節目: 让阳光洒到地上 (2011: 58 分鈡) + 王荔蕻谈三网民案与视频围观 (2011: 40 分鈡)

王荔蕻的支持者們(網絡圖片)12-Aug-2011

艾曉明拍王荔蕻一(網絡圖片)12-Aug-2011

放映日期: 20-Oct-2011, 7:30 pm — 10:00 pm

地點: 大學道3號, 香港浸會大學傳理視藝大樓, CVA105室,

最近大陸維權人士和團體發起了聲勢強烈的網上聲援活動,在社交網站聯署簽名,要求釋放今年三月二十一日被警方帶走的一位北京女士王荔蕻(現被判入獄九個月)。廣州中山大學教授艾曉明在她的博客中表達她對這位女性姐妹的懷念,呼籲網民起來保衛她。

王荔蕻一位草根維權人士,中國近幾年民間重大維權事件的積極參與者。這位北京普通女子投身民間維權事業有相當的典範性,顯示權利意識已在中國民間逐漸普及,湧現出一大批具有很現代公民意識的參與者,而且這些普通人正在成為中國民間維權運動的主要力量。(摘自開放雜誌)

艾曉明, 廣州中山大学中文系教授,自2003 年開始向獨立纪錄人胡傑學習拍摄剪辑,并立志開創中國女性
主義紀錄片。她的代表作有《天堂花园》、《太石村》等。2008年以来的她拍摄了《我們的娃娃》等5部有關川震校難的纪錄片。《讓陽光洒到地上》是她近年来拍摄的第三埸對維權人士的審判,她希望以此見証公民運動的歷史并推動公民媒体走向社會運動。

合辦單位:

第九屆香港社會運動電影節及香港浸會大學電影學院

影片
(請按片名查看影片簡介)
放映日期 放映地點
(場地地址-請按我
暉仔媽媽離家上班去
  1. 開幕:2/10/2011 n
  2. 30/10/2011 a
  1. 自治八樓天台 (A,d)
  2. 香港藝術中心agnes.b 電影院 (d)
熔爐時刻
  1. 8/10/2011 a
  2. 閉幕:27/11/2011 a
  1. 理工大學BC201
  2. 唐三
[本土異鄉人]特攝片系列
  1. 19/10/2011 m
  2. 23/10/2011a
  3. 3/11/2011 n
  1. 同根社 (d)
  2. 勞資關係協進會( d)
  3. 荃灣明愛中心 (d)
[本土異鄉人]短片合集之一
  1. 6/10/2011 n
  2. 20/11/2011 a (取消)
  1. 中大女工同心合作社外( #,d)
  2. 香港婦女勞工協會 (d)
[本土異鄉人]短片合集之二
  1. 13/10/2011 m
  2. 5/11/2011 n
  3. 10/11/2011 m
  1. 街坊工友服務處 (d)
  2. 民間生活館@藍屋 (d)
  3. 婦女貧窮關注會 (d)
文明終結
  1. 3/10/2011 n
  2. 20/10/2011 n
  1. 中文大學民主女神廣場( #)
  2. 香港獨立媒體 
巴黎公社1871
  1. 16/10/2011 a
  2. 19/11/2011 a
  1. 專上學生聯會 
  2. 唐三 
鐵怒沿線三谷(上)
*(下半部放映時間及地點請留意網頁,謝謝。)
  1. 12/11/2011 n
  2. 26/11/2011 n
  1. 基督徒學會 (d)
  2. 菜園新村 (d)
順寧道,走下去
  1. 29/10/2011 n
  2. 9/11/2011 n
  1. 深水埗k22重建地盤側 ( @,d)
  2. 基督徒學會 (d)
憤怒之源
  1. 12/10/2011 n
  2. 26/10/2011 n
  1. 理工大學  R508
  2. 香港獨立媒體 
特別加場:移工轟拍 16/11/2011 n 唐三 (d)
延伸活動:講座〔地方想像、民間敘事與集體潛意識〕 24/11/2011n 基督徒學會
延伸活動:[移動的人]–生命故事工作坊 6/11/2011 a(請報名留座) 唐三

