Critical Reading of 'Just Follow Law'
Before I proceed to criticise social commentator Jack Neo's latest film "Just Follow Law", let me preface my argument with a few comments. As a movie-viewer, I did find certain scenes humourous, but I nevertheless think this is one of the poorest film Jack Neo has made. Although it is intended to be a comedic take on Singapore and the government (or more specifically, civil servants), it is well-understood that Jack Neo attempts to covertly (or not, depending on the scene) communicate a social message through his films. Lastly, as I have been away on such a long hiatus, I wish to "take "baby steps" by writing this critical piece, considering that I may have lost my "edge" after so long. For reasons of work and confidentiality, I will have to blog more carefully. Nevertheless, I hope this entry will be of entertainment and educational value to you.
Obviously, there will be some spoilers, since this is a critical reading from a movie review.
"Just Follow Law" is basically a movie that attempts to capture the life of civil servants in the Singapore government. It's basic premise is the lives of two civil servants, one played by Gurmit Singh, a working class electrician, and the other is played by Fann Wong, a high-flying career-woman in the Events and Promoting Department. Their workplace is a pseudo-workfare agency set up by the government. Throughout the film, the two will learn more about each other's lives, and as typical of all Jack Neo's films, they learn the value of family, children and though not as emphasized, marriage.
If you've watched this film, you would be familiar with the ridiculous plot twist that provides the catalyst for the two to learn of each other's lives. Never mind that I personally found it poorly executed and a copy technique (many other Hollywood movies have executed the same "soul-switching" plot device), but what little resemblance of reality that continues from there is absent. What the viewers are treated to is a farcial view of the civil sector and a poor representation of politics and the law in Singapore. Further, Jack Neo, who represents himself as a "voice" for the heart-landers or working class, only performs a severely bad dis-service in helping his constitutencies.
The single and largest misconception or myth that the film has perpetuated in its portrayal of civil sector is that it is made up of a bunch of old and dirty crooks all out to swipe and backstab each other, with flying daggers (or arrows in the film) shooting all over the place, and incompetent bosses who have no control over their subordinates' cunning and mischevious actions to undermine each other. While there is no denial that there are politics and possibly the "covering of backsides" (as the film calls it) in every work place, the reality of working in the civil sector hardly matches up to its celluloid counterpart. For one, the civil servants themselves are very aware of the ideological apparatus that operates within the government sector, and that is a given for there is extensive training (and indoctrination) to ensure they perform their roles. Even if the civil servants themselves wish to resist the ideological grip, they can't fail to escape it as there is daily feedback and discussions back-and-forth regarding their work. And that is the second biggest myth the film perpetuates, that civil servants are going to undermine and risk the retrenchment of an entire work department, much less one person, in the workplace. Sorry Jack, but whatever place you are working at or got that idea from, this is far from your wildest dreams. If anything, the civil sector has to be kept under such a tight and strict work culture that anybody daring to undermine a person of authority or an entire department will be out of their minds. Even if someone were to harbour such intentions, the constant flowing back-and-forth bureaucratic work process would have released such a "cat in the bag".
There are also some nit-picks to address. An electrician working in a government agency is not a civil servant, in the strict sense of the term (though there are admin and support staff). Senior authorities can not cancel bonuses without prior justification (not to mention, the paperwork involved). Neo's caricarture and generalization of career-women as cold and heartless with no compassion for family values is extremely one-dimensional and silly. Further, his innocent and saintly picture of the Minister really doesn't do anything but perpetuate the myth of the "baby-carrying" and "luck-giving" happy-going Minister. I won't comment any further than to say that it is a major distortion of the fact that politicians are not just mindless happy-go-doers but have certain interests in mind and follow a consistent set of ideology that will raise hairs on the backs of most ordinary people.
