WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.100 Welcome to today's Deep Dive. We are really thrilled 00:00:03.100 --> 00:00:04.879 to have you joining the conversation today. Yeah, 00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:06.240 thanks for tuning in. It's great to have you 00:00:06.240 --> 00:00:09.519 here. So if you spend any time reading up on 00:00:09.519 --> 00:00:12.660 cinema history, you know that the year 1999 is 00:00:12.660 --> 00:00:16.190 universally treated as this. this monolithic, 00:00:16.530 --> 00:00:19.890 groundbreaking era for global film. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:20.190 --> 00:00:21.730 Right. The industry was just pumping out these 00:00:21.730 --> 00:00:25.829 massive culture shifting blockbusters that completely 00:00:25.829 --> 00:00:28.250 redefined visual storytelling. Everyone always 00:00:28.250 --> 00:00:32.399 talks about 1999. Exactly. But today, we are 00:00:32.399 --> 00:00:35.119 steering far away from those towering Hollywood 00:00:35.119 --> 00:00:38.600 titans. We are turning our attention to a single, 00:00:39.039 --> 00:00:41.299 highly specific source we've pulled for you. 00:00:41.380 --> 00:00:43.840 A really fun one, too. It is. It's a Wikipedia 00:00:43.840 --> 00:00:46.679 article detailing a 1999 Hong Kong film called 00:00:46.679 --> 00:00:48.740 Rave Fever. Yeah, and depending on the market, 00:00:48.799 --> 00:00:51.259 you might also know it as X -mas Rave Fever. 00:00:51.320 --> 00:00:53.799 Or by its original Chinese title, Zu Mo Kuang 00:00:53.799 --> 00:00:56.679 Rave. Right. And this film, it serves as this 00:00:56.679 --> 00:00:59.320 incredibly potent artifact from a very specific 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:04.019 cultural flash. point because on paper It presents 00:01:04.019 --> 00:01:07.780 as an R rated neon soaked comedy tracking party 00:01:07.780 --> 00:01:10.060 goers through the underground club scene of Hong 00:01:10.060 --> 00:01:13.280 Kong. And it packs all of that into a relentlessly 00:01:13.280 --> 00:01:16.959 brisk 75 minute runtime. It is fast. So fast. 00:01:17.099 --> 00:01:19.000 And the initial impression is something highly 00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:21.640 ephemeral. You know, the kind of frantic late 00:01:21.640 --> 00:01:23.700 night watch that you might normally write off 00:01:23.700 --> 00:01:27.019 as just a product of its time. OK, let's unpack 00:01:27.019 --> 00:01:29.200 this because our mission today is to discover 00:01:29.200 --> 00:01:34.060 how this short, fast paced 90s party comedy actually 00:01:34.060 --> 00:01:36.859 operated as a brilliant experimental sandbox. 00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:40.079 A huge sandbox. We are going to explore how this 00:01:40.079 --> 00:01:42.920 seemingly chaotic little movie served as the 00:01:42.920 --> 00:01:45.219 testing ground for the stylistic concepts of 00:01:45.219 --> 00:01:47.620 a director who would go on to shape the entire 00:01:47.620 --> 00:01:49.980 landscape of Hong Kong cinema. It really is the 00:01:49.980 --> 00:01:52.319 ultimate case study and why looking past that 00:01:52.319 --> 00:01:54.700 late 90s rave aesthetic reveals so much about 00:01:54.700 --> 00:01:56.819 the actual mechanics of filmmaking. It really 00:01:56.819 --> 00:02:00.000 does. And the nostalgia factor layered over that 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:01.879 mechanical experimentation makes it even more 00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:04.030 compelling for us. Oh for sure. Thinking about 00:02:04.030 --> 00:02:06.810 the cultural energy of 1999, you know, that impending 00:02:06.810 --> 00:02:09.210 millennium anxiety mixed with the pure hedonism 00:02:09.210 --> 00:02:12.289 of the club scene, it provides the perfect backdrop 00:02:12.289 --> 00:02:14.750 for this kind of narrative risk taking. Yeah, 00:02:14.750 --> 00:02:17.669 the Y2K of it all. Exactly. Filmmakers were operating 00:02:17.669 --> 00:02:19.830 on the edge of the digital revolution, but they 00:02:19.830 --> 00:02:22.729 were still tethered to the physical analog world. 