# data[].attributes.headline
[article] Filmart: how Hong Kong film industry is adapting to challenging times

# data[].attributes.subject
[article] Filmart: how Hong Kong film industry is adapting to challenging times

# data[].attributes.headline
Hong Kong Cinema: Double Marginalization and Cultural Resistance

# data[].attributes.subject
Hong Kong Cinema: Double Marginalization and Cultural Resistance

# data[].attributes.body
Tan See Kam (1994)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hong Kong Cinema: Double Marginalization and Cultural Resistance on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tan See Kam, Hong Kong Cinema: Double Marginalization and Cultural Resistance, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, Vol. 22, CULTURAL STUDIES IN THE ASIA PACIFIC (1994), pp. 53-69

# data[].attributes.headline
Bettinson, G 2020, 'Yesterday Once More: Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization', Journal of Chinese Cinemas, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

# data[].attributes.subject
Bettinson, G 2020, 'Yesterday Once More: Hong Kong-China Coproductions and the Myth of Mainlandization', Journal of Chinese Cinemas, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508061.2020.1713436

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since Ackbar Abbas theorized Hong Kong as a space of cultural 'disappearance' in the mid-1990s, critics have debated the extent to which local cultural forms have continued to recede, particularly as a corollary of Hong Kong's increasing subjection to mainlandization. For several critics, the region's cinema has already vanished from view, only to re-emerge in a brand new, distinctly Sinicized guise - that of 'post-Hong Kong cinema,' a mode of predominantly coproduced filmmaking that effaces traditional Hong Kong aesthetics and routines of film practice. So thoroughly has Hong Kong cinema been subsumed to China that its once 'unique' and 'singular' identity is no longer discernible. The shackles of PRC censorship now stifle free expression; Hong Kong's classic genres have become obsolete; and the PRC's vogue for 'main melody' films and the dapian ('big film') has straitened Hong Kong cinema's range of storytelling options. Today, critics contend, Hong Kong filmmakers are severely constrained by Mainland bureaucracy and the exigencies of the China market. This article seeks to challenge these assumptions, contesting a set of apparent truisms concerning Mainland censorship, Hong Kong-China coproductions, and the dissipation or disappearance of Hong Kong's local cinema and identity. The theory of mainlandization, I submit, denies the durability of Hong Kong's standardized craft practices; its aesthetic traditions; and the facile ingenuity of its filmmakers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
lancaster university research output publication researcher centre excellence postgraduate expert project award ref

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yesterday Once More - Research Portal | Lancaster University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since Ackbar Abbas theorized Hong Kong as a space of cultural 'disappearance' in the mid-1990s, critics have debated the extent to which local cultural forms have continued to recede, particularly as a corollary of Hong Kong's increasing subjection to mainlandization.

# data[].attributes.headline
HONG KONG'S LOST RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: A DENIAL HONG KONG'S LOST RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED NATIONS OF DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED NATIONS 

# data[].attributes.subject
HONG KONG'S LOST RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: A DENIAL HONG KONG'S LOST RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION: A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED NATIONS OF DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED NATIONS 

# data[].attributes.body
By Patricia A. Dagati

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does free information mean free people?

At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', technological innovation
would spread democracy to oppressed peoples everywhere.

We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion, and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not only that - in many cases the internet is actually helping authoritarian regimes. From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, employing sophisticated digital censorship and
using online surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too - becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging.

This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, and forces us - policymakers and citizens alike - to recognize that all our freedoms are at stake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does free information mean free people?At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', technological innovationwould spread democracy to oppressed peoples everywhere.We couldn't have been more wrong.

# data[].attributes.headline
[Chinese] Latest HK censorship law, films is considered in whether they are "not beneficial to national security"

# data[].attributes.subject
[Chinese] Latest HK censorship law, films is considered in whether they are "not beneficial to national security"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
香港立法會周三（27日）三讀通過《2021年電影檢查（修訂）條例草案》，規定檢查員須考慮影片上映是否會「不利」於國家安全，並賦予政務司司長「把關」權力，撤銷不利國安影片已獲發的准許證明書。商務及經濟局局長邱騰華強調，修訂條例不會影響電影業「正常運作」。在會上就有建制議員批評部分本地電影，指它們宣揚「恐懼、危害國家、醜化香港」等訊息。
邱騰華：修例不會影響正常電影業運作
「電檢條例」修訂草案通過後，邱騰華強調不會影響電影業「正常運作」。他指，當局確信絕大部分電影不涉及《港區國安法》的考慮，今次修例是為完善電檢條例，有助電影業界有所依從，不會誤闖紅線。

邱騰華說：檢查員要小心留意影片之中，有否描繪可能構成危害國家安全行為或活動，亦要留意影片會否造成認同、支持、宣揚、美化、鼓勵和煽動危害國家安全的行為。我想強調這次修訂，並不會影響電影業正常運作，因為確信大部分電影，不會涉及國家安全考慮。

今次通過修訂條例罰則嚴苛，若上映未獲豁免或核准影片，罰則由現時監禁1年及罰款20萬元，大幅提高至監禁3年及罰款100萬元。
梁美芬：《十年》煽動港獨、仇中情緒
立法會三讀上，有議員批評部分本地電影「政治不正確」。其中經民聯梁美芬就指，自己曾經在戲院觀看電影《十年》，他批評電影煽動「港獨」、「製造仇中情緒」、「美化自焚等行為」，認為類似的激進電影某程度上造成2019年大規模示威，而政府當時竟坐視不理。

梁美芬說：當時我已經嚇了一跳，原來當中充斥仇恨國家、仇視普通話、浪漫化絕食和自焚等行為，販賣恐中仇中情緒，亦是煽動港獨。他們說要十八區遍地開花，以《十年》宣揚政治理念，當時我們香港的政府可說是坐視不理。
陸頌雄：政治電影劣幣驅逐良幣
工聯會陸頌雄在會上相當激動。他批評民主派無法議會抗爭卻仍不斷「擦邊球」，以文化和電影產業宣揚「恐懼、危害國家、醜化香港」等訊息。他解釋，如任由「黑暴電影」上映，更會破壞電影生態，令業界淪為只能拍攝政治炒作的題材。