But even more important is the shameful portrayal of the working class by someone who claims to speak up for them. The character portrayed by Gurmit Singh is too blantantly a bum and a fool who is narrow and self-centred. With such a character, it doesn't matter how handsome or rich or charming the individual is, there will be very little reason to sympathize with such a off-putting character. On the other hand, to indirectly insinulate that working-class individuals who can't afford to pay for expensive hospital bills for their own children as "useless fools" is not only deeply insulting but illustrates what a poor understanding Jack has of his fan-base's needs and hardship. Many working class individuals, even despite being re-educated and working nonstandard work hours, contract work schedules, OT hours, or slave day and night picking up bottles and working in McDonalds (just like his "lao ze bao" in the film) survive day and night on their measly earnings and wouldn't be able to afford such medical costs anyway.
What is Neo's solution to this whole national mess? Entrepreunership. To show off his antidote, he has the same clumsy working class individual absent-mindedly and mistakenly conceptualize a "device" that eventually wins him an award in creativity. I truly fail to see how such a ad hoc and risky venture can possibly be the cure-all for structural poverty and further, it's based on such an unrealistic solution for working-class families to get out of poverty. Just invent something, you dumb and useless ass, and you will get rich. Interestingly, this has been a constant theme in all of Jack Neo's films (such as the car washing finale in Money No Enough!).
Is there anything to savage from this carcass of lies and propaganda? Well, namely two scenes could have been its saving grace. The first is that scene where the old lady mishandles some documents and places them into her bag, which is an obvious reference to a political fiasco in the last elections. The second, which really should have been expanded on and awoken people's consciousness, is the finale, where one of the workers seeks employment in an ex-civil servant's company. How did this government worker eventually own a private corporation since it is against the law? Through his wife, the ex-civil servant speaks. If that obvious reference escapes being undetected without irony and laughter, then it is really a sad case of how much the general populace in Singapore accepts such propaganda being shoved down their throats. If anything, that reference should have sparked off a national debate.
But no, perhaps the film-goer will quietly laugh and accept the "common sense" being portrayed and communicated to him/her. S/he will then be brought along for a ride, yes, a funny and humourous entertaining ride, but sadly one where the person will confuse the difference between reality and fiction. Deep down, Jack Neo is nothing but pro-PAP, and also a staunch supporter of consumerism, elitism and commercialism (Want to count how many corporations are behind sponsoring his film? Watch the end credits) and a member of the (famous Marxist term) bourgeoise. Yes, he does point to some contradictory and ironic positions the government has taken, and perhaps there are a few initiatives the government should take to reform itself, but to give advice to a totally fictional picture....is simply bad medicine and a trick of the hypnotist.
The problem isn't that people follow the law. The problem is that some people are more equal than others when it comes to the law.
Obviously, there will be some spoilers, since this is a critical reading from a movie review.
"Just Follow Law" is basically a movie that attempts to capture the life of civil servants in the Singapore government. It's basic premise is the lives of two civil servants, one played by Gurmit Singh, a working class electrician, and the other is played by Fann Wong, a high-flying career-woman in the Events and Promoting Department. Their workplace is a pseudo-workfare agency set up by the government. Throughout the film, the two will learn more about each other's lives, and as typical of all Jack Neo's films, they learn the value of family, children and though not as emphasized, marriage.
If you've watched this film, you would be familiar with the ridiculous plot twist that provides the catalyst for the two to learn of each other's lives. Never mind that I personally found it poorly executed and a copy technique (many other Hollywood movies have executed the same "soul-switching" plot device), but what little resemblance of reality that continues from there is absent. What the viewers are treated to is a farcial view of the civil sector and a poor representation of politics and the law in Singapore. Further, Jack Neo, who represents himself as a "voice" for the heart-landers or working class, only performs a severely bad dis-service in helping his constitutencies.
The single and largest misconception or myth that the film has perpetuated in its portrayal of civil sector is that it is made up of a bunch of old and dirty crooks all out to swipe and backstab each other, with flying daggers (or arrows in the film) shooting all over the place, and incompetent bosses who have no control over their subordinates' cunning and mischevious actions to undermine each other. While there is no denial that there are politics and possibly the "covering of backsides" (as the film calls it) in every work place, the reality of working in the civil sector hardly matches up to its celluloid counterpart. For one, the civil servants themselves are very aware of the ideological apparatus that operates within the government sector, and that is a given for there is extensive training (and indoctrination) to ensure they perform their roles. Even if the civil servants themselves wish to resist the ideological grip, they can't fail to escape it as there is daily feedback and discussions back-and-forth regarding their work. And that is the second biggest myth the film perpetuates, that civil servants are going to undermine and risk the retrenchment of an entire work department, much less one person, in the workplace. Sorry Jack, but whatever place you are working at or got that idea from, this is far from your wildest dreams. If anything, the civil sector has to be kept under such a tight and strict work culture that anybody daring to undermine a person of authority or an entire department will be out of their minds. Even if someone were to harbour such intentions, the constant flowing back-and-forth bureaucratic work process would have released such a "cat in the bag".
There are also some nit-picks to address. An electrician working in a government agency is not a civil servant, in the strict sense of the term (though there are admin and support staff). Senior authorities can not cancel bonuses without prior justification (not to mention, the paperwork involved). Neo's caricarture and generalization of career-women as cold and heartless with no compassion for family values is extremely one-dimensional and silly. Further, his innocent and saintly picture of the Minister really doesn't do anything but perpetuate the myth of the "baby-carrying" and "luck-giving" happy-going Minister. I won't comment any further than to say that it is a major distortion of the fact that politicians are not just mindless happy-go-doers but have certain interests in mind and follow a consistent set of ideology that will raise hairs on the backs of most ordinary people.
But even more important is the shameful portrayal of the working class by someone who claims to speak up for them. The character portrayed by Gurmit Singh is too blantantly a bum and a fool who is narrow and self-centred. With such a character, it doesn't matter how handsome or rich or charming the individual is, there will be very little reason to sympathize with such a off-putting character. On the other hand, to indirectly insinulate that working-class individuals who can't afford to pay for expensive hospital bills for their own children as "useless fools" is not only deeply insulting but illustrates what a poor understanding Jack has of his fan-base's needs and hardship. Many working class individuals, even despite being re-educated and working nonstandard work hours, contract work schedules, OT hours, or slave day and night picking up bottles and working in McDonalds (just like his "lao ze bao" in the film) survive day and night on their measly earnings and wouldn't be able to afford such medical costs anyway.
What is Neo's solution to this whole national mess? Entrepreunership. To show off his antidote, he has the same clumsy working class individual absent-mindedly and mistakenly conceptualize a "device" that eventually wins him an award in creativity. I truly fail to see how such a ad hoc and risky venture can possibly be the cure-all for structural poverty and further, it's based on such an unrealistic solution for working-class families to get out of poverty. Just invent something, you dumb and useless ass, and you will get rich. Interestingly, this has been a constant theme in all of Jack Neo's films (such as the car washing finale in Money No Enough!).
Is there anything to savage from this carcass of lies and propaganda? Well, namely two scenes could have been its saving grace. The first is that scene where the old lady mishandles some documents and places them into her bag, which is an obvious reference to a political fiasco in the last elections. The second, which really should have been expanded on and awoken people's consciousness, is the finale, where one of the workers seeks employment in an ex-civil servant's company. How did this government worker eventually own a private corporation since it is against the law? Through his wife, the ex-civil servant speaks. If that obvious reference escapes being undetected without irony and laughter, then it is really a sad case of how much the general populace in Singapore accepts such propaganda being shoved down their throats. If anything, that reference should have sparked off a national debate.
But no, perhaps the film-goer will quietly laugh and accept the "common sense" being portrayed and communicated to him/her. S/he will then be brought along for a ride, yes, a funny and humourous entertaining ride, but sadly one where the person will confuse the difference between reality and fiction. Deep down, Jack Neo is nothing but pro-PAP, and also a staunch supporter of consumerism, elitism and commercialism (Want to count how many corporations are behind sponsoring his film? Watch the end credits) and a member of the (famous Marxist term) bourgeoise. Yes, he does point to some contradictory and ironic positions the government has taken, and perhaps there are a few initiatives the government should take to reform itself, but to give advice to a totally fictional picture....is simply bad medicine and a trick of the hypnotist.
The problem isn't that people follow the law. The problem is that some people are more equal than others when it comes to the law.
posted by Douglas Evans at 11:54 AM
5 comments