00:02:23.009 --> 00:02:25.810 And that tension is big right into the DNA of 00:02:25.810 --> 00:02:29.150 this film. That analog late 90s reality really 00:02:29.150 --> 00:02:31.870 is the engine of the entire thing. It is. So 00:02:31.870 --> 00:02:34.810 to set the scene for you. the film gets its theatrical 00:02:34.810 --> 00:02:38.689 release in Hong Kong on December 23, 1999. Right 00:02:38.689 --> 00:02:41.009 before Christmas. Which places it squarely in 00:02:41.009 --> 00:02:43.590 the holiday season. It's directed by Alan Mack, 00:02:43.969 --> 00:02:47.189 and the casting choice for the lead is just fascinating. 00:02:47.289 --> 00:02:49.530 That's a great piece of trivia. The star is a 00:02:49.530 --> 00:02:51.990 highly successful canta pop composer named Mark 00:02:51.990 --> 00:02:54.770 Lewy. And he not only takes on the lead acting 00:02:54.770 --> 00:02:57.490 role, but he naturally produced a massive chunk 00:02:57.490 --> 00:02:59.949 of the music that gives the film its aggressive 00:02:59.949 --> 00:03:02.969 pulsing club vibe. Which is such a smart move 00:03:02.969 --> 00:03:05.750 by the director. Having your lead actor essentially 00:03:05.750 --> 00:03:09.629 score his own environment creates this very immersive, 00:03:09.909 --> 00:03:12.349 almost symbiotic relationship between the character 00:03:12.349 --> 00:03:14.370 and the setting. Yeah, it grounds it. Right. 00:03:14.449 --> 00:03:16.689 The music isn't just a soundtrack layered on 00:03:16.689 --> 00:03:18.710 top later. It's the atmosphere he's actually 00:03:18.710 --> 00:03:21.520 suffocating in. It sets up the plot perfectly. 00:03:22.020 --> 00:03:24.520 And the narrative structure here operates a lot 00:03:24.520 --> 00:03:27.699 like a relay race. A messy one. Very messy. Except 00:03:27.699 --> 00:03:30.699 instead of a controlled track, it's a relay race 00:03:30.699 --> 00:03:34.240 of pure overlapping chaos. Race. We start with 00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:37.199 Mark Lewis' character, Dawn. And Dawn is this 00:03:37.199 --> 00:03:39.939 deeply stressed, harried yuppie trying to navigate 00:03:39.939 --> 00:03:42.560 life in Hong Kong. He ends up having a one -night 00:03:42.560 --> 00:03:45.069 stand with a mysterious woman named Sonia. But 00:03:45.069 --> 00:03:47.229 then... But when Dawn wakes up the next morning, 00:03:47.550 --> 00:03:50.590 Sonya has vanished entirely. Goof gone. The only 00:03:50.590 --> 00:03:53.169 trace of her existence is the philofax she leaves 00:03:53.169 --> 00:03:56.069 behind. And in the context of this film's structure, 00:03:56.629 --> 00:03:59.509 that abandoned philofax, it acts as the singular 00:03:59.509 --> 00:04:01.770 physical anchor driving the narrative forward. 00:04:01.909 --> 00:04:04.509 It's the classic MacGuffin. Exactly. It's the 00:04:04.509 --> 00:04:06.669 catalyst that forces all these disparate characters 00:04:06.669 --> 00:04:10.150 to collide. Without that dense paper -bound personal 00:04:10.150 --> 00:04:12.909 organizer passing from hand to hand, the entire 00:04:12.909 --> 00:04:15.750 chaotic network just collapses. It's the baton 00:04:15.750 --> 00:04:18.209 being passed through this massive character domino 00:04:18.209 --> 00:04:21.939 effect. Yeah. So Don... uses the Filifax to try 00:04:21.939 --> 00:04:23.879 and retrace his steps from the night before, 00:04:24.360 --> 00:04:26.800 desperately trying to locate Sonya. And this 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:29.420 search immediately drops him into the path of 00:04:29.420 --> 00:04:31.899 Nicole, played by Jamie Ong. Right, who is a 00:04:31.899 --> 00:04:34.560 very complicated character. Source material paints 00:04:34.560 --> 00:04:37.920 Nicole as a sexually liberated, but