陸頌雄說：（《十年》）很明顯是配合「攬炒派」醜化香港、危言聳聽的策略。煽動了很多人尤其年輕人，對未來的絕望或恐懼，繼續在2019年做出很多非理性，甚至是違法暴力的行為。為何一定要拍危害國家安全的題材？是否真的沒意念呢？電影人？正常健康的電影業界，根本不覺得（修例）是個問題。

他又批評今次修例有漏洞，因為網上平台未受監管，應把本地串流平台納入規管範圍，同時呼籲政府巡查區議員於辦事處播放「違法電影」。

而業界代表議員馬逢國則指，政府有憲制責任按《港區國安法》作修例，《基本法》上言論自由必須與國家安全平衡，呼籲政府向業界清楚解說，避免業界觸犯紅線。
修例未涵蓋網上影片　邱騰華：會全面及小心研究
對於議員轟今次修例未涵蓋網上影片，邱騰華續解釋，電檢條例只適用於符合「上映」定義的影片。而至於會否將條例下的電影檢查制度伸延至規管範疇外，如於網上發布、不符合「上映」定義的影片等，當局則需全面及小心研究，因若加入網絡規管，將超越是次條例，令草案無法盡快生效。而條例草案生效後，將更新檢查員指引，供業界及公眾參閱。
反修例電影或難再在港上映
該草案未正式通過前，業界已飽受壓力，不少以反修例運動為題的電影，只能「轉場」以網上或團體播放。早前入圍金馬獎的電影《少年》，已於其預告片顯示「香港不能公映」；短片《執屋》經檢查後被要求刪剪、改名，並加上「可能構成刑事罪行」的警告字句。

另外，獨立電影商「影意志」發行的反修例運動紀錄片《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》，曾於放映兩小時前才被電檢處通知電影被評為三級，未成年人士需要安排退票。而官媒曾抨擊高先電影院和藝術中心放映《理大圍城》，最後電影播放無奈取消。

記者：沈彥恒　責編：羅燕雲　網編：劉定堅

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
【電檢條例】港立法會三讀通過修例　反送中電影或難再在港上映

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
香港立法會周三（27日）三讀通過《2021年電影檢查（修訂）條例草案》，規定檢查員須考慮影片上映是否會「不利」於國家安全，並賦予政務司司長「把關」權力，撤銷不利國安影片已獲發的准許證明書。商務及經濟局局長邱騰華強調，修訂條例不會影響電影業「正常運作」。在會上就有建制議員批評部分本地電影，指它們宣揚「恐懼、危害國家、醜化香港」等訊息。 邱騰華：修例不會影響正常電影業運作 ...

# data[].attributes.body
1. 浮瓜 Extras Dir. 郭臻 Kwok Zune -

2. 冬蟬 Season of the End Dir. 黃飛鵬 Wong Fei-Pang

3. 方言 Dialect Dir. 歐文傑 Jevons Au

4. 自焚者 Self-immolator Dir. 周冠威 Kiwi Chow/Zhou Guanwei

5. 本地蛋 Local Egg Dir. 伍嘉良 Ng Ka-Leung

# data[].attributes.headline
[important] MY RESEARCH NOTES AND PLANNING

# data[].attributes.subject
[important] MY RESEARCH NOTES AND PLANNING

# data[].attributes.headline
[Audio] 57:33 Antonio Gramsci, Cultural Marxism, Wokeness, and Leninism 4.0

# data[].attributes.subject
[Audio] 57:33 Antonio Gramsci, Cultural Marxism, Wokeness, and Leninism 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Antonio Gramsci, Cultural Marxism, Wokeness, and Leninism 4.0

# data[].attributes.headline
[Audio] 24:41 Episode #131 ... Gramsci - Cultural Hegemony

# data[].attributes.subject
[Audio] 24:41 Episode #131 ... Gramsci - Cultural Hegemony

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Episode #131 ... Gramsci - Cultural Hegemony

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to Michel Foucault, Module on Panoptic and Carceral Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five thought-provoking shorts imagine what Hong Kong will be like ten years from now. In Extras, two genial low-level gangsters are hired to stage an attack, but they're mere sacrificial lambs in a political conspiracy. Rebels strive to preserve destroyed homes and objects as specimens in the mesmerizing Season of the End. In Dialect, a taxi driver struggles to adjust after Putonghua displaces Cantonese as Hong Kong's only official language. Following the death of a leading independence activist, an act of self-immolation outside the British consulate triggers questions and protests in the searing yet moving Self-Immolator. In Local Egg, a grocery shop owner worries about his son's youth guard activities and where to buy eggs after Hong Kong's last chicken farm closes down.

By what name was Sap nin (2015) officially released in Canada in English?

Answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five thought-provoking shorts imagine what Hong Kong will be like ten years from now. In Extras, two genial low-level gangsters are hired to stage an attack, but they're mere sacrificial lambs in a political conspiracy. Rebels strive to preserve destroyed homes and objects as specimens in the mesmerizing Season of the End.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ten Years: An Unexpected Watershed of Twenty-first-century Hong Kong Film Industry

# data[].attributes.subject
Ten Years: An Unexpected Watershed of Twenty-first-century Hong Kong Film Industry

# data[].attributes.body
Ruby Cheung
Cheung, Ruby (2019) Ten Years: An unexpected watershed of twenty-first-century Hong Kong film industry. Frames Cinema Journal, (15).

# data[].attributes.headline
Cinema  Censorship  and  Media  Citizenship  in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years

# data[].attributes.subject
Cinema  Censorship  and  Media  Citizenship  in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years

# data[].attributes.body
Karen Fang
University of Houston. USA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
View of Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return to Article Details Cinema Censorship and Media Citizenship in the Hong Kong Film Ten Years

# data[].attributes.headline
[article] directors of ten years after the film

# data[].attributes.subject
[article] directors of ten years after the film

# data[].attributes.body
Chow jokes that he have self-immolated his own career

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the two years since Hong Kong's 2015 independent film Ten Years garnered international attention for its dystopian critique of mounting Chinese power, the implications of the movie's chilling vision continues to grow.

