The Chinese Film Forum UK

近年来，中国电影院在包括非华语地区在内的国际电影市场获得了很高的知名度。虽然已经有研究对不同类型的“华人”电影院进行了研究，比如中华人民共和国、台湾和香港的电影院，但对构成“华人身份”这一概念的细微差别的系统研究相对较少。关于普通中文电影的英文文章很少涉及中国文化本身的语言和文化差异，例如，对普通话的压制，甚至对在中国领土上映的电影进行配音和字幕的文化政治，少数民族文化的代表，以及表面上的“汉语”方言群体和社区之间的文化政治。此外，需要考虑决定制作和分发什么的国家和文化政策。其中包括对物质历史的探索，比如历史遗失了哪些材料(无论是由于战争、忽视还是其他紧急情况)，以及这些历史如何塑造了我们对今天被认为是“中国电影”的作品的理解。抛开大中国地区，关于散居海外的中国人的电影/S的讨论就更少了，无论是在东南亚还是欧洲和美国。这些电影对更大的被理解为“中国电影”的作品有贡献吗？如果不是，他们的中国特性是什么？或者，如果是的话，这种中国特性在多大程度上与地缘政治实体中国脱节？在西方地区的中国电影院还有很多工作要做：比如，新的跨国中国电影院对亚裔美国导演有什么影响？而英国华人在英国电影文化中的代表又在哪里？此外，跨国华裔通常被认为是中国电影进入西方市场的十字路口，但实际上，由于国内市场较小，华语电影院从一开始就把目光投向了自己的海岸以外。例如，香港电影公司一直将东南亚和西部唐人街市场作为其发行网络的一部分。事实上，在上世纪六七十年代的鼎盛时期，邵氏兄弟的制片厂在马来西亚和新加坡设有制作单位，不仅制作华语电影，还制作马来语电影。在更广泛的国际舞台上，许多华语电影如今都是在国际电影节文化的背景下观看的，包括可能被视为商业而不是艺术的文化。需要对这些艺术节的选拔政治进行更多的研究，以及艺术节本身的政治经济如何决定什么能在国际上看到，什么不能。是谁定义了“中国电影”的定义？是不是中国人自己(不管他们是怎么定义的)？制片人？观众？州政府？节日评审团？作为一个跨机构机构，该网络处于有利地位，可以开展对这些问题的探索，因为它能够利用学术和公共部门合作伙伴的长处，这些合作伙伴与行业有联系，这将对项目有价值。因此，该网络认为其公共参与活动与正在进行的学术研究同等重要。

In recent years, Chinese cinemas have received high visibility in international film markets, including non-Chinese-speaking territories. While there have been research conducted into the individual cinemas variously identified as 'Chinese', such as the cinemas from the People's Republic, Taiwan and Hong Kong, there has been relatively little systematic research into the finer nuances that constitute, or indeed, problematise, this notion of a Chinese identity.English-language writings on a generic Chinese cinema rarely address the linguistic and cultural differences within Chinese cultures itself, for example, the suppression of vernacular dialects in favour of Mandarin, the cultural politics of dubbing and subtitling even for films shown in Chinese territories, the representation of minority cultures and the cultural politics between ostensibly 'Chinese' dialect groups and communities. In addition, the state and cultural policies that determine what gets produced and distributed need to be considered. These include the exploration of material histories, such as what material has been lost to history (whether to war, neglect, and other exigences), and how that shapes our understanding of the body of work identified as 'Chinese cinema' today.Moving beyond the Greater China region, even less has been said on the cinema/s of the Chinese diaspora, whether that in South-east Asia or Europe and America. Do these films contribute to the larger body of work understood as 'Chinese cinema'? If not, what is the nature of their Chinese-ness; or, if so, how much of that Chinese-ness is dissociated from the geo-political entity called 'China'? Much work remains to be done on Chinese cinemas in Western territories: What is the impact of the new transnational Chinese cinemas on Asian-American directors, for instance? And where are British Chinese represented in British film cultures? In addition, transnational Chinese-ness is often taken to be the crossing of Chinese cinema into Western markets, but in reality because of small home markets, Chinese language cinemas have looked beyond its own shores from the beginning. Hong Kong cinema, for example, has always looked towards South-east Asian and Western Chinatown markets as part of its distribution network. Indeed the Shaw Brothers production studios in its hey-day during the 1960s and 70s had production units in Malaysia and Singapore, producing not just Chinese-language features, but also Malay-language ones.In the wider international arena, many Chinese films are seen today within the context of an international film festival culture, including that which may be perceived as 'commercial' rather than 'arthouse'. More research needs to be conducted on the politics of selection at these festivals, and how the political economy of the festivals themselves can determine what gets seen internationally and what does not. Who defines what constitutes 'Chinese' cinema? Is it the Chinese themselves (however they are defined)? The producers? The audience? The state? Festival juries? Or a complex interaction of all of the above?As a cross-institutional body, the network is well-placed to undertake the exploration of these issues as it is able to draw on the strengths of both academic and public sector partners with links to industry that will be of value to the project. As such the network views its public engagement activities as equally crucial as the academic research being undertaken.