The Significance and Criticism of Taiwan Province Film Manifesto

This joint list of Hong Kong and Taiwan has several characteristics:

The filmmakers, film critics and cultural forces that reflect the phenomenon that Taiwan Province and Hongkong support the new film. Many film critics in it argued with the so-called old-school film critics in the dispute between the old and the new, such as Huang Jianye, Chen, Zhan Hongzhi; Hong Kong film critics Shu Kei, Li Yutao, Jin Bingxing and Luo Weiming also wrote in Liang Liangzhi's film Who is God? Who is the Pope? After the article was published, it was strongly refuted in Hong Kong's Film Biweekly. Li Yutao and Bingxing Jin both protested strongly when they were judges of the Golden Horse Awards. On 1985, the former became one of the judges of the debate between the "Hou faction" and the "Anti-Hou faction" in the Golden Horse Award, while the latter withdrew from the jury of the Golden Horse Award. In short, this list reflects the power of film critics who support new films.

In fact, this list reflects the traces of contacts in the pedigree of "author's films" to some extent. For example, there are Chen Yingzhen, Kong-Kin Yau and Zhang Zhaotang. In the 1960s, there were Li Daoming, Jiang Xun, Zhang Yi, Qi Longren and Luo Weiming. People who are active in the "influence" or studio culture in the 1970s can explain the phenomenon of new films and the film review pedigree of "author films".

To a certain extent, this list represents the connections that support the new film. It is the first and last time that it appears in a collective way, calling on the society to give "another film" a living space. Later, when the new film network tries to establish a local film award mechanism "Zhong Shi Evening News Film Award" which is different from the Golden Horse Award, it will find that the list of judges who have the right to discuss and comment has a high degree of overlap with those who signed the declaration of "Another Film".

However, after the Film Manifesto was published, except for some cultural periodicals such as South, Dangdai and Satellite, it did not affect the three objects of criticism-policy units, mass media and comment system. In addition, the "Declaration" not only failed to realize the function of dialogue with different forces, but also made the original conflicting opinions more polarized. For example, the declaration accuses the "criticism system" of being biased, that is, it involves "the dispute between old and new film critics." However, the manifesto itself was ridiculed as a "cultural show" with the nature of "propaganda" by one of the objects of their debate, rather than just a small circle of "egoism". The status of these directors is over-idolized, thinking that the beauty of the world's movies is on this small island and there is no room for any negative comments. "and" ... the person who has the greatest opportunity and influence in the mass media is not the one who signed the declaration? ..... As a representative of the critical mainstream, it is not surprising to publicly accuse the critical mainstream of "dereliction of duty", "distortion" and "absurdity"? Ren Huang, a veteran member of the Film Critics Association, believes that this declaration "has not been discussed by any film group, and there is no leader of any film group among the signatories. How can it represent the film industry in Taiwan Province Province? Cai Guorong thinks this is a "low-style debate". "Anyone who is close to his own opinions is boasting, making the sky full of" masters ",while those who are different from his own opinions are insulted in every way, making the ground full of" cultural thieves ".

In addition, the demands of the Film Declaration are not specific enough. For example, the declaration requires policy units, mass media and comment systems to give "another film" living space, which is only at the broad appeal level, but it does not put forward specific policy suggestions, nor does it talk about how to deal with the core issue of "another film". On the contrary, the manifesto itself is more like a negative love letter, which places too much expectation on external factors and hopes on the enlightened guidance of the government. It still excessively divides culture and commerce and does not touch on the distribution channel of "another film"