侯孝賢改編自小說《海上花》（1894）的電影《海上花》（1998），與其過往的電影風格大異其趣，描寫的世界與台灣在時空上都極為遙遠。身在二十世紀末台灣的侯孝賢何以對十九世紀末描寫上海妓女的小說如此著迷？事實上，侯孝賢一絲不苟地重建《海上花》的小說世界，目的是以之為借鏡讓觀眾反省台灣的現實：因受到國族主義的誘惑，台灣有如戲中人一樣日漸陷溺於一種「自我催眠」的封閉性「愛的遊戲」。而且，一如十九世紀末上海租界的倌客關係所形成的假性「愛的社群」，電影中的「愛的社群」徒然只是一個「利益社群」，因為支撐其存在的不是「愛」而是「欲」。但與小說不同的是，電影以「欲」暗喻對新自由主義全球化的執迷，藉以點出新自由主義經由全球化的網絡強銷全球，已誘使包括台灣在內的不少地區自外於進步性的「批判性普世胸懷」，而汲汲於「帝國式普遍主義」。侯孝賢以此片提醒我們，欲避此陷阱唯有參考杜塞爾的建議，「再創造」被現代性排拒在外的傳統文化，以追求「超現代性」的可能。

Adapted from Han Ziyun’s The Sing-song Girls of Shanghai (1894), Hou Hsiao-hsien’s Flowers of Shanghai (1998) seems to portray a world which is both temporally and spatially remote from Taiwan society. Why did Hou make this film, which apparently departs abruptly and considerably from his former realistic style and socially minded themes? By means of meticulously reconstructing the world of the novel, Hou in fact holds up a mirror for the audience of Taiwan to reflect on their own society which, increasingly seduced by nationalism, is gradually absorbed in a self-hypnotizing, close-circuited “game of love.” Much like the “community of love” created in the late 19th century Shanghai by the prostitutes and their customers, the “community of love” in the film is but a “community of interests” because what props up the community is not “love” but “lust.” Using “lust” as a metaphor for obsession with neoliberal globalization, the film critiques neoliberalism, which by hardselling its values, makes a swath of the world, not least Taiwan, blindly submit to “imperial cosmopolitanism” at the expense of “critical cosmopolitanism,” its progressive counterpart. By means of the film, Hou admonishes that it is only through “re-creating” traditional cultures, which are “exterior” to modernity, in the way Enrique Dussel suggests, that we can hope to arrive at “transmodernity” to overcome the pitfalls of neoliberal globalization.