through the project (CineHello 2016). In the mid-2010s, as visual effect production was still developing in the mainland film industry, only about seven or eight post-production companies could handle significant projects (F. Liu and Kang 2017, 125). Therefore, Hong Kong-mainland co-productions in the mid-2010s provided an opportunity for mainland counterparts to facilitate a strategic enhancement of visual effects production capabilities, leveraging Hong Kong’s established expertise to foster growth and development within the mainland’s burgeoning film industry.

Table 7. Visual Effects Leadership in Lau’s Post-CEPA Co-productions.

Film title	Visual Effects Supervisor/Director	Company Name
A Chinese Tall Story	Eddy Wong Victor Wong	Menfond Electronic Art & Computer Design (HK)
Just Another Pandora’s Box	Don Ma Wing-On	Centro Digital Pictures (HK)
A Chinese Odyssey Part Three	Cecil Cheng	FX Free Production (HK)

Conclusion

In this article, I have employed the concept of ‘strategic hybridization’ to examine Hong Kong-mainland film co-productions. This analytical perspective has revealed how filmmakers, producers, and production companies from both sides strategically adapt to mainland China’s evolving regulatory, financial, and cultural environments. By examining Jeffrey Lau’s co-productions over two decades, from 1995 to 2016, I’ve analyzed the shifting dynamics driven by preferential policies such as CEPA and tax incentives, as well as the vast mainland market. These policies have not only allowed Hong Kong’s film industry to extend its influence and expand the entertainment market in the mainland – facilitating the transfer of skills, expertise, and talent – but have also steered the mainland’s film industry toward a more established and market-driven status, enhancing its capability to co-produce commercial films and develop advanced visual effects. The mainland has used Hong Kong’s expertise to adopt more market-oriented production strategies, such as developing market-driven production models, utilizing talent development and management, and enhancing advanced visual effects capabilities to achieve an industrial upgrade and become a market-oriented commercial film industry in the 21st century.

This study of Lau’s co-productions has documented the transition from a Hong Kong-led to a more mainland-centric production model. However, it is crucial to avoid oversimplifying this evolution as merely ‘mainlandization’. It has also demonstrated the necessity of considering the evolving historical context of each case to understand these nuanced shifts and the factors driving this transformation when analysing Hong Kong-mainland co-productions. During the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, Hong Kong’s dominance was evident in various aspects of the co-production process. Despite significant changes in the mid-2010s due to policy and financial factors, Hong Kong maintained an essential role, particularly in creative and post-production capacities. In the mid-2010s, the mainland-centric model did not simply absorb Hong Kong’s cinematic identity but rather merged it with mainland cultural and political sensibilities and cultural elements, creating a dynamic and evolving co-production paradigm that leverages Hong Kong’s established directorial, production, and visual effects expertise. This article has underscored the interdependence of cultural, state policy, and economic forces shaping the co-production landscape. This analysis of Lau’s films has revealed that hybridization in Hong Kong-mainland co-productions is a complex phenomenon shaped by strategic intentions as well as the intricate interactions of cultural, economic, and policy factors. This underscores the significance of detailed, case-specific, and period-sensitive analysis in fully understanding the unique co-production model between Hong Kong and mainland China.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and the editorial team for their valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hening Zhang

Hening Zhang is a PhD candidate in film and television studies at the University of Nottingham. Her PhD thesis explores the strategic exploitation of Journey to the West by Chinese screen, immersive, and advertising industries. She has contributed to Chinese Film in the Twenty-First Century: Movements, Genres, Intermedia (2023). Her research interests lie in media industry studies, media adaptation, and cultural policy.

Notes

1. The comedy style mo lei-tau, literally meaning nonsensical and silly talk, is characterised by rapid-fire dialogue, witty humour, and social satire (Garrison 2011), representing Hong Kong’s unique popular culture and one of the most popular commercial genres in Hong Kong cinema.