Vengeance (Fuk Sau)

A meditation on the ravages of time and identity, Vengeance is that rare movie that gets smarter as it proceeds.

Vengeance (Fuk Sau)

Director: Johnnie To
Cast: Johnny Hallyday, Sylvie Testud, Anthony Wong, Lam Ka Tung, Lam Suet, Simon Yam
Rated: R
Studio: IFC Films
Year: 2009
US date: 2010-08-04 (VOD)

"Who did this?" Seeing his daughter gasping for breath on a hospital bed in Macau, Francis (Johnny Hallyday) can only ask this single question. Irene (Sylvie Testud) can't speak, she can't remember exactly who smashed through her front door and shot her husband and two children to death, but she manages to point to letters on a newspaper page her father holds up, in order to indicate it was three assassins. Oh, and she was able to shoot man's ear off before he gunned her down and left her for dead too.

This is enough information for Francis, a Parisian chef with a mysterious but plainly violent past: he understands exactly what he needs to do when Irene rasps two words: "Avenge me." It's also enough to set the plot of Vengeance (Fuk Sau) in motion. From this moment on, Francis is racing against a clock, partly medical and partly metaphysical. He was shot in the head some time ago, and his doctor's told him that he will soon lose his memory. He doesn’t know when or how the effect will kick in, but he he knows he needs to hurry. Right now, looking at Irene, bruised and broken, Francis can't imagine anything more important that doing what she asks.

Francis' obsession shapes the film. On the one hand is the question of time: Francis' dwindling capacity provides Johnnie To's movie with the requisite deadline and consequent sense of urgency. Though Francis is a crack shot himself, he's also acutely aware of his impending limits. And so he hires three assassins of his own -- Kwai (Anthony Wong Chau-Sang), Chu (Ka Tung Lam), and Fat Lok (Suet Lam) -- in order to make sure the job will be done, even after he might be aware of it being done.

On another hand, Francis' loss of time speaks to a more dreadful loss, of identity. Not only might he forget his self-appointed mission, but he might also forget the reasons for it, his background as a killer of some sort, his family ties, his new associations with Kwai and company. To prepare for this eventuality, Francis takes his killers' photos and marks them with their names: aside from evoking Leonard's existential plight in Memento, the effort reveals Francis' rather quaint faith in moral labeling: if he marks these images "friends," as opposed to "enemies," he creates an order for his world -- one that's as arbitrary as his identity, as his time left, as the very concept of vengeance.

That concept might be termed an all-important third hand. Vengeance's questions about vengeance are impressively sophisticated, even amid all the shooting and car-chasing in To's satisfying mash-up of the French policier and triad action movie. Most typically, vengeance is a convenient and familiar way to deploy the sort of violence that constitutes plot in such genres. Violence here also delineates characters and immerses viewers in a world of long hallways, rainy nights, and far-off thunder. These elements comprise the first scene, when the brutal assault on Irene's family commences. It is filled out in shadowy and fragmented flashbacks: Irene remembers some bits (she's cooking dinner when the shooting begins, the camera panning over pots boiling, anticipating the chaos to come). Other bits are visualized by Kwai and his team. As they make their way through the evidence left behind at her home -- broken doors, blood on the walls, chalk outlines -- they hold their hands to emulate guns, reenacting what they have done themselves, elsewhere.

During their walk -through of the crime scene, the film cuts between the past violence and present contemplation. The past shooters were emotionless, hired by a man (Simon Yam), who is an exceptionally wealthy and venal cretin. These men appear as monsters, in hooded raincoats, their faces grim. The shooters-to-be, the avengers, are equally emotionless. They interpret the past ("They are three men: one put weight on his foot and used his gun in the left hand"), and make their own plans based on what they see. In one of many striking visual compositions (a signature of To's films), they eat pasta Francis prepares in his daughter's kitchen (again, pots boil). All four sit down in Irene's backyard, evaluating one another across the table in a mundane, serene setting, the grass green and the wind rustling tree branches behind them. It's an image of time receding even as the men look ahead. When Francis demonstrates his expertise with a gun, his employees are impressed. "Who are you?" wonders Kwai. "A chef," Francis insists.

Francis' identity is increasingly irrelevant to his plot. As he loses his grip, Kwai and his men keep pressing ahead, following up on clues and marshaling firepower to compete their contract. If they initially take pride in their mercenary status and lack of emotion, they eventually come to wonder about how much money can mean. At first triumphant when they track down the first killers, Kwai, Chu, and Fat are surprised to see their enemies with wives and children: as they all face off in a campground (more food, more tables, more evaluations), the wind rises. The dark trees, whipping wind, and increasing thunder make the professionals' growing inner turmoil vividly external.

Francis' own turmoil is less explicit. As he begins to forget his reasons for vengeance, by definition, he stops caring whether it's done, and has trouble figuring what it is. Seeing a photo of Irene, he asks, "Who is that?", echoing his question to her at film's start (and who is he in his plot, if not her father?). Francis' loss of self is further reflected in Hallyday's surgically stretched face, so sensationally and ineffectively resisting the passage of time.

This face, ironically and brilliantly, helps to undermine one of the film's most melodramatic moments, when Francis literally drops to his knees -- in a lapping surf, no less -- to pray for God to save him. The scene is absurd, as Francis, forgetting himself, is quite unredeemable. And yet, it's an apt last set-up for still more violence, with the action now spiraling into such utter abstraction, such absence of reason, that vengeance can't mean anything.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.