[ 影像．感動．思索．行動 ] 十五年
很可惜，今年，社運電影節的創辦團體（亦是現今的合辦團體），即學聯社運資源中心（自治八樓）正面臨被現屆學聯關閉的危機。而在單張完稿之前，我們更在一個，由現屆學聯代表會中大代表周竪峰主持的網台節目上聽到，有嘉賓聲稱社運電影節有贊助，有渠道去「收錢」！這個模稜兩可、疑似指自治八樓透過社運電影節賺取收入的說法，實令多年付出的義工感到難過。事實上，社運電影節一直沒有收取任何入場費，亦無商業或政府贊助，只靠合辦及協辦團體投放資源及觀眾捐款。這是隨便上網搜尋社運電影節網頁就知的事實，可是，在現場身為節目主持的學聯成員周代表，不單未作出澄清指正，更點頭示以同意， 任由該名嘉賓一直講。其後 ，周先生亦沒有為此作出澄清。周先生作為學聯代表會成員，自己作為節目主持但不作澄清，到底是何用意?
不過，希望公眾理解，在一個全義工運作， 對每每在工餘課餘開會工作通宵的電影節團隊而言， 驟然聽到這等模稜兩可、不置可否、疑似指我們賺錢的言論， 生氣非常實在情理之中。雖然如此，他人是否為言論負責我們無法控制，但我們卻認為該為自己發表的言論負責，亦對我們所知的真實負責，在知悉錯誤之後最短時間內已修改內容，並願意為自己的錯誤表示歉意。
the 15th hong kong social movement film festival foreword
a backward glance, with wind, rain and sunshine therein
[movie. moved. musing. movement] fifteen years
2003, sars saddened the city, article 23 was like a knife hanged upon heads. the 8/f( social movement resources centre of hong kong federation of students) by the time, upholding the route started by students of the previous two years, practicing democratic co-organization, opened the managing rights of the centre, hoping to draw together friends who would engage the society with cultural action to cooperate on social movement’s big or small action. why was it cultural action? it is a better way to show forth the complexity and humanity of the movement, and to recruit more students outside student-union-system to engage in social issues, through music, literature, movie, [and] theatre.
the first social movement film festival (smff), was born in such a cradle.
2017, the film festival is already 15 years old. during these years, social movement film festival has introduced different possibilities of aggressive social action, that afterwards, we have seen audiences of the film festival practicing more aggressive ways in social action. at the same time, through the “back to the scene” way ( such as showing films about eviction in a renewal site, in choi yuen village, or in the queen’s pier public space, or showing films about anti-monopoly of multinational corporations under the buildings of multinational corporations), the screenings produce a space that can let participants of the movement and other audiences to review the meaning of the movements together, and to imagine upon further actions.
we devote to sewing people outside social movement into social action network, and linking up organizations without relations. through the movies of the film festival which bring along sensation and muse. because of this, we have seen friends of issues like gender, land, labour, education, different abilities, from watching films to knowing each others, seeing relationships between different issues, establishing cross-issues linkages.
these years, there are also local and overseas audiences of the social movement film festival started to organize their own small-scale film festivals after referencing the mode of the social movement film festival. we have seen, when smff’s screenings in public space being suppressed by different kinds of ruling parties, many audiences would walk out and resist with us shoulders by shoulders.
much more, we have seen, for many years there are students, knowing the movement through the festival, or further, stepping into movements or actions…..
fifteen years, walking, walking, and keep walking, sewing, sewing and keep sewing, saying long it’s not long, saying short it’s not short.
this year’s selection: history,margin, imagination
after umbrella and fish ball, the atmosphere of social movement turns low, adding upon the election, disqualifying, various kinds of political arrests and sentences, or even various suspicious event that hong kong citizens being attacked in hong kong by the cross-border chinese communist party…we have seen that many people’s sense of weakness has been expanding.