The movie - which fell subject to an aggressive censorship and negative media campaign by the Chinese government - ultimately won the global public relations war when it was exhibited at dozens of city-wide free public screenings a few days before it was named the year's Best Picture at the Hong Kong Film Awards. However, the young filmmakers behind the movie continue to suffer blowback from their association with the controversy.

Indeed, although the film briefly seemed to present a remarkable moment of resistance to Chinese power, current career opportunities for the Ten Years filmmakers are a cautionary tale consistent with the stories of repression, censorship and blacklisting depicted within the original film itself.
'Self-immolated his own career'
Ten Years collaborator Kiwi Chow Kwun-wai contributed the quietly devastating "Self-Immolator" short to the movie - following an activist's suicidal appeal for civic rights by setting oneself on fire. The director jokes that his participation in Ten Years has "self-immolated [his] own career."

Such irony helps Chow laugh off suspicions that he and several other Ten Years contributors have been blacklisted, as was alleged late last year by pro-democracy tabloid Apple Daily.

He further notes that, since Ten Years ' release, fear of reprisal has kept all of the movie's filmmakers from crossing the border into China. Chow clarifies that, although "people think it is quite dangerous to do this sort of thing," for him he is less concerned about "danger to my life, but danger to my productions."

At a time when China is now the world's largest film market and co-productions between Hong Kong and mainland Chinese film companies are a key source of employment for Hong Kong and other Sinophone filmmakers and talent, the consequences of Ten Years ' notoriety has been significant.

In the case of Chow, who previously was well-positioned to transition to major studio productions after having directed a featurette on mainland-born martial arts superstar Jet Li, this has meant becoming resigned to only low-budget films rather than the larger productions funded by and aimed at the lucrative mainland market.
Marginalisation
Similarly, for Jevons Au, the oldest and most established of the five young filmmakers behind Ten Years, the professional consequences of appearing to be a politically provocative filmmaker are particularly apparent. Au is an accomplished scriptwriter and experienced assistant director well known in the commercial industry for his work with internationally acclaimed Hong Kong filmmaker and Cannes fixture, Johnnie To.

Unlike the other Ten Years filmmakers, Au was not thought to have been on the purported blacklist, presumably because of his existing industry clout. His industry ties, however, were not strong enough to protect him, as Au reports that projects on which he had already been in negotiations prior to Ten Years' release abruptly dried up, with potential financers and collaborators no longer returning calls.

Importantly, this sense of marginalisation does not have to be explicitly political, but could also just reflect the general sidelining that is occurring as China's influence over regional and global film production dictates what kinds of movies get made.

As Au's own contribution to Ten Years portrays, Hong Kong since reunification has increasingly shifted towards Putonghua, rather than the Cantonese long dominant in Hong Kong and Hong Kong film. Thus Au's Ten Years contribution, entitled "Dialect," depicts a taxi driver who is unable to find fares due both to legislation and to customer distaste.

Au openly acknowledges the story's inspiration from his own work as a screenwriter, who is uncomfortable speaking Putonghua and who feels unfamiliar with mainland interests and tastes. Confessing that he has begun to "lose confidence" in his scriptwriting, Au acknowledges that the local film industry's shift towards to the mainland market might soon leave him limited only to the local Hong Kong-based stories he feels comfortable telling.

Such resignation felt by Ten Years filmmakers like Chow and Au is common in Hong Kong film these days.

With the local industry's decline alongside China's emergence as the world's largest film market, the Hong Kong film industry has survived by splitting into a bipartite system in which some artists and filmmakers entrench themselves by fashioning big-budget spectacles destined for the Chinese market, while others remain committed to the genres and film styles more commonly favoured by local Hong Kong and global critical audiences.

Although some major industrial figures and auteurs like Peter Chan, Ann Hui and Johnnie To successfully negotiate both, the smaller arm of Hong Kong cinema has been notable for fostering a new, younger generation of filmmakers, often funded by charitable government or non-profit arts grants, whose work may be characterised by a gritty, realistic, and resolutely modest style that is vastly different from both contemporary mainland-targeted cinema and the hyperbolic energy of Hong Kong cinema's past.

Ten Years itself is typical of this phenomenon, having started with seed money originating with a Christian missionary program, and the resourcefulness demonstrated by both the filmmakers and the popular response their film provoked offers a breath of hope for sustaining alternative film styles within a world film market increasingly concerned with conforming with China's requirements for noncontroversial commercial taste.

Indeed, unlike the underground film scene in mainland China - which once fostered visionary world filmmakers such as Jia Zhangke but since 2012 has been subject to a wave of abruptly shuttered festivals - independent Hong Kong films like Ten Years signal new paths for cinematic production and reception beyond the commercial roots in which Hong Kong film was founded.

In fact, in addition to turning profitable during its brief run in the commercial theaters, Ten Years briefly became Hong Kong's single-most downloaded item on iTunes.
Regional exploration
The current work of the Ten Years' filmmakers is particularly intriguing in this light. Building upon their momentum, most of the original Ten Years team are now working with peers to launch similar omnibus projects in Taiwan, Thailand, Japan and Korea. (The exception is Jevons Au, currently shooting a grant-funded film about Hong Kong teens.)

While the Ten Years filmmakers are quick to explain that these specific locations are contingent upon artistic connections and are not intentionally political, it is significant that Taiwan and Japan both have increasingly contentious relationships with China. Thailand and Korea are also both dealing with instability caused by legitimacy problems surrounding their current national leaders.

What will the Ten Years project look like, once exported and adapted to these different regional spaces, who might also benefit from the Hong Kong movie's model of political critique?

As Ten Years producer Andrew Choi wryly notes, already during the film's reception in 2016 he had joked with American audiences and critics that "if Trump wins, [they] could do a Ten Years: US." Thus tongue-in-cheek suggesting that the US ought to be as wary of its current government as Hong Kong, Choi reminds us how much a movie can teach audiences about issues impacting our daily lives.

No less seriously, the independent filmmakers express their unflagging commitment to artistic freedom, even in the face of the world's superpowers and their correspondingly influential film industries. As noted by another one of the Ten Years contributors, Ng Kar-leung - who was one the movie's original conceptualisers and also is one of the key figures behind the new " Ten Years International" project - "unfortunately, history always repeats itself."
See also: Dystopian box office hit Ten Years wins 'best film' at 2016 HK Film Awards, as news of win is censored in China
For Ng, however, Hong Kong's cinema's strength has always been its ability to make seemingly local stories communicate "honesty, commitment" and other values that are "quite human" and "universal." For Ng, this means that precisely by being "reduced to the bare minimum" of production resources, the new era of Hong Kong cinema will be very different but possibly more influential.

As Ng concludes, "it is very fortunate that because of Ten Years we can get back to ground zero in making film."
Karen Fang is an associate professor at the University of Houston, a film scholar and the author of Arresting Cinema: Surveillance in Hong Kong Film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Years: What happened to the filmmakers behind the dystopian Hong Kong indy film?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the two years since Hong Kong's 2015 independent film Ten Years garnered international attention for its dystopian critique of mounting Chinese power, the implications of the movie's chilling vision continues to grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class which manipulates the culture of that society - the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores - so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm;[need quotation to verify ] the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class. This Marxist analysis of how the ruling capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) establishes and maintains its control was originally developed by the Italian philosopher and politician Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937).

In philosophy and in sociology, the term 'cultural hegemony' has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word hegemonia (ἡγεμονία) indicating leadership and rule. In political science, hegemony implies geopolitical imperial dominance with a component of indirect influence, whereby the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states through the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than merely through the threat of direct rule - military invasion, occupation, and annexation.

In history, the etymologic evolution of the Greek word hegemonia (ἡγεμονία) and its denotations has developed thus:

In Ancient Greece (8th c. BC - AD 6th c.), ἡγεμονία (leadership) denoted the politico-military dominance of a city-state upon other city-states, as in the Hellenic League (338 BC), a federation of Greek city-states, established by King Philip II of Macedon, to facilitate his access to and use of the Greek militaries against the Persian empire.

In the 19th century, hegemony (rule) denoted the geopolitical and cultural predominance of one country upon other countries, as in the European colonialism imposed upon the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

In the 20th century, the political-science denotation of hegemony (dominance) expanded to include cultural imperialism; the cultural domination, by a ruling class, of a socially stratified society. That by manipulating the dominant ideology (cultural values and mores) of the society, the ruling class can intellectually dominate the other social classes with an imposed worldview (Weltanschauung) that ideologically justifies the social, political, and economic status quo of the society as if it were a natural and normal, inevitable and perpetual state of affairs that always has been so.

Historical

In 1848, Karl Marx proposed that the economic recessions and practical contradictions of a capitalist economy would provoke the working class to proletarian revolution, depose capitalism, restructure social institutions (economic, political, social) per the rational models of socialism, and thus begin the transition to a communist society. Therefore, the dialectical changes to the functioning of the economy of a society determine its social superstructures (culture and politics).

To that end, Antonio Gramsci proposed a strategic distinction, between a War of Position and a War of Manœuvre. The war of position is an intellectual and cultural struggle wherein the anti-capitalist revolutionary creates a proletarian culture whose native value system counters the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie. The proletarian culture will increase class consciousness, teach revolutionary theory and historical analysis, and thus propagate further revolutionary organisation among the social classes. On winning the war of position, socialist leaders would then have the necessary political power and popular support to begin the political manœuvre warfare of revolutionary socialism.

The initial, theoretical application of cultural domination was as a Marxist analysis of "economic class" ( base and superstructure), which Antonio Gramsci developed to comprehend "social class"; hence, cultural hegemony proposes that the prevailing cultural norms of a society, which are imposed by the ruling class ( bourgeois cultural hegemony), must not be perceived as natural and inevitable, but must be recognized as artificial social constructs ( institutions, practices, beliefs, et cetera) that must be investigated to discover their philosophic roots as instruments of social-class domination. That such praxis of knowledge is indispensable for the intellectual and political liberation of the proletariat, so that workers and peasants, the people of town and country, can create their own working-class culture, which specifically addresses their social and economic needs as social classes.

In a society, cultural hegemony is neither monolithic intellectual praxis, nor a unified system of values, but a complex of stratified social structures, wherein each social and economic class has a social purpose and an internal class-logic that allows its members to behave in a way that is particular and different from the behaviours of the members of other social classes, whilst co-existing with them as constituents of the society.

As a result of their different social purposes, the classes will be able to coalesce into a society with a greater social mission. When a man, a woman, or a child perceives the social structures of bourgeois cultural hegemony, personal common sense performs a dual, structural role (private and public) whereby the individual person applies common sense to cope with daily life, which explains (to himself and to herself) the small segment of the social order stratum that each experiences as the status quo of life in society; "the way things are". Publicly, the emergence of the perceptual limitations of personal common sense inhibit the individual person's perception of the greater nature of the systematic socio-economic exploitation made possible by cultural hegemony. Because of the discrepancy in perceiving the status quo-the socio-economic hierarchy of bourgeois culture-most men and women concern themselves with their immediate (private) personal concerns, rather than with distant (public) concerns, and so do not think about and question the fundamental sources of their socio-economic oppression, and its discontents, social, personal, and political.

The effects of cultural hegemony are perceptible at the personal level; although each person in a society lives a meaningful life in his and her social class, to him and to her, the discrete social classes might appear to have little in common with the private life of the individual man and woman. Yet, when perceived as a whole society, the life of each person does contribute to the greater social hegemony. Although social diversity, economic variety, and political freedom appear to exist-because most people see different life-circumstances-they are incapable of perceiving the greater hegemonic pattern created when the lives they witness coalesce as a society. The cultural hegemony is manifested in and maintained by an existence of minor, different circumstances that are not always fully perceived by the men and the women living the culture.

In perceiving and combating cultural hegemony, the working class and the peasantry depend upon the intellectuals produced by their society, to which ends Antonio Gramsci distinguished between bourgeois-class intellectuals and working-class intellectuals, the proponents and the opponents of the imposed, normative culture, and thus of the social status quo:

Since these various categories of traditional intellectuals [administrators, scholars and scientists, theorists, non-ecclesiastical philosophers, etc.] experience through an esprit de corps their uninterrupted historical continuity, and their special qualifications, they thus put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group. This self-assessment is not without consequences in the ideological and political fields, consequences of wide-ranging import. The whole of idealist philosophy can easily be connected with this position, assumed by the social complex of intellectuals, and can be defined as the expression of that social utopia by which the intellectuals think of themselves as "independent" [and] autonomous, [and] endowed with a character of their own, etc.

- Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), pp. 7-8.

The traditional and vulgarized type of the intellectual is given by the Man of Letters, the philosopher, and the artist. Therefore, journalists, who claim to be men of letters, philosophers, artists, also regard themselves as the "true" intellectuals. In the modern world, technical education, closely bound to industrial labor, even at the most primitive and unqualified level, must form the basis of the new type of intellectual. ... The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist of eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary mover of feelings and passions, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor [and] organizer, as "permanent persuader", not just simple orator.

- Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), pp. 9-10.

Gramsci's influence

This section Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on the is missing information about its relation to Nouvelle Droite. talk page.

Cultural hegemony has philosophically influenced Eurocommunism, the social sciences, and the activist politics of socially liberal and progressive politicians. The analytic discourse of cultural hegemony is important to research and synthesis in anthropology, political science, sociology, and cultural studies; in education, cultural hegemony developed critical pedagogy, by which the root causes of political and social discontent can be identified, and so resolved.

In 1967, the German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of hegemony with the phrase The long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position, an allusion to the Long March (1934-35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class would produce their own organic intellectuals and culture ( dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie.

The ideological apparatuses of the State

As conceptual criticism of cultural hegemony, the structuralist philosopher Louis Althusser presented the theory of the ideological state apparatus to describe the structure of complex relationships, among the different organs of the State, by which ideology is transmitted and disseminated to the populations of a society. Althusser draws from the concepts of hegemony present in cultural hegemony, yet rejects the absolute historicism proposed by Gramsci. He argues that the ideological state apparatuses (ISA) are the sites of ideological conflict among the social classes of a society. That, in contrast to the repressive state apparatuses (RSA), such as the military and the police forces, the ISA exist as a plurality. While the ruling class in power can readily control the repressive state apparatuses, the ISA are both the sites and the stakes (the objects) of class struggle. Moreover, the ISA are not monolithic social entities, and are distributed throughout the society, as public and as private sites of continual class struggle.

In On the Reproduction of Capitalism (1968), Louis Althusser said that the ideological apparatuses of the State are over-determined zones of society that comprise complex elements of the ideologies of previous modes of production, thus, are sites of continual political activity in a society, which are:

the religious ISA (the system of Churches)

the educational ISA (the systems of public and private schools),

the family ISA,

the legal ISA,

the political ISA (the political system, e.g. political parties),

the trade union ISA,

the communications ISA (press, radio, television, etc.)

the cultural ISA (literature, the arts, sport, etc.)

Althusser said that the parliamentary structures of the State, by which the "will of the people" is represented by elected delegates, are an ideological apparatus of the State. That the political system, itself, is an ideological apparatus, because it involves the "fiction, corresponding to a 'certain' reality, that the component parts of the [political] system, as well as the principle of its functioning, are based on the ideology of the 'freedom' and 'equality' of the individual voters and the 'free choice' of the people's representatives, by the individuals that 'make up' the people."

Beech, Dave; Andy Hewitt; Mel Jordan (2007). The Free Art Collective Manifesto for a Counter-Hegemonic Art. England: Free Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9554748-0-4. OCLC 269432294.

Bullock, Alan; Trombley, Stephen, eds. (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (3rd ed.).

Flank, Lenny (2007). Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: Marxism, Capitalism, and Their Relation to Sexism, Racism, Nationalism, and Authoritarianism. St. Petersburg, Florida: Red and Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0-9791813-7-5. OCLC 191763227.

Gramsci, Antonio (1992), Buttigieg, Joseph A (ed.), , New York City: Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-10592-7, OCLC 24009547

Abercrombie, Nicholas; Turner, Bryan S. (June 1978). "The Dominant Ideology Thesis". The British Journal of Sociology. 29 (2): 149-70. doi:10.2307/589886. JSTOR 589886.

Anderson, Perry (1977). "The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci" (PDF). New Left Review. No. 100. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class which manipulates the culture of that society - the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores - so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm;[need quotation to verify ] the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten Years

十年

Directed by

Kwok Zune

Wong Fei-pang

Jevons Au

Kiwi Chow

Ng Ka-leung

Produced by

Ng Ka-leung

Mandrew Kwan

Jevons Au

Frankie Chan

Andrew Choi

Starring

Peter Chan

Wong Ching

Lau Ho-Chi

Kin-Ping Leung

Liu Kai-chi

Siu Hin Ng

Ten Years Studio
109G Studio
Four Parts Production

Distributed by

Golden Scene Co. Ltd., Netflix

17 December 2015 (Hong Kong)

104 minutes

Country

Hong Kong

Language

Cantonese

Budget

HK$ 600,000

Box office

HK$6 million

Ten Years ( Chinese: 十年) is a 2015 Hong Kong dystopian speculative fiction anthology film. It offers a vision of the semi-autonomous territory in the year 2025, with human rights and freedoms gradually diminishing as the Chinese government exerts increasing influence there. Produced on a shoestring budget, the film was a surprise hit, beating Star Wars: The Force Awakens at the Yau Ma Tei cinema where it was first released. It has since been released on Netflix as of February 2019.

Due to the film's sensitive political themes, mainland Chinese authorities censored reports mentioning Ten Years except in terms of condemnation. State television channels and major internet sites were prohibited from broadcasting the 35th Hong Kong Film Awards live as the film was nominated for Best Film, which it eventually won.

The film comprises five short stories set in or before the year 2025.