highly untrustworthy 00:04:37.920 --> 00:04:40.800 figure who may or may not have the answers Dawn 00:04:40.800 --> 00:04:43.420 is looking for. regarding Sonia. Which introduces 00:04:43.420 --> 00:04:46.100 an immediate layer of unreliability to the entire 00:04:46.100 --> 00:04:49.040 investigation. From that point on, every interaction 00:04:49.040 --> 00:04:52.040 is laced with suspicion. And the web just aggressively 00:04:52.040 --> 00:04:54.680 expands from there. The Philafax physically moves 00:04:54.680 --> 00:04:56.939 out of Dawn's orbit and ends up in the possession 00:04:56.939 --> 00:04:59.560 of a journalist named Ashley, played by Yo -Yo 00:04:59.560 --> 00:05:02.259 Mom. Right, passing the baton again. Exactly. 00:05:02.899 --> 00:05:04.620 Ashley is dealing with her own separate life 00:05:04.620 --> 00:05:08.410 trajectory and ends up falling for this... handsome 00:05:08.410 --> 00:05:10.970 but deeply troubled guy named Stephen, played 00:05:10.970 --> 00:05:14.470 by Terence Yen, and the Soap opera level of coincidence 00:05:14.470 --> 00:05:16.990 here is brilliant because Stephen actually turns 00:05:16.990 --> 00:05:19.870 out to be Sonya's ex -lover. It's a phenomenally 00:05:19.870 --> 00:05:23.129 tangled web of criss -crossing paths. It's wild. 00:05:23.209 --> 00:05:25.050 You have Ashley piecing together these connections 00:05:25.050 --> 00:05:28.310 through the filofax and suddenly suspecting actual 00:05:28.310 --> 00:05:30.810 foul play regarding Sonya's disappearance. It 00:05:30.810 --> 00:05:33.910 gets dark. It does. That suspicion drags the 00:05:33.910 --> 00:05:36.269 narrative toward a highly peculiar club patron 00:05:36.269 --> 00:05:39.110 named Gordon, played by Sam Lee. Add in an inspector 00:05:39.110 --> 00:05:41.839 named Ryan. played by Bay Logan, who gets pulled 00:05:41.839 --> 00:05:44.360 into the ensuing mess, and you have this overwhelming 00:05:44.360 --> 00:05:46.939 intersecting cast of night owls. It is a lot 00:05:46.939 --> 00:05:49.600 of narrative weight to balance in just 75 minutes. 00:05:49.639 --> 00:05:52.579 It really is. And, you know, the irony of juggling 00:05:52.579 --> 00:05:54.699 that specific character web against the backdrop 00:05:54.699 --> 00:05:56.920 of the holiday season shouldn't be overlooked 00:05:56.920 --> 00:05:59.000 either. Oh, the Christmas setting. Yeah, we noted 00:05:59.000 --> 00:06:01.800 the December 23rd release date earlier. Setting 00:06:01.800 --> 00:06:04.899 this gritty, neon -drenched mystery right at 00:06:04.899 --> 00:06:07.600 Christmas adds a really sharp thematic contrast. 00:06:07.980 --> 00:06:11.860 How so? all these inherent expectations of family, 00:06:12.399 --> 00:06:14.959 warmth, predictability, and domestic safety, 00:06:15.139 --> 00:06:18.120 right? Yeah, usually. Yet Mac subverts that entirely 00:06:18.120 --> 00:06:21.319 by focusing on these isolated, disconnected individuals 00:06:21.319 --> 00:06:23.939 wandering through the pulsating transient rave 00:06:23.939 --> 00:06:27.920 scene instead. The festive backdrop almost mocks 00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:30.420 the messy realities of these characters' lives. 00:06:30.560 --> 00:06:32.980 That's a great way to put it. It highlights the 00:06:32.980 --> 00:06:35.500 profound loneliness of the urban experience, 00:06:35.800 --> 00:06:38.519 while simultaneously emphasizing the bizarre, 00:06:38.759 --> 00:06:41.360 serendipitous connections that a bustling metropolis 00:06:41.360 --> 00:06:44.420 can force upon you. These people are entirely 00:06:44.420 --> 00:06:47.040 untethered from traditional holiday warmth, which 00:06:47.040 --> 00:06:49.100 leaves them at the mercy of chance encounters 00:06:49.100 --> 00:06:51.879 and a lost organizer. Which brings us to how 00:06:51.879 --> 00:06:54.139 Alan Mack actually wrangles all of these chance 00:06:54.139 --> 00:06:56.579 encounters. Because the structural execution 00:06:56.579 --> 00:06:59.240 is where the real meat of our deep dive lies. 00:06:59.480 --> 00:07:02.250 What's fascinating here is how film scholars 00:07:02.250 --> 00:07:04.889 have dissected this specific architecture. Yeah 00:07:04.889 --> 00:07:07.250 the scholarly take on this is super interesting. 