Life Is Cheap, But Toilet Paper Is Expen — Life Is Cheap, But Toilet Paper Is Expensive( Blu

Nakasako plays an unnamed American courier sent to deliver a mysterious briefcase from San Francisco to Hong Kong. When he arrives, his contact has vanished. Handcuffed to the case and stranded in a city on the brink of the 1997 handover to China, he wanders through Hong Kong’s chaotic streets, encountering a parade of colourful characters: duck butchers, fake Rolex sellers, cab drivers and gangsters. Featuring performances from Cheng Wan Kin as  Uncle Chen, Cora Miao as Money and cult favourite Victor Wong as Blind Man, the film unfolds as a strange collage of encounters that is part noir, part documentary, and part fever dream. Each vignette peels back a layer of life in late-80s Hong Kong, where life is disposable, but the basics needed to survive are anything but. 

 

Upon loading this 1989 / revised 2021 / Blu-ray release 2023, I was greeted with nostalgic Chinese opera-style music, clean graphics, and all the usual options: play the film, skip to chapters, watch the special features, select subtitles. I hit play. Instantly, words appeared on the screen stating that Wayne Wang has continued to revise Life Is Cheap But Toilet Paper Is Expensive since its 1989 release. He confirmed that the 2021 version is his preferred cut and should be taken as the definitive version, while the original release remains preserved for archival purposes. Reading this got me excited. As film reviewers, we love nothing more than seeing films with meaning, metaphors, and layers. I was buzzing to get started.

 

Around 12 minutes in, I realised this isn't the film for me. But I watched on with fascination regardless. It's extremely abstract, and I don't do well with films like this. It feels like a project, and it is, in a way. It's designed to show the anxieties of life in Hong Kong before the Chinese handover. The characters are quirky and unpredictable; some are very funny, and a few scenes made me chuckle. But the main takeaway is that each character portrays different anxieties or experiences throughout the film, creating a kind of moving work of art.

 

The camerawork is deliberately uncomfortable, and in that respect, it is done very well. There are several scenes involving animals being butchered and handled roughly! I had to skip through those parts. Uncomfortable for some, but intended to reflect everyday street life. Life isn't treasured, but essentials are expensive, almost like an exaggerated reflection of how it shouldn't be.

 

 

The special features begin with a 2022 interview with Wang. He begins with his childhood, explaining that from a young age, he learnt that experimenting with film didn't need to make sense. He also notes that the film wasn't originally in the form he felt it should have been, which is why he continued revisiting it. He discusses his influences and how he implemented those choices. If you watch the film, it's worth watching this special feature to tie it all together in your head.

 

The second part of the special features is an interview with Wang and co-writer/co-director Spencer Nakasako. This is a more in-depth answer to some of the questions you might have about the movie, but it's also a wonderful interview that shows the mechanics in their heads and their experiences. They discuss the X rating they received, and it's interesting to see the troubles the movie had. It's fun and energetic, and they laugh as they talk about how audiences reacted, then go on to say that this generation of critics actually appreciates the film, which I can agree with, but it just wasn't for me. They come across as genuinely lovely, warm-hearted, passionate people.

 

The final special feature delves into the briefcase chase scene. It goes on and on, and the chaotic energy reminded me of the long fight sequence in Romper Stomper. It adds an extra 4 minutes to the original, which was already at 6 minutes, and is filmed in a guerrilla-style.

 

Overall, this isn’t a film most viewers would sit down to and enjoy in a traditional sense, but it is something I would recommend to anyone interested in filmmaking. The fact that so many people reportedly told Wang to his face that it was the worst film they'd ever seen isn't lost on me. It proves it's a stylistic project and not intended to be a Hollywood blockbuster. There's plenty here to chew on. A fascinating experiment, even if it's not one I'd rush back to revisit