Prior to an International Labour Day celebration in 2020, government officials concoct a false flag assassination plot to foment public support for legislation of the National Security Law. They hire two petty gangsters to execute the plot: Hairy (Zerisawa Courtney Wu), a middle-aged low-level triad member, and Peter (Peter Chan), an immigrant from India. While the two argue over who should fire the gun, the director of the Liaison Office decides that the leaders of both the TMD and the Fortune Parties are to get shot with real bullets, so as to instigate greater panic in the territory. Misbelieving they will get paid and flee to India afterwards, both Hairy and Peter attempt the assassination but are killed instantly on scene by the police. Later, the government identifies the perpetrators as terrorists and restates the significance of the upcoming legislation.

Director Kwok Zune stated that the triad-like behaviour of the officials was inspired by real-world pro-establishment groups in Hong Kong, who were accused of beating and sexually assaulting pro-democratic protesters during the 2014 Hong Kong protests.

Wong Ching (herself) and Lau Ho-chi (himself) attempt to preserve objects from homes destroyed by bulldozers. The last specimen Lau wants to create is his own body.

As the government enacts laws limiting operating areas of non- Mandarin-speaking taxi drivers, a Cantonese-speaking driver (Leung Kin-ping) finds himself marginalised as he fails to pass the national Mandarin proficiency test. The driver's wife instructs him to stop using Cantonese with their son, Kongson, so that the boy will do better at his Mandarin medium of instruction school. A series of vignettes further illustrate the increasing dominance of Mandarin and Leung's struggle adjusting. He is unable to make himself understood by his Mandarin GPS unit and is ridiculed by a passenger for it. Two Mandarin-speaking fares opt to take another cab when they realise he cannot speak the language. One of his passengers, an office lady ( Catherine Chau), is fired from her job for failing to clearly explain something to a client in Mandarin.

The film alludes to a 2003 real-world proposal by the Transport Department that failed, as well as a regulation introduced in Wuhan. In Mainland China, Mandarin (a.k.a. Putonghua) is promoted as a national language, and legislation such as the Guangdong National Language Regulations restricts the use of Cantonese and all other varieties of Chinese. The name Dialect comes from the fact that the Mainland government refers to Cantonese as a dialect despite the fact that it is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin. The short was directed by Jevons Au Man-kit, a graduate of the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, who said that the taxi driver's plight was influenced by his own struggles to write scripts in Mandarin in an increasingly Mainland-oriented Hong Kong film sector.

Au-yeung Kin-fung (Ng Siu-hin), a young hardline supporter for Hong Kong independence, becomes the first to be convicted under the National Security Law and dies during a hunger strike in prison. An unknown person commits self-immolation in front of the British Consulate-General in Admiralty. This escalates public concerns about Hong Kong's undecided future beyond 2047. Au-yeung's friend Karen (Tanzela Qoser) is initially feared to be the self-immolator but is later revealed to have been kidnapped by secret police. Au-yeung's allies, led by Marco ( Neo Yau), break into and set fire to the Central Government Liaison Office in Sai Wan, while a group of Christians gather and pray outside the British Consulate-General to urge the Britons to uphold the Sino-British Joint Declaration co-signed with the Beijing authorities. The Communist Party labels the demand for independence a diplomatic affair, thereby justifying the deployment of the People's Liberation Army in the city. The protests in Sai Wan and Admiralty are crushed violently. As a flashback reveals, after witnessing Au-yeung being severely beaten by police, an old woman was moved to commit self-immolation outside the British Consulate-General. The film ends on a prolonged shot of her umbrella burning, alluding to the Umbrella Movement.

The storytelling is intertwined with interviews with commentators analysing ongoing events and providing background information such as Hong Kong's removal from the UN decolonisation list in 1972 at China's behest.

Directed by Kiwi Chow, Self-immolator alludes to the common practice of self-immolation in Mainland China as a form of protest, particularly among Tibetans. Chow stated that while the plot of this piece may seem extreme, "In 2004, people would also find it hard to believe that [the police can drag a protester into a dark corner and beat him up]", alluding to the beating of Ken Tsang and other incidents of police brutality during the 2014 Hong Kong protests.

Sam ( Liu Kai-chi), a grocery store keeper, is told about the closure of the last chicken farm in Hong Kong. He then visits his egg supplier, farm owner Cheung who recalls the government's actions to gradually kill off the industry despite the fact that he has been meeting their demands. Sam's store is frequently checked by Youth Guards, members of a Red Guards-like uniform group, since his use of "local eggs" on his label is on the censor list. He questions why "local eggs" must be relabeled "Hong Kong eggs" when they refer to the same thing. Sam finds his son Ming among a squad of Youth Guards throwing eggs at a bookstore, but Ming assures his father that he has kept his teaching in mind and has not participated in the vandalism; instead, he often leaks the censor lists and actions to bookstore keepers so that they can remain safe and preserve the books. Relaxed at his son's critical thinking, Sam reminds a bookstore keeper not to get used to such suppressive acts.

Ten Years ends with a quote from the Book of Amos:

It is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live.

and "Already too late" fading out and replaced by "Not too late".

The independent film was conceived by Ng Ka-leung, a graduate of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Ng said that the idea predated the Umbrella Movement, and was inspired by ongoing political, educational and housing problems. He explained in late 2015:

I had the idea for Ten Years early last year. I had been feeling dejected for years about the lack of future for Hong Kong. The national education controversy showed that the next generation are at risk of ideological indoctrination. Political, education and housing problems have festered for years and all protest movements have turned out to be futile in the end. I wanted to make a film to flesh out possible future scenarios so people might be goaded into thinking more about the future path Hong Kong should take.

The film was produced on a budget of HK$500,000 (US$64,000). The cast and crew were mainly volunteers. It was filmed in Hong Kong.

The film was featured at the Hong Kong Asian Film Festival in November 2015 before its general release. It was initially released on only one screen in Hong Kong at the Broadway Cinematheque in Yau Ma Tei at the end of 2015. It was a surprise hit, and subsequently received a release at select UA Cinemas. It was further picked up by two independent cinemas, the Metroplex in Kowloon Bay and the Ma On Shan Classics Cinema. The Metroplex decided to show the film in its largest cinema (430 seats) boosting ticket sales.