00:07:07.399 --> 00:07:09.759 Looking at the source material, David Bordwell 00:07:09.759 --> 00:07:12.980 analyzes this exact film in his book Planet Hong 00:07:12.980 --> 00:07:15.680 Kong, Popular Cinema and the Art of Entertainment. 00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:18.879 A great book. He categorizes Rave Fever as an 00:07:18.879 --> 00:07:21.920 experiment in Gen X network narrative. Network 00:07:21.920 --> 00:07:24.360 narrative. Right. He notes the film is fundamentally 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:27.040 structured around tracing crisscrossing love 00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:29.759 affairs rather than following a traditional linear 00:07:29.759 --> 00:07:32.319 path. Here's where it gets really interesting 00:07:32.319 --> 00:07:34.720 because Bordwell actually doubles down on this 00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:36.819 analysis in another one of his books, Poetic 00:07:36.720 --> 00:07:40.000 of cinema, he draws a direct comparison between 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:44.360 Ray Fever and the 1999 American film Go. Oh, 00:07:44.720 --> 00:07:46.740 Go is such a good comparison. For those of you 00:07:46.740 --> 00:07:49.819 who track late 90s cinema, you know Go is celebrated 00:07:49.819 --> 00:07:52.860 for its frenetic, multi -perspective approach 00:07:52.860 --> 00:07:55.160 to storytelling. Yeah, Doug Lyman directed that 00:07:55.160 --> 00:07:57.879 one. Exactly. Boardwell argues that both films 00:07:57.879 --> 00:08:01.120 utilize this distinct network approach to construct 00:08:01.120 --> 00:08:03.259 their realities. And breaking down the mechanics 00:08:03.259 --> 00:08:05.680 of that network approach reveals why it's such 00:08:05.680 --> 00:08:08.680 an ambitious choice for a relatively green director 00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:11.160 like Mack was at the time. Break that down for 00:08:11.160 --> 00:08:14.160 us a bit. Sure. Standard narratives hold your 00:08:14.160 --> 00:08:16.860 hand and walk you alongside a single protagonist 00:08:16.860 --> 00:08:19.620 from the inciting incident all the way to the 00:08:19.620 --> 00:08:22.990 resolution. Point A to point B. Right. The network 00:08:22.990 --> 00:08:25.629 narrative shatters that linearity. It forces 00:08:25.629 --> 00:08:28.569 the audience to revisit the exact same sequence 00:08:28.569 --> 00:08:31.269 of events, but viewed through the entirely different 00:08:31.269 --> 00:08:33.929 lenses of competing characters. It also elevates 00:08:33.929 --> 00:08:36.009 characters who would traditionally be completely 00:08:36.009 --> 00:08:38.970 disposable. Yes. Like someone who acts as a simple 00:08:38.970 --> 00:08:42.649 background extra in Don's storyline suddenly 00:08:42.649 --> 00:08:44.649 becomes the focal point of the next sequence, 00:08:44.690 --> 00:08:46.870 and you get to see their entire internal motivation. 00:08:47.019 --> 00:08:49.740 The complexity of managing that is staggering. 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:52.379 And in this case, the circulating filofax acts 00:08:52.379 --> 00:08:54.860 as the only connective tissue keeping those pargy 00:08:54.860 --> 00:08:57.039 animals tethered to the same plot. It's the glue. 00:08:57.500 --> 00:08:59.860 It demands a highly sophisticated approach to 00:08:59.860 --> 00:09:02.120 editing, which ties directly into a point raised 00:09:02.120 --> 00:09:04.480 by author Gina Marchetti in The Sources. What 00:09:04.480 --> 00:09:07.200 did she say? She observes that Mack experimented 00:09:07.200 --> 00:09:09.320 with elliptical narratives