# 如當天傍晚六點仍在下雨,則改至中文大學本部范克廉樓玻璃房。

@ 即〔深水埗居民自主規劃方案〕內要求房協及市建局建公屋(而橫遭拒絕)的市區重建地盤,位置是興華街/元州街。該處如非暴雨,地盤圍板範圍內仍可放映。

A 如遇天雨則改專上學生聯會(學聯)舉行

m 放映時間-1100am

a 放映/活動開始時間-230PM

n 放映/活動開始時間-730PM

d    導演或創作人參與映後討論

請注意:一切資料以網誌為最新消息。

放映場地地址:請按我

導演:Fernando E. Solanas, Octavio Getino 製作:Pino Solanas|西班牙語及中英文字幕|1968/阿根廷黑白/248分鐘

飢餓是不是暴力?貧窮是不是暴力?當人民處於權力結構底層,為人民而設的改革如何成為可能?阿根廷的歷史有幾多人了解?世上有多少人對拉丁美洲的了解,是多於美國主流傳媒?弱勢人民與濫權者,是否存在「和平共存」的可能性?

熔爐時刻是火紅的六十年代的產物是導演索拉納斯和傑提諾对當時阿根廷軍人政府拉丁美洲解放運動的回應也是一篇反商業電影(第一電影)和藝術電影(第二電影)的宣言。他們提出第三電影製作和評論的新路向(簡單的說以電影合行動改變社會以情理使觀眾由被動的消費者轉化成行動者)電影成功將理論行動形式內容為一体以創新的藝術形深入分析 暴力/武力和殖民主義,對當下的香港仍然富有意義電影拍成後在阿根廷不能公映但在國際影壇刞引起巨響被冠以革命電影、「戰鬥電影等名第三電影的會議論述専書至今不絕

一直以來這部經典只有在電影節中才可以看到去年出了DVD 我們才能安排它和你見面電影發 社會行動者(尤其是以紀錄片參與社會行動者)對「暴力有看法的人都不容錯過歡迎加入討論

延伸閱讀:電影完成后SolanasGetino 把片中的理論發表為文 “Towards a Third Cinema” (http://www.documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/camasgun.html)

Director: Fernando E. Solanas, Octavio Getino |Production: Pino Solanas|Spanish with English and Chinese Subtitles|1968 / Argentina / B&W / 248min

 

The Hour of the Furnaces is a product of the raging 60s. It was a response by directors Fernando E. Solanas and Octavio Getino to the Argentine military Junta and to the Latin American liberation movements. It is also a manifesto against commercial film (the First Cinema) and art film (the Second Cinema). The directors proposed the Third Cinema and new ways of making and critiquing films (In short, it integrates Film with Action to effect change in society; and to affect  audience with reason as well as emotion turning them  from passive consumers into active participants .) The film successfully blends theory, action, form and content into a brand-new art form, investigating the notions of ‘violence / armed force’ and (neo)colonialism, which are still relevant to Hong Kong today. The film was banned in Argentina. Yet it has attracted great attention in international film circle and washailed a classic of ‘revolutionary film’, ‘militant film’ and so on. There are continuous interests in the Third Cinema. Conferences, books, discourses and studies on the subject turn up from time to time since its inauguration.

 

Extended Reading: Solanas and Getino’s article “Towards a Third Cinema” (http://www.documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/camasgun.html)


導演:彼德.獲健士作品|製作:13 Production, La Sept Art, Musée d’orsay語言:法語/中文及英文字幕1999/法國/黑白/345分鐘





彼得.獲建士(Peter Watkins) 比誰都認真和關心社會,也一直致力創新影視 「藝術」。今古交錯是他的疏離手法之一,演員時而扮演公社中的角色,時而做回自己,暢談當下的心情和對角色的看法 ; 這邊廂,一群婦女在公社開會,話題慢慢轉向1999年的法國女性;那邊廂公社的男人談電視,談現代的媒體,談日本的衰落 ; 不同時空的話題,互相對照,迫切而貼身。 電影中和電影外的討論都是運動的一部分。片中扮演婦女同盟的人後來就組織起來把片中的議題帶到現實生活裡繼續爭取,社會行動巳走出銀幕進入生活。 這樣豐富的一部作品遠非幾百字可以言明,如何放映和用這部片已大有學問,還是留待觀眾自己去體會。