By early February 2016, only the independent cinema in Ma On Shan was showing the film. It ended its run there following the weekend of 12 February. Since being pulled from theatres, the film has been showing at private screening at universities and other rented venues, advertised on social media.

In February 2016, the international distribution rights for the film were purchased by Golden Scene, a Hong Kong-based distributor.

On 1 April 2016, with no cinemas screening the film despite high demand, Ten Years was simultaneously screened at 34 different public locations around Hong Kong, including the underside of motorway flyovers (in Sham Shui Po and Mei Foo), the public steps leading to the Sha Tin Town Hall, and the forecourt of the Legislative Council Complex. The screenings were organised by a variety of community groups, educational institutions, and churches. They were attended by thousands, many of whom were frustrated to have been unable to get tickets before the film was pulled from cinemas.

As of February 2019, the film has been made available globally via Netflix.

In the first month of its general release, most showings were sold out. At the only cinema showing it in the week of its opening, it grossed more ticket sales than Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and ranked top ten in Hong Kong's weekend box office. At the end of January 2016 the film surpassed HK$5 million in box office earnings, which one of the directors called a miracle given the film's modest budget and limited screening. At the time the film was only being shown at UA Megabox, the Metroplex and the Ma On Shan Classics Cinema. By mid-February, when Ten Years ended its run at the sole screen where it was still being shown, the film had grossed more than HK$6 million.

The South China Morning Post reported that " Ten Years" topped the charts on Chinese download site zimuzu.tv after the Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony, but that users were disappointed to find they had downloaded the 2011 American film of the same name.

Ten Years received generally positive reviews locally. Some viewers reportedly left the cinema in tears. Time Out Hong Kong called the film "powerful, poignant, relevant and brave", as well as "nightmarish". The Hong Kong Economic Journal called it "well-constructed", and wrote: "Viewers will realize that although some of the scenes may seem unfamiliar and others way too radical, the stories are always anchored on developments in the past and the present. There's always something in the movie that viewers can identify with, something believable and within the realm of the possible." Writing in the South China Morning Post, Edmund Lee called the film "a reminder of the power of independent, intelligent filmmaking as a vehicle for social and political critique" and "one of the most thought-provoking local films in years". Alice Wu said: "Provocation is an art form. Perhaps the true value of Ten Years lies in how uncomfortable it is to us all... As a portrayal of our worst fears, it is arguably the quintessential political horror film of our time. It perfectly plays (or should it be 'preys'?) on many Hongkongers' primal fears..."

A review in Hong Kong Free Press responded that "while Global Times and other reviewers have primarily directed their critiques at the likelihood of the film's events actually taking place, the film cannot be entirely interpreted as a prediction for the year 2025. Ten Years is not a forecast calculated via econometric modelling; it is simply a portrayal of the Hong Kong public's worst fears. Perhaps a more pertinent question raised by the film is why people have come to dread - rather than look forward to - the city's future. The answer is probably because we have been shown no realistic alternative." The same reviewer observed a message about belonging in Hong Kong: "For example, Extras and Self-Immolator [...] portray mainland immigrants, South Asians and elderly characters without treating them as antagonists or resorting to stereotypes. The latter film even features a mixed-race relationship, advocating the idea that Hong Kong identity should be based on civic, not ethnic, factors."

The film was selected to be screened at the 18th Taipei Film Festival opening on 30 June 2016.

Peter Lam, chairman of Media Asia and of the Hong Kong Tourism Board, said: "The fact that the film got the prize is a tragedy for Hong Kong's movie industry [because] politics has kidnapped the profession and politicised film-awarding events." Lam added that, from a film investor's perspective: "The movie did not possess the qualities of best film, as you can see that it was not nominated for best actress or best actor awards, nor was it a blockbuster." Crucindo Hung, former chairman of the Federation of Motion Film Producers of Hong Kong, criticised the award as "an out-of-your-mind and outrageous decision." Lam defended his remark from criticism, but earned further rebuke to his statement by implying that a wonton noodles shop never ought to be voted best restaurant in Hong Kong. Some members of the Chamber of Films said they would submit a proposal to the Hong Kong Film Awards Association to change the voting mechanism of the awards. Daniel Lam, Chamber of Films member and owner of Universe Films, whose film Little Big Master lost to Ten Years, said that current voting mechanism "can be easily manipulated to produce an irrational result".

On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times called the film absurd and ridiculous, and accused the filmmakers of trying to spread anxiety. It referred to the film's political message as a "virus of the mind" and claimed its box office earnings were minimal.

Due to the fact that the film was nominated for best picture in the 35th Hong Kong Film Awards, the state-owned China Central Television announced that it would not live telecast the ceremony, as it had done every year since 1991. The online video website Tencent has said that it will also not cover the event. China's leading film review websites Douban and Mtime.com do not allow users to create a page for the film.[citation needed ] Derek Yee, chairman of Hong Kong Film Awards, who presented the award to the directors, said that it had been hard to find anyone else to present the award, due to fears of being blacklisted for mainland opportunities.

Major mainland news websites, including Sina and Tencent, covered the awards ceremony, held 3 April 2016, but neglected to mention the winner of best picture, considered one of Asia's top film awards. In mainland Chinese cities where TVB, the main Hong Kong television channel, is aired, users on social media reported that the programme was blacked out and replaced with a cooking programme.

During the week of 11 April 2016, Apple was ordered by the Chinese State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television to shut down its iTunes Movie and iBooks stores, which had been approved approximately six months earlier. This appears to be in response to the availability of Ten Years in the iTunes Movie store. News of the store closures broke shortly before the movie became available on iTunes in Hong Kong.

In October 2017, a pan-Asian franchise based on the film was announced. Japanese, Taiwanese and Thai versions were planned, each offering a very specific take on those societies' "hidden dangers and hidden fears", according to Rina B. Tsou, one of five Taiwanese directors on that project. For instance, the Japanese version would explore a country "plagued by pollution and aging" as well as a "society where morality and personal history are manipulated by technology." "Surveillance and government control" in a Thailand a decade hence will be envisaged by director Aditya Assarat, while the Taiwanese project foretells an island where "immigrant workers are systematically exploited and the loss of culture and dropping birth rate" have caused its inhabitants to turn to "virtual reality escapes."