reminiscent of Hong 00:09:09.320 --> 00:09:12.669 Kong New Wave films. You hear the term elliptical 00:09:12.669 --> 00:09:14.710 narratives thrown around a lot when discussing 00:09:14.710 --> 00:09:17.129 the Hong Kong New Wave, and seeing it applied 00:09:17.129 --> 00:09:20.309 to a raucous 90s club quality is a fascinating 00:09:20.309 --> 00:09:23.250 stylistic collision. It really is. And for those 00:09:23.250 --> 00:09:25.409 who might not be familiar with the term, an elliptical 00:09:25.409 --> 00:09:27.710 narrative is basically the intentional omission 00:09:27.710 --> 00:09:30.529 of connective tissue. Right. Elliptical editing 00:09:30.529 --> 00:09:33.769 skips through time or removes seemingly vital 00:09:33.769 --> 00:09:36.789 plot developments. It drops the viewer directly 00:09:36.789 --> 00:09:39.129 into the consequences of an action rather than 00:09:39.129 --> 00:09:41.309 showing the action itself. So it forces you to 00:09:41.309 --> 00:09:44.610 lean in. Exactly. You are actively forced to 00:09:44.610 --> 00:09:46.950 fill in the blanks using context clues from the 00:09:46.950 --> 00:09:49.110 intersecting storylines. It's an approach that 00:09:49.110 --> 00:09:51.750 entirely refuses to spoon feed the viewer. You 00:09:51.750 --> 00:09:54.490 are doing the detective work alongside Ashley 00:09:54.490 --> 00:09:57.309 and Inspector Ryan piecing together a puzzle 00:09:57.309 --> 00:09:59.809 where every character holds one fragmented piece 00:09:59.809 --> 00:10:02.789 of the truth. And trying to cram an elliptical 00:10:02.789 --> 00:10:05.629 multi -perspective network narrative into a 75 00:10:05.629 --> 00:10:08.250 minute runtime requires an incredible amount 00:10:08.250 --> 00:10:10.730 of precision. It does and this brings up a really 00:10:10.730 --> 00:10:13.539 compelling tension regarding the film. the expectation 00:10:13.539 --> 00:10:16.080 versus the reality. Oh, the marketing versus 00:10:16.080 --> 00:10:18.899 the actual movie? Yeah. When you market an R 00:10:18.899 --> 00:10:21.460 -rated movie called Ray Fever set in the underground 00:10:21.460 --> 00:10:24.159 club scene, audiences are going to walk in with 00:10:24.159 --> 00:10:26.580 very specific assumptions. They are primed for 00:10:26.580 --> 00:10:29.759 superficial thrills, heavy bass lines, and visual 00:10:29.759 --> 00:10:32.139 excess. And looking at the critical consensus 00:10:32.139 --> 00:10:35.100 from the sources, you can see how reviewers grappled 00:10:35.100 --> 00:10:37.299 with what the film was actually trying to do. 00:10:37.480 --> 00:10:39.779 There was definitely a split. Take the review 00:10:39.779 --> 00:10:43.039 from Love8Film .com. they totally leaned into 00:10:43.039 --> 00:10:46.059 the aesthetic surface level. They echoed Bordwell's 00:10:46.059 --> 00:10:48.600 comparison to the movie Go, but they ultimately 00:10:48.600 --> 00:10:52.220 summarized Rave Fever as a candy -coated confection 00:10:52.220 --> 00:10:55.419 set against a sexy neon -lit backdrop. Which 00:10:55.419 --> 00:10:57.200 is an interesting way to phrase it because that 00:10:57.200 --> 00:10:59.919 framing implies a triumph of style over substance. 00:11:00.159 --> 00:11:02.139 Why, like it's just a music video. Yeah, a film 00:11:02.139 --> 00:11:04.779 designed primarily as a visual and auditory trip 00:11:04.779 --> 00:11:07.299 rather than a complex narrative exercise. But 00:11:07.299 --> 00:11:10.019 the flip side of that is the Deeply insightful 00:11:10.019 --> 00:11:12.980 review from the website Brands .com, which awarded 00:11:12.980 --> 00:11:15.919 the film a 7 .5 out of 10. They had a very different 00:11:15.919 --> 00:11:18.080 take. They fiercely pushed back against that 00:11:18.080 --> 00:11:21.580 sexy neon lit expectation. The review explicitly 00:11:21.580 --> 00:11:23.399 states that despite the aggressive marketing 00:11:23.399 --> 00:11:27.580 of the title, the film is absolutely not a sexy, 00:11:27.720 --> 00:11:30.399 highly charged exploration of the HK raves scene. 