Film industry tongues were wagging last week after Chinese officials announced that Tuya's Marriage and Blind Mountain were banned from competing in Taiwan's Golden Horse film awards because the Chinese government prohibits films with exclusively Chinese investment from competing in the event.
Luan Guozhi (欒國志), director of international cooperation at China's Film Bureau, said the Golden Horse awards evaluate Taiwanese movies and that movies made in China should not be considered Taiwanese.
Having fewer films from China competing in the awards could have been a boon for Taiwanese cinema because it would have enabled other films from Taiwan to be nominated.
This, however, didn't happen. Instead, Eye in the Sky replaced Tuya's Marriage in the Best Picture category and Protege and The Sun Also Rises replaced Blind Mountain in the Best Director category. The first two films are Hong Kong productions, while the other is from China.
One doesn't need to be a film critic to see that the Golden Horse awards have, over the past few years, favored films from Hong Kong and increasingly China -- productions that have more financial resources and often achieve a high degree of recognition at the box office.
That China banned two films from entering the Golden Horse awards because they feel that the awards evaluate Taiwanese movies is rather ironic because nothing could be further from the truth.
Which begs the question: What are the Golden Horse awards for and whose interests do they serve?
Though it is justified to call the Golden Horse awards a Chinese version of the Oscars, it seems strange that to qualify, the language of the film must be some variety of Chinese -- a bizarre rule in the world of film festivals.
Other, smaller, film festivals provide a platform for introducing films that are ignored by the mainstream film industry. To take two examples, the Vancouver Gay and Lesbian Film Festival showcases some of the best cinema featuring gay and lesbian themes and the Sundance Film Festival provides a forum for low-budget, independent films. The point here is that these two festivals have a clear identity: to promote films that might not otherwise receive the recognition -- and distribution -- they deserve.
Unlike the Golden Horse awards, the Taipei Film Festival has a clear identity of its own by serving as a platform for Taiwanese cinema. The increased visibility of the festival this year attracted curators and film professionals from South Korea, the Netherlands and Canada, to a name but a few markets.
But that festival suffers from a dwindling budget and regulations that prevent it from having a permanent executive body, which means that organizers have a limited amount of time and cannot plan for the future.
So why not amalgamate the two festivals and call it the Taiwan Film Awards? Organizers could still have the "Global Chinese" cinema category, but the emphasis would be on films of all kinds produced in Taiwan.
Having two film festivals, one that celebrates the ambiguous and archaic concept of a pan-Chinese community and another that is preoccupied with its bureaucratic structure and budget, does little to promote Taiwanese cinema.
The Golden Horse is suffering an identity crisis that can only be resolved by amalgamating with the Taipei Film Festival.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS