In her acceptance speech after winning Best Documentary at the Golden Horse Awards on Nov. 17, Taiwanese director Fu Yue (傅榆) said: “I really hope that one day our country can be treated as a truly independent entity.”
Fu’s statement opened a Pandora’s Box. Fearful Chinese filmmakers rolled out “united front” cliches on stage; the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) publicity department banned Chinese-funded films from participating in future Golden Horse ceremonies.
The films of many winners this year addressed social issues in China. Films that explore topics such as people’s livelihoods, social inequality or medical problems in China have never been shut out of the Golden Horse Awards.
This shows Taiwan’s inclusiveness and its willingness to care about China’s social ills.
However, while these Chinese filmmakers might have the courage to talk about their nation’s social issues, they do not dare to say no to the CCP’s ridiculous territorial demands.
Fu’s documentary, Our Youth in Taiwan (我們的青春，在台灣), is essentially an exploration of Taiwanese’ resistance to China’s influence, how they see themselves, and why there are Chinese willing to stand up and defend Taiwan’s resistance against Chinese oppression.
However, the awards ceremony showed that Chinese filmmakers clearly have no intention of engaging in dialogue. Chinese-language cinema has been damaged to the point of no longer being able to change society for the better.
If those in attendance possessed the courage to point out the social problems where they live, then perhaps they will also be able to consider the root cause of the problem.
Have the filmmakers who criticized Fu’s speech ever wondered how the award organizers, although pressured by Taiwanese who are wary of so many Chinese artists and filmmakers winning, still manage to judge films in a professional manner and often select Chinese winners?
Since Taiwan’s democratization, the government has never asked Chinese filmmakers to side with it politically before they enter the nation, but the Chinese government has repeatedly forced Taiwanese artists to publicly side with it.
Since she received funding from the Ministry of Culture, Taiwanese actress Ruby Lin (林心如) was reported to be a supporter of Taiwanese independence.
There are countless other examples of the Chinese government’s partiality in treating Taiwanese artists, including Lawrence Ko (柯宇綸), Leon Dai (戴立忍), Crowd Lu (盧廣仲), Yoga Lin (林宥嘉) and Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜).
The Golden Horse Awards ceremony is so valuable because it is a stage without taboos — presenters and winners have no fear about being arrested for what they say.
Art has the ability to break down political barriers, to transcend language barriers — and Taiwanese respect that.
However, before the Chinese government talks about “respect,” it should pull back from the disrespect it has shown Taiwanese performers over the years. More important still, it should start respecting its own artists.
If not, the tightening red grip of state control and censorship over so many years will lead to a chilling effect that makes people afraid of their own shadow — and the two sides of the Strait will grow ever more estranged.
Michael Lin is a postgraduate student at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS