Amazon’s “Expats” Faces Censorship in Hong Kong

Although “Expats” is set and shot in Hong Kong, the city does not broadcast the Amazon series there.

Dive into the controversy surrounding Amazon’s “Expats,” set in Hong Kong but inaccessible there due to censorship concerns. Explore the implications of Beijing’s influence on media availability and freedom of expression.

Highlight

– Amazon’s “Expats,” filmed in Hong Kong, faces censorship in Chinese territory amidst concerns about Beijing’s tightening control.

– The series, based on Janice Y.K. Lee’s novel, portrays American expatriates in Hong Kong during a politically charged period.

– The decision not to broadcast “Expats” in Hong Kong highlights escalating worries about censorship and freedom of expression.

Nicole Kidman’s latest show seems to be restricted in China, where worries about censorship are intensifying due to Beijing’s increasing control.

Hong Kong — A new series on Amazon Prime called “Expats,” which was partially shot and set in Hong Kong, seems to be blocked in Chinese territory as worries about censorship under Beijing’s tightening authority rise.

The Hong Kong government, according to a spokesman on Monday, had nothing to say about the “operational arrangement of individual businesses.” When NBC News sent an email requesting comment, Amazon did not respond right away.

The Hong Kong government, according to a spokesman on Monday, had nothing to say about the “operational arrangement of individual businesses.” When NBC News sent an email requesting comment, Amazon did not respond right away.

Based on Janice Y.K. Lee’s 2016 novel “The Expatriates,” the series is directed by Chinese-born American filmmaker Lulu Wang (“The Farewell”) and narrates the experiences of three American women who live in Hong Kong, a former British colony that was returned to Chinese authority in 1997.

It takes place in 2014, and sequences from at least one subsequent episode of the show are rumored to depict months-long pro-democracy rallies that year.

2019 saw a distinct round of widespread pro-democracy demonstrations that occasionally descended into violence in Hong Kong. The next year, Beijing retaliated by enacting a broad national security law, which it claims was required to bring stability back but which critics claim has undermined civil liberties like freedom of speech, which Hong Kong was promised would remain unaltered during its first fifty years under Chinese rule.

The national security statute imposes life in prison as a punishment for subversion, succession, terrorism, and connection with foreign forces. Following the passage of a censorship bill by the Hong Kong legislature in 2021, which targeted movies deemed to pose a “endangerment to national security,” some short films and feature films have been forced to omit portions or have been prevented from being released.

Streaming services are not covered by the censorship law, but they are nonetheless governed by the national security law in general. At least two episodes of “The Simpsons” are still blocked on the Hong Kong edition of theDisney+ streaming service. One of the episodes discusses the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing, while the other one talks with “forced labor” in China.

Hong Kong Baptist University film censorship specialist Kenny Ng predicted that Amazon had taken the independent choice due to overcaution.

Refusing to release the show in Hong Kong is “a very safe gesture to pre-empt any future potential business risk” in mainland China, which is “a very big market for streaming” and one where Amazon Prime is not currently available, he told NBC News, given the potentially sensitive content of the 2014 protests.

People in Hong Kong were furious in 2021 when Kidman was allowed to film portions of “Expats” in the city—a longtime center of the film industry—while being spared from the severe Covid-19 quarantine regulations.

The exemption had been given “for the purpose of performing designated professional work, taking into account that it is conducive to maintaining the necessary operation and development of Hong Kong’s economy,” the Hong Kong government stated at the time, without identifying Kidman.

Conclusion

The absence of “Expats” in Hong Kong underscores the complex interplay between media, censorship, and political sensitivities in the region. As concerns about Beijing’s influence grow, the case of “Expats” serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by creators and consumers in navigating evolving regulatory landscapes.