 

Director: Peter Watkins |Production: 13 Production, La Sept Art,
Musée d’orsay|French with English and Chinese Subtitles|1999 / France / B&W / 345 minutes

For more information: http://www.mnsi.net/~pwatkins/     http://www.rebond.org/

1.

‘Look! This is where we shot the last scene yesterday.’ Two actors show the camera (us) the set where La Commune was made. Please do not think you are watching a documentary of the film for the camera will soon become the journalist/ cameraman of the Commune TV, going about interviewing people. Yes, I mean TV! In the film, you will watch TV news in 1871! Do not mistake this film for a farce as Peter Watkins is more serious than anybody else and few can match his concern for the society. He is also an ardent inventor in film and television arts. Anachronism is just one of his alienating tactics. In this film, actors sometimes play the roles and sometimes play themselves to talk about their feelings at the moment and commend on the characters. When a group of Commune women shift their discussion of French women’s predicaments in 1871 to that of 1999, men in the commune are talking about TV, the modern media, and the decline of Japan. Issues of different times and places juxtapose, intersect, and reflect on each other pressing and close to home.

As a film artist and activist, Watkins challenges the director centered traditional undemocratic way of filmmaking that renders audience as passive recipients. Watkins meticulously designed and controlled the production of La Commune but he also demanded and gave plenty of room for active participations from the actors. The director provides the backbone and the framework while everybody involved fills in the flesh and blood. For example, the important components of the film —dialogues and discussions— are taken from real discussions among actors during rehearsals who were told to play out the characters they have meticulously researched as well as their real selves in present day France. This is democratic collective creation in a controlled manner. On the activist level, he laments the lost of commitment and idealism and explains on his website why he made this film: “. . . the idea of commitment to a struggle for a better world, and of the need for some form of collective social Utopia [Paris Commune] – which WE now need. . . “and review many of the issues raised in the Commune but still failed to be resolve today. Therefore, he alienates the audience but requires them and the actors to participate at the same time in discussing many of the issues. For this purpose, he left a lot of space and information for audience to discuss (He did not mention it but such practice reminds me of an Argentinean documentary, Hours of the Furnaces, where the film stopped screening midway and asked audience to start discussion). The discussions inside and outside the film are parts of a social action. People playing members of the Women’s Union in the Commune later actually formed a group to fight for the issues raised in the film. Thus social action steps out of the screen and into our real lives. La Commune is Watkins at his best and is exemplary of using filmmaking as social action. In Britain, only Ken Loach’s works can barely match the strong social and political sense of Watkins’ and Watkins has an edge over Peter Greenaway in setting his experimentations on solid social grounds. This short introduction can hardly do justice to such a rich film as how to show and use the film already require great wisdom. I better leave our clever audience to fathom its depths.

***

2.

Inside a giant warehouse in a working-class Parisian suburb, Peter Watkins assembles a cast of over 200 non-professional actors (though their amateur status is undetectable). Basing their work upon thorough historical research, they will attempt tore- create the events of March, 1871-the rise and fall of the Paris Commune.

La Commune (Paris, 1871) explores that famous, brief, romantic, and tragic period when poor and working-class Parisians rose up against the “bourgeois” French national government, which fled the capital and re-established itself in Versailles. As this complex historical drama unfolds, it is also “ covered” by two television news crews – one from “National TV Versailles” which broadcasts the official version of events, the other from “Commune TV,” giving voice to the rebellious Communards.

Mixing past and present, revolutionary in form as well as content, Watkins’s audacious masterpiece forces us to confront notions of a safe or objective reading of the past, and also to reflect, inevitably, upon the present. No one who meets the challenge of La Commune (Paris, 1871) will be unchanged by the experience.