00:11:30.539 --> 00:11:33.700 Not at all. They categorize it instead as a fairly 00:11:33.700 --> 00:11:36.379 subdued, but very amusing comedy. The Bronze 00:11:36.379 --> 00:11:39.460 .com review makes a brilliant structural observation 00:11:39.460 --> 00:11:42.259 to back up that claim too. They describe the 00:11:42.259 --> 00:11:44.639 entire central mystery. You know, the disappearance 00:11:44.639 --> 00:11:47.480 of Sonia, the bloody trail left by the Filafax, 00:11:47.639 --> 00:11:50.460 the suspicions of foul play as a shaggy dog story. 00:11:50.720 --> 00:11:53.159 A shaggy dog story applied to a gritty urban 00:11:53.159 --> 00:11:56.440 thriller is such a wild subversion of genre tropes. 00:11:56.480 --> 00:11:58.820 It is the ultimate bait and switch. Explain the 00:11:58.820 --> 00:12:01.360 shaggy dog concept for us. Sure. In literary 00:12:01.360 --> 00:12:03.840 and narrative terms, a shaggy dog story is a 00:12:03.840 --> 00:12:06.600 long, highly convoluted yarn that meticulously 00:12:06.600 --> 00:12:09.659 builds toward a massive climax or profound revelation. 00:12:09.759 --> 00:12:12.340 Only to just fizzle out. Exactly. Only to resolve 00:12:12.340 --> 00:12:15.100 in an entirely pointless or absurd anticlimax. 00:12:15.519 --> 00:12:17.360 The joke is essentially on the audience for taking 00:12:17.360 --> 00:12:19.580 the destination so seriously. The mystery is 00:12:19.580 --> 00:12:22.799 just a veneer. Entirely. The review highlights 00:12:22.799 --> 00:12:24.940 that the disappearance of Sonya isn't the point 00:12:24.940 --> 00:12:27.799 of the movie. It's merely the excuse Mac uses 00:12:27.799 --> 00:12:31.039 to string together these clever, genuinely funny, 00:12:31.340 --> 00:12:34.340 and wonderfully absurd comedic interactions between 00:12:34.340 --> 00:12:36.820 his crisscrossing characters. So the journey 00:12:36.820 --> 00:12:40.659 itself is the point. The journey and the structural 00:12:40.659 --> 00:12:43.100 experimentation of that journey is the actual 00:12:43.100 --> 00:12:46.100 punchline. Understanding that it's a quirky character 00:12:46.100 --> 00:12:49.080 comedy disguised as a neon thriller makes the 00:12:49.080 --> 00:12:51.259 overall critical resection make a lot more sense. 00:12:51.419 --> 00:12:53.659 It really recontextualizes it. The Wikipedia 00:12:53.659 --> 00:12:55.740 article notes that on the cult cinema website, 00:12:55.840 --> 00:12:59.259 cityonfire .com, three separate reviewers gave 00:12:59.259 --> 00:13:03.580 it remarkably strong scores, an 8 .5, a 7, and 00:13:03.580 --> 00:13:05.700 an 8 out of 10. That's pretty high for that site. 00:13:05.779 --> 00:13:07.960 You don't pull that kind of positive consensus 00:13:07.960 --> 00:13:10.480 from niche genre critics unless the structural 00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:13.610 humor is genuinely landing. Those scores indicate 00:13:13.610 --> 00:13:16.269 a deep appreciation for the underlying craftsmanship. 00:13:16.769 --> 00:13:18.590 It proves the audience was willing to engage 00:13:18.590 --> 00:13:20.309 with the elliptical narrative and the network 00:13:20.309 --> 00:13:22.429 approach, recognizing that Mac was doing something 00:13:22.429 --> 00:13:24.669 far more ambitious than a standard party movie. 00:13:24.929 --> 00:13:27.289 Let's pivot to the commercial realities and the 00:13:27.289 --> 00:13:29.509 broader legacy of this sandbox experiment. OK, 00:13:29.509 --> 00:13:32.090 let's do it. At the local Hong Kong box office, 00:13:32.409 --> 00:13:35.970 Rave Fever pulled in roughly 1 .8 million Hong 00:13:35.970 --> 00:13:38.830 Kong dollars. Not bad at all. And it also managed 00:13:38.830 --> 00:13:41.809 to secure a footprint beyond its domestic release. 