《北京酷儿影展与其政治可能性——以其与中国独立电影运动以及性少数人群权利运动的关联为中心》

于宁

The Beijing Queer Film Festival and its political possibilities: A look at the link between China’s independent film movement and the movement for the rights of sexual minorities

Yu Ning

电影节的历史最早可以追溯到1932年的意大利威尼斯国际电影节。而1977年在美国旧金山举办的旧金山国际同志电影节(Frameline: San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival)则被认为是世界上最早的LGBT/酷儿影展。从上世纪80年代末，世界各地开始创办当地的LGBT/酷儿影展，而中国内地唯一一个通过电影放映、交流活动来展开性与性别身份探讨的LGBT/酷儿影展–北京酷儿影展于2001年创办。

LGBT/酷儿影展作为基于身份认同(identity)的影展，在世界影展中地位特殊。基于此一特征，历来的关于LGBT/酷儿影展的研究，主要围绕影展与性少数人群的政治、社会运动的关系展开。目前，围绕LGBT/酷儿影展与性少数人群社区/观众的相互形构(mutual formative)关系的研究所占比重较高。近年，围绕与LGBT/酷儿影展的关系，对南希・弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)所提出的（对抗性）公共领域[(counter) public sphere]概念进行演绎的研究也有所增加。但由于北京酷儿影展的特殊性，以上两个方面的研究，对于北京酷儿影展并不适用。

与世界上大部分的LGBT/酷儿影展不同，北京酷儿影展并不是从性少数人群权利运动中发源。北京酷儿影展于2001年12月由北京大学学生社团北大影协创办。北大影协自1999年创办伊始，便致力于中国独立电影在校园内的传播，受到中国首个独立影展、2001年在北京电影学院举办的首届中国独立影像节的启发，北大影协在举办了“运动的视域”2001北京国际“新影像”作品展之后，北京酷儿影展的前身–首届中国同性恋电影节作为北大影协的一次主题放映得到举办。由此看来，北京酷儿影展是作为独立影展被举办，它是从中国独立电影运动中诞生而来。而在它至今十几年的发展过程中，伴随着北京同志社区的发展壮大，同志团体的组织者也加入到北京酷儿影展的组织工作当中，进而北京酷儿影展成为为酷儿群体发声的平台。由此看来，北京酷儿影展是在与中国独立电影运动和性少数人群权利运动这两个运动的关联中发展起来的，这是北京酷儿影展不同于其他LGBT/酷儿影展的独特之处，不容忽视。

鉴于北京酷儿影展的这一特点，在笔者看来，影展中产生了基于独立电影运动的独立电影节的政治(the politics of independent film festivals)与基于性少数人群权利运动的身份政治(identity politics)之间的拉锯。在当下的电影政策下，性少数人群主题电影的制作虽然仍受到限制，但随着DV和DVD技术的发展以及互联网的普及，在某种程度上影片的制作和观赏得到了实现。与此对比，由于电影政策禁止独立制作的电影公映，独立电影节遭到强力打压，无法正常举办。所以，围绕性少数人群主题电影，重要的不是“看”的问题，而是“如何看”的问题。正是鉴于此，北京酷儿影展通过坚持影展的形式，确保一个物理空间，即使无法实现正常的影片放映，即使无法获得观众参与，用这个由“电影节”所确保的“公共空间”跟当局对独立电影放映的控制进行对抗。这个“公共空间”不同于一般意义上的（对抗性）公共领域，是独立电影节的政治的最佳体现。这一政治取向与北京独立影像展等其他独立影展相应和。由此，北京酷儿影展远离了社区，没有对社区产生积极的形构。而在影展举办之后所进行的酷儿巡展，则可以看作是基于身份政治的放映，性少数人群观众聚集的放映场所则接近于一般意义上的（对抗性）公共领域。

独立电影制作是对主流规范电影制作的对抗，而酷儿(queer)则是在性/别领域中对主流规范的否定。两者都在寻求规范之外的其他可能性。正是由于这种天然的亲近性，北京酷儿影展在远离身份政治，坚持独立电影节的政治的过程中，变得非常“酷儿”，酷儿政治(queer politics)在影展中的出现是笔者对北京酷儿影展政治可能性的预测。

The Beijing Queer Film Festival and its political possibilities: A look at the link between China’s independent film movement and the movement for the rights of sexual minorities

Yu Ning

《北京酷儿影展与其政治可能性——以其与中国独立电影运动以及性少数人群权利运动的关联为中心》

于宁

International film festivals can trace their roots back to that held in Venice 1932. As for LGBT/Queer film festivals, the San Francisco Frameline International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival of 1977 is widely considered to be the first. Since the late 1980s, such festivals have proliferated around the globe, and the Beijing Queer Film Festival, launched in 2001, set the scene in China, where it has served as a unique forum for showing films and exchanging ideas in the field of gender and gender identity.

Across the world, LGBT/Queer film festivals hold a special position on account of being identity- based film festivals. Owing to this, the research into such events has tended to examine the politics and social movements of sexual minorities, much of it focused on the mutually formative relationship between LGBT/Queer film festivals and the sexual minority community and audience. In recent years, researchers have also given increased attention to the relationships between such festivals, and utilized the concept of what Nancy Fraser has termed the counter public sphere. Due to the distinct nature of the Beijing Queer Film Festival, however, research in these two areas is not applicable in its case.

Unlike the majority of LGBT/Queer film festivals around the world, the Beijing festival did not grow out of the rights movement of sexual minorities. Rather, it was initiated by the Peking University Student Film Society in December 2001. Founded in 1999, this film society strove from its inception to promote China’s independent cinema on campus and in 2001, inspired by the first Chinese Independent Film Festival held that year at the Beijing Film Academy, it organized its own international showcase for new film works, under the title “Movement in Vision” 2001. On the heels of this event the Society went on to show a festival of gay and lesbian films, the antecedent of the Beijing Queer Film Festival. From this perspective, the Queer Film Festival maybe seen as an independent event born out of China’s independent film movement. In the dozen or so years since that time the development of the festival has been accompanied by the growth of Beijing’s lesbian and gay community, with community organizations joining in its work, and turning it into a platform to air the views of the community. Thus viewed, the Beijing Queer Film Festival grew out of the link between the Chinese independent film movement and the movement for minority sexual rights. This distinguishing feature between the Beijing Queer Film Festival and other LGBT/Queer film festivals should not be overlooked.

Because of this, the author believes the Beijing Queer Film Festival has given rise to a seesaw battle between the politics of independent film festivals on the one hand, and the identity politics of the movement for the rights of sexual minorities on the other. Despite the continued restrictions placed on films focused on sexual minorities under current film policy, the production and enjoyment of such films has nevertheless been facilitated up to a point by the development of DV and DVD technology. In contrast, due to the official policy of banning independent films from public venues, independent film festivals have been hit hard, and have not been able to carry on in a normal way. Therefore, the main problem facing films taking sexual minorities as their theme has been the matter of not whether they are seen, but how. It is precisely for this reason that the Beijing Queer Film Festival has persisted in the form of a film festival, ensuring it has a physical space, even if it is one where the normal showing of films is not possible, and where audiences have been unable to participate. It has used this “Public Space” provided by the “Film Festival” to confront the controls placed upon the showing of independent films by the authorities. The “Public Space” referred to here differs from the generally perceived sense of the (confrontational) public space, and is the best display of the politics of the Independent Film Festival. This political orientation coincides with that of the independent film festivals in Beijing and elsewhere. Thus the Beijing Queer Film Festival has kept a distance from the community, and made no positive impact on the formation of the community.

Just as Independent film production challenges the paradigms laid down by mainstream film production, so queer represents the negation of mainstream paradigms in gender. Both are searching for possibilities beyond their paradigms, and it is due to this natural proximity that the Beijing Queer Film Festival, by staying removed from identity politics and, persisting with the politics of the independent film festival has become truly “queer”, and the appearance of queer politics within the film festival is what this author perceives to be the political potential of the Beijing Queer Film Festival.

[英译: 柯鸿冈 English Translation: Paul Crook]