The political framework on which the story hangs is evidently drawn from historical incidents, but the story sucks. The film is a sort of true-crime docudrama of the sort that shows up on TV from time to time. It can't make up its mind whether it wants to be more docu or more drama, and the result is a pretty choppy piece of work.
A renowned Chinese professor is assassinated in Chicago and the FBI investigation leads one agent (Van Der Beek) to Taiwan, formerly Formosa, homeland of the now dead scholar. The authorities greet him, promise him observer status, but make it clear he will not carry out any independent investigation. Then they quickly try to shuffle him aside with restaurants and parties. "Enjoy the many pleasures of Taipei." The rest of the film demonstrates that the government of Taiwan is thoroughly corrupt, murderous, lying, greedy, and given to exploitation of the United States. Since the events described are true, or close to it, I'm sympathetic to the native Taiwanese' desire for independence, but the movie is so clumsily written and edited that I was never really sure who they wanted independence from. From the mainland Chinese? They're already independent of the PRC. From the residue of the government of Chiang Kai Shek? That makes more sense. Chiang lost the war against the Chinese communists led by Mao Tse Tung in 1947 and moved what was left of his army to Taiwan, where he became a ruthless dictator. It was like some third world country in Latin America. He was roundly hated by the Taiwanese whom he hadn't yet exterminated. No reason to doubt that, according to some anthropologists I know who did field work on Taiwan during the early 60s. We supported him not because he was the model of a democratic leader but because he wasn't a communist. During the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to "unleash" Chiang Kai Shek and let him invade the mainland, which was pretty funny, even at the time.
But back to the movie. There are so many threads involved that it's awfully confusing. Van Der Beek's principal contact in Taipei is an embassy official, a woman who is somehow involved in secret deals to buy arms from Nicaragua. The guy who assassinated the professor tries to assassinate Van Der Beek but then changes his mind, decides to testify for the independence movement, and is himself assassinated by parties unknown but probably impolite.
I didn't like the acting. Will Tiao as Ming is okay, sympatico in appearance and demeanor. Mintita Wattanakul, a Thai actress, is almost edible. But the audience proxy is poor James Van Der Beek. He cannot act. He lends the movie's center a ligneous presence, a la David Duchovny in "The X Files", which might pass for being cool. But one or two scenes call for outrage and he can't handle it.
The direction by Adam Kane is very fashionable and it's terrible. The palette is ghoul green. The camera never stops moving. That's okay for the inevitable chase through an open Chinese market but not for a medium two shot of people trading lines. There are gigantic close ups, for the sight challenged. Van Der Beek is young, handsome, outfitted in tailored suits, his hair perfectly styled and dry blown, and he wears an a la mode day's growth of beard whose density and length don't vary -- no matter if he's spent the night in jail or in a ritzy hotel room. You know, your typical FBI agent who looks exactly like a Hollywood movie star?
It's a dumb movie about how bad Chiang's government was, rather in the same way that Richard Gere's "Red Corner" was a dumb piece of anti-Chinese propaganda. (Gere likes Tibet.) It's not impossible to make decent movies about intrigues in exotic lands. "The Killing Fields" managed it, though it was more drama than docu. "The Year of Living Dangerously" gave us another glimpse of how it can be carried off and so, in its own abominable way, did "Casablanca." "The Sorrow and The Pity" was straight docu. It CAN be done, but "Formosa Betrayed" just throws too much information at the viewer, as if anxious to win our sympathy quickly and completely, and in doing so it alienates us. Or me, anyway.
A renowned Chinese professor is assassinated in Chicago and the FBI investigation leads one agent (Van Der Beek) to Taiwan, formerly Formosa, homeland of the now dead scholar. The authorities greet him, promise him observer status, but make it clear he will not carry out any independent investigation. Then they quickly try to shuffle him aside with restaurants and parties. "Enjoy the many pleasures of Taipei." The rest of the film demonstrates that the government of Taiwan is thoroughly corrupt, murderous, lying, greedy, and given to exploitation of the United States. Since the events described are true, or close to it, I'm sympathetic to the native Taiwanese' desire for independence, but the movie is so clumsily written and edited that I was never really sure who they wanted independence from. From the mainland Chinese? They're already independent of the PRC. From the residue of the government of Chiang Kai Shek? That makes more sense. Chiang lost the war against the Chinese communists led by Mao Tse Tung in 1947 and moved what was left of his army to Taiwan, where he became a ruthless dictator. It was like some third world country in Latin America. He was roundly hated by the Taiwanese whom he hadn't yet exterminated. No reason to doubt that, according to some anthropologists I know who did field work on Taiwan during the early 60s. We supported him not because he was the model of a democratic leader but because he wasn't a communist. During the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to "unleash" Chiang Kai Shek and let him invade the mainland, which was pretty funny, even at the time.
But back to the movie. There are so many threads involved that it's awfully confusing. Van Der Beek's principal contact in Taipei is an embassy official, a woman who is somehow involved in secret deals to buy arms from Nicaragua. The guy who assassinated the professor tries to assassinate Van Der Beek but then changes his mind, decides to testify for the independence movement, and is himself assassinated by parties unknown but probably impolite.
I didn't like the acting. Will Tiao as Ming is okay, sympatico in appearance and demeanor. Mintita Wattanakul, a Thai actress, is almost edible. But the audience proxy is poor James Van Der Beek. He cannot act. He lends the movie's center a ligneous presence, a la David Duchovny in "The X Files", which might pass for being cool. But one or two scenes call for outrage and he can't handle it.
The direction by Adam Kane is very fashionable and it's terrible. The palette is ghoul green. The camera never stops moving. That's okay for the inevitable chase through an open Chinese market but not for a medium two shot of people trading lines. There are gigantic close ups, for the sight challenged. Van Der Beek is young, handsome, outfitted in tailored suits, his hair perfectly styled and dry blown, and he wears an a la mode day's growth of beard whose density and length don't vary -- no matter if he's spent the night in jail or in a ritzy hotel room. You know, your typical FBI agent who looks exactly like a Hollywood movie star?
It's a dumb movie about how bad Chiang's government was, rather in the same way that Richard Gere's "Red Corner" was a dumb piece of anti-Chinese propaganda. (Gere likes Tibet.) It's not impossible to make decent movies about intrigues in exotic lands. "The Killing Fields" managed it, though it was more drama than docu. "The Year of Living Dangerously" gave us another glimpse of how it can be carried off and so, in its own abominable way, did "Casablanca." "The Sorrow and The Pity" was straight docu. It CAN be done, but "Formosa Betrayed" just throws too much information at the viewer, as if anxious to win our sympathy quickly and completely, and in doing so it alienates us. Or me, anyway.