00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:45.899 being presented in competition at the 2000 Stockholm 00:13:45.899 --> 00:13:48.360 Film Festival. If we connect this to the bigger 00:13:48.360 --> 00:13:50.919 picture, the financial return and the festival 00:13:50.919 --> 00:13:54.419 run are solid achievements, sure. But the true 00:13:54.419 --> 00:13:56.960 historical value of Rave Fever lies entirely 00:13:56.960 --> 00:13:59.460 in its role within Alan Mack's career trajectory. 00:13:59.899 --> 00:14:02.259 This is the best part. Reviewing the filmography 00:14:02.259 --> 00:14:05.320 provided in our sources, this was only his second 00:14:05.320 --> 00:14:09.019 directorial effort. He debuted in 1998 with a 00:14:09.019 --> 00:14:11.919 film called Nude Fear. So he is operating at 00:14:11.919 --> 00:14:13.679 the very beginning of his creative evolution 00:14:13.679 --> 00:14:15.779 here. He's a rookie. He's using the project as 00:14:15.779 --> 00:14:18.399 a laboratory. That concept of the sandbox is 00:14:18.399 --> 00:14:20.840 crucial for understanding how legendary directors 00:14:20.840 --> 00:14:23.720 build their technical foundations. A 75 -minute 00:14:23.720 --> 00:14:26.480 R -rated comedy offers a relatively low -stakes 00:14:26.480 --> 00:14:29.870 environment. Room to fail. Exactly. Mack leveraged 00:14:29.870 --> 00:14:32.590 that environment to rigorously test his ability 00:14:32.590 --> 00:14:35.610 to handle highly complex, multi -perspective 00:14:35.610 --> 00:14:38.470 storytelling. He was actively working out the 00:14:38.470 --> 00:14:40.950 mathematical precision required to juggle competing 00:14:40.950 --> 00:14:43.950 viewpoints, elliptical edits, and a sprawling 00:14:43.950 --> 00:14:46.809 ensemble cast all without entirely losing the 00:14:46.809 --> 00:14:48.909 audience's comprehension. You have to master 00:14:48.909 --> 00:14:51.509 juggling three objects before you can juggle 00:14:51.509 --> 00:14:54.029 flaming swords. And he absolutely needed those 00:14:54.029 --> 00:14:56.110 technical skills refined because the trajectory 00:14:56.110 --> 00:14:58.240 of his career was about to launch into the stratosphere. 00:14:58.500 --> 00:15:00.179 It really was. Just a couple of years later, 00:15:00.440 --> 00:15:02.779 Alan Mack would go on to co -direct the globally 00:15:02.779 --> 00:15:05.460 celebrated Infernal Affairs trilogy starting 00:15:05.460 --> 00:15:08.539 in 2002. For those of you familiar with international 00:15:08.539 --> 00:15:11.419 cinema, the Infernal Affairs trilogy is a masterclass 00:15:11.419 --> 00:15:13.720 intention. The movie that departed was actually 00:15:13.720 --> 00:15:16.480 a remake of it. Right. It's an incredibly dense, 00:15:16.899 --> 00:15:19.539 intricately woven thriller about undercover moles 00:15:19.539 --> 00:15:22.440 infiltrating opposing sides of the law. And the 00:15:22.440 --> 00:15:24.460 brilliance of Infernal Affairs relies entirely 00:15:24.460 --> 00:15:27.139 on the flawless execution of a crisscrossing, 00:15:27.240 --> 00:15:29.379 multi -perspective narrative. Just like Ray Fever. 00:15:29.559 --> 00:15:32.940 Exactly. It demands an audience capable of tracking 00:15:32.940 --> 00:15:35.340 secrets that the characters themselves are unaware 00:15:35.340 --> 00:15:38.659 of, utilizing the exact same elliptical storytelling 00:15:38.659 --> 00:15:41.340 techniques to build unbearable tension. That's 00:15:41.340 --> 00:15:44.980 wild. The structural DNA of that massive, career 00:15:44.980 --> 00:15:48.259 -defining crime epic was forged right here, tracking 00:15:48.259 --> 00:15:50.720 a lost personal organizer through a nightclub 00:15:50.720 --> 00:15:52.980 comedy. It completely reframes how we should 00:15:52.980 --> 00:15:55.139 look at the early filmographies of major auteurs. 00:15:55.779 --> 00:15:57.940 Mack takes the technical foundation he built 00:15:57.940 --> 00:16:00.600 in the sandbox and goes on to direct massive 00:16:00.600 --> 00:16:02.779 hits like Initial D and the Overheard series. 