indeed, all such situations are not uncommon in the history of social movement worldwide. but then, social movements in other places have not become silence after that, where are the vitals? these worth investigation and thinking.what’s more, social movement involves stories about the marginalized fighting for equality. “equailty” doesn’t mean “same”, it is about ‘how do we treat and face difference well’. indeed, everyone of us are somehow marginalized when facing the ruling class. to link up the marginalized, is the root of freedom.
lastly, without imagination towards a new society, no matter how passionate the movement is, it would only in be changing another new dictator. such kinds of tragedy, on and on keep showing up in different time and space. then, to avoid repeating the tragedies, how could we imagine the live and society that we want? so, to view now with history, to empower the marginalized, to imagine common, are the selecting strategies of the films this year.
the poor foster smff together, say no to defaming lie
october and november 2005, before the anti-wto movement, the organizers of the smff, after investigating the issue of how globalized capital widens wealth inequality, established the ‘the poor foster smff together’ experimental principle.
what does that mean? that is:
~ free of charge;
~ “exchange of labour” : to exchange the overseas independent production hard work with subtitle translation and production;
~ develope overseas and local reciprocity network
~ never apply any commercial sponsorship;
~ recruit co-worker, foster smff together ( starting from the 9th smff);
to conclude, through non-money exchange, people without money could also sharing the exchanges of cross-border culture and movement. these fifteen years, without much money, no full-time paid staff, we use our own time after work or school, having meetings, selecting films, writing, promoting, liaising, translating, making subtitles, studying, porter work, post-screening discussion……dare not say hard-work, but absolutely not easy, the only source of fund, is just donation from audience and supporters, and little resources added from one of the co-organizing group v-artivist, that we can print promoting leaflets and posters, and invite guests from overseas to exchange with us.
it is a pity, that this year, the founder group of smff ( and also one of the co-organizing group), i.e social movement resources centre of hong kong federation of students (autonomous 8a) is now facing the crisis of being closed by the hong kong federation of students this year. before the finalize of the leaflets, we have heard from internet radio broadcast, a programme which the host was a delegate of hong kong federation of students from the chinese university of hong kong, chow shue fung, the guest of the programme stated that, smff has sponsorship and have means to “receive money” ! this ambiguous statement, seems like stating that autonomous 8a has been earning income through organizing smff, really makes volunteers who have paid so much effort, very upset.
the fact is that, smff has never received any entry fees, and never received any commercial sponsorship nor direct grant from government, but just depends on resources inputted by co-organizing organization and donation from audience. this is a fact that can be known easily just by searching through the internet, but, chow, as the host of the programme and a delegate of hong kong federation of students, not only have not clarified, but also nodded to show affirmation, and just let the guest continue to make statement. after that, chow also haven’t made any clarification. what is the intention of chow being a delegate of hong kong federation of students and also being the programme host, not making any clarification?
reality is the weapon against the power and lie, people participating in social movement abandon reality is self-destruction of the great wall. that’s why, the organizers and co-workers of the smff this year, must solemnly reiterate the cultural action route of “ the poor foster the smff”, in order to ensure a correct understanding of the facts.
2nd september 2017 revised version
the first version of the foreword of smff, wrongly stating the speaker as chow shue fung, we have been reminded by pal from the net, that the one who made the statement should be the guest of the programme but not the host, while the host, chow, just nodded to show affirmation and never made any clarification. on the matter of who was making the statement, we have been mistaken, we apologize to the public for not being careful enough on confirmation before delivering the message.
but, we hope the public may understand that, as a full-volunteer-operated team, which always having meetings and working after work or schools through midnight, suddenly hearing such ambiguous, non-committal sayings that seems to be criticizing us of making money, it is reasonably to be extremely angry. despite this, we may not control whether others would be responsible to their own statement, we think that we should be responsible to the statement that we made, and be responsible to the fact that we know, after acknowledging the mistake we have made correction in the shortest time, and we are willing to apologize for our mistake.