00:16:03.179 --> 00:16:05.200 The sprawling scope of those later films owes 00:16:05.200 --> 00:16:07.820 a massive debt to the risks he took with Rave 00:16:07.820 --> 00:16:10.720 Fever. So what does this all mean for you, the 00:16:10.720 --> 00:16:13.500 listener? Why dedicate time to dissecting an 00:16:13.500 --> 00:16:16.759 obscure 75 -minute Hong Kong comedy from 1999? 00:16:17.279 --> 00:16:19.259 It's a fair question. The takeaway is that Rave 00:16:19.259 --> 00:16:21.779 Fever stands as a fascinating, tangible record 00:16:21.779 --> 00:16:24.769 of structural evolution. It serves as a reminder 00:16:24.769 --> 00:16:27.110 that whenever you sit down to enjoy a flawlessly 00:16:27.110 --> 00:16:30.149 executed, multi -layered thriller today, you 00:16:30.149 --> 00:16:32.929 are likely benefiting from the weird, low -budget, 00:16:32.950 --> 00:16:35.649 neon -lit experiments a creator was brave enough 00:16:35.649 --> 00:16:38.169 to attempt years earlier. Masterpieces don't 00:16:38.169 --> 00:16:40.690 just happen. Right. They're born from the trial 00:16:40.690 --> 00:16:42.649 and error of the sandbox. And, you know, the 00:16:42.649 --> 00:16:44.769 evolution of those narratives also forces us 00:16:44.769 --> 00:16:46.889 to consider the evolution of the world they take 00:16:46.889 --> 00:16:49.620 place in. Oh, that's an interesting point. Looking 00:16:49.620 --> 00:16:52.379 at the core mechanics of this plot raises an 00:16:52.379 --> 00:16:54.539 unavoidable question about modern storytelling. 00:16:55.259 --> 00:16:58.399 The entirety of Ray Fever hinges on a physical 00:16:58.399 --> 00:17:02.600 analog object. The filofax being lost, discovered, 00:17:02.840 --> 00:17:04.960 and passed indiscriminately from stranger to 00:17:04.960 --> 00:17:07.000 stranger. Which would never happen today. In 00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:09.900 our current reality, heavily dominated by smartphones, 00:17:10.440 --> 00:17:12.539 instantaneous messaging, cloud synchronization, 00:17:12.740 --> 00:17:15.700 and GPS tracking, the concept of losing your 00:17:15.700 --> 00:17:18.259 entire schedule and contact list in a physical 00:17:18.259 --> 00:17:21.200 form is nearly extinct. You would just lock your 00:17:21.200 --> 00:17:23.720 phone remotely. Right! A stranger cannot simply 00:17:23.720 --> 00:17:25.880 pick up a drop piece of your life and flip through 00:17:25.880 --> 00:17:28.700 the pages. Our lives are locked behind biometric 00:17:28.700 --> 00:17:31.480 security and passcodes. Face ID ruins the plot. 00:17:31.920 --> 00:17:34.779 It totally does. How does the eradication of 00:17:34.779 --> 00:17:38.039 these physical analog objects fundamentally alter 00:17:38.039 --> 00:17:41.140 the way writers can even construct serendipitous 00:17:41.140 --> 00:17:44.380 mysteries and crisscrossing romances today? We 00:17:44.380 --> 00:17:46.819 have gained in a measurable amount of digital 00:17:46.819 --> 00:17:49.980 convenience, but we may have lost the physical 00:17:49.980 --> 00:17:52.599 catalyst required for these kinds of chaotic, 00:17:52.940 --> 00:17:56.079 unpredictable human adventures. That is a brilliant 00:17:56.079 --> 00:17:58.900 final thought to leave you with. The modern digital 00:17:58.900 --> 00:18:01.099 landscape would have resolved the central mystery 00:18:01.099 --> 00:18:03.700 of this film in about 30 seconds. The movie would 00:18:03.700 --> 00:18:06.099 have been five minutes long. Exactly. Thank you 00:18:06.099 --> 00:18:07.680 so much for joining us on this Deep Dive. We 00:18:07.680 --> 00:18:09.359 hope you walk away with a renewed appreciation 00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:12.160 for the mechanics of 9D cinema, the art of the 00:18:12.160 --> 00:18:14.480 network narrative, and perhaps a bit of nostalgia 00:18:14.480 --> 00:18:17.000 for the chaotic potential of a lost paper diary. 00:18:17.319 --> 00:18:19.720 Keep exploring those obscure corners of history. 00:18:19.880 --> 00:18:21.059 And we will catch you next time.