Executive producers for the franchise include Andrew Choi, one of the original Hong Kong 'Ten Years' producers, and Japanese filmmaker Hirokazu Kore-eda. All franchises eventually released in 2018, titled Jû-nen: Ten Years Japan, Ten Years Taiwan and Ten Years Thailand, respectively.

1. ^ Griffiths, James (21 January 2016). "'Ten Years': Dark vision of Hong Kong's future proves surprise box office hit". . Cable News Network. Archived from the original on 24 January 2016.

2. ^ Cheng, Kris (3 February 2016). "'A miracle': Dystopian HK film 'Ten Years' passes HK$5 million mark at the box office". Hong Kong Free Press. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016.

3. ^ Frater, Patrick (14 February 2016). "Berlin: Golden Scene Picks up Hong Kong Political Drama '10 Years'". . Variety Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017.

4. ^ Fung, Owen (22 January 2016). "'Ten Years' film is absurd and too pessimistic, says Global Times". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 24 January 2016.

5. ^ Yuen, Chantal (22 February 2016). "Dystopian HK film Ten Years leads to Chinese media boycott of Hong Kong Film Awards". Hong Kong Free Press. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016.

6. ^ Mozur, Paul; Perlez, Jane (21 April 2016). "Apple Services Shut Down in China in Startling About-Face". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 5 January 2017.

7. ^ Sumra, Husain. "Report: iTunes Movies and iBooks Stores in China Ordered Closed by Chinese State Agency". Archived from the original on 22 April 2016.

8. ^ Bleak Hong Kong film to become pan-Asian Archived 2017-10-19 at the Wayback Machine, Agence France-Presse, 18 October 2017, in The Standard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten Years 十年 Directed by Kwok Zune Wong Fei-pang Jevons Au Kiwi Chow Ng Ka-leung Produced by Ng Ka-leung Mandrew Kwan Jevons Au Frankie Chan Andrew Choi Starring Peter Chan Wong Ching Lau Ho-Chi Kin-Ping Leung Liu Kai-chi Siu Hin Ng Ten Years Studio109G StudioFour Parts Production Distributed by Golden Scene Co.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Are Tibetans Setting Themselves on Fire?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 2008 at least 145 Tibetans have self-immolated as a tool of political protest. Attempts to label these acts as suicide—or even, curiously, as a forbidden act of “killing”—are either a complete misinterpretation of the phenomenon or, more likely, the type of deliberate misrepresentation that we…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Why Are Tibetans Setting Themselves on Fire?

# data[].attributes.headline
[article] State newspaper says dystopian HK film 'Ten Years' is ridiculous and promotes desperation

# data[].attributes.subject
[article] State newspaper says dystopian HK film 'Ten Years' is ridiculous and promotes desperation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A state newspaper has criticised the independent Hong Kong film "Ten Years" as ridiculous, saying that it is spreading desperation.

The film predicts how Hong Kong may look in a decade's time. It offers scenes such as shops accused of selling banned materials being attacked by uniformed army cadets, Mandarin as the dominant language and an activist self-immolating in a fight for Hong Kong independence.

In an editorial published on Friday, Global Times said that the film was ridiculous in the eyes of mainland people, and that the scenes it described would not happen in Hong Kong in 2025.

"Most Hong Kong people would not believe Hong Kong would become so horrible. For example an actor of the film said in an interview that he did not believe that, but some Hong Kong people accepted the 'self-scare' provided by the directors," the editorial read.

"But if the directors want to scare the public in Hong Kong and spread anxiety, they should think what consequences this will bring to Hong Kong, and the public should consider as well."

The editorial also said some "opposition figures" had a tendency to make Hong Kong torture itself, to threaten China.

The film has been showing in cinemas for about a month and managed to attract HK$3 million in the box office, an outcome out of many expectations. An interview with the directors was published by CNN on Thursday.

But Global Times said the box office amount was little and hoped it reflected that the film only influenced a minority of people in Hong Kong.

"Those Hong Kong people should have the ability to reject the 'virus of the mind', that the excitement will pass, they will not act [in protest] following the film."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State newspaper says dystopian HK film 'Ten Years' is ridiculous and promotes desperation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A state newspaper has criticised the independent Hong Kong film "Ten Years" as ridiculous, saying that it is spreading desperation. The film predicts how Hong Kong may look in a decade's time. It offers scenes such as shops accused of selling banned materials being attacked by uniformed army cadets, Mandarin as the dominant language and an activist self-immolating in a fight for Hong Kong independence.

# data[].attributes.headline
[article] Ten Years discontinued on netflix as of July 2021.On netflix since Feb 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
[article] Ten Years discontinued on netflix as of July 2021.On netflix since Feb 2019

# data[].attributes.headline
[CHINESE] Film censorship indirectly names the film "Ten Years"

# data[].attributes.subject
[CHINESE] Film censorship indirectly names the film "Ten Years"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
香港立法會舉行延任一年的最後一次大會，號稱世界六大電影基地位列第三的香港，自此進入有國安禁片的年代。香港立法會昨天三讀通過修訂「電影檢查條例」草案，在45分鐘時間、5名議員發言下，快速通過了這項條例。

香港國安法通過後，港府提出修訂電影檢查條例，其主要內容有，要求電檢處檢查員未來須考慮影片上映會否不利於國家安全；港府政務司司長如認為影片不利國安，可撤銷核准或豁免上映的證明書；督察可在沒有法庭手令授權的情況下進入和搜查任何地方，並可要求核准或豁免證明書持有人提供上映的日期、時間和地點，以避免有人利用社交媒體或即時通訊程式隱藏違法放映影片。如上映未獲豁免或核准的影片，修訂亦提高最高刑罰至監禁3年、罰款100萬港元（約12.8萬美元）。

港府商務及經濟發展局局長邱騰華表示，修例目的在完善電影管理制，以有效防範及制止任何危害國家安全的行為，局方在6月已更新電影檢查員指引。

對有人要求修例應規管網路上的影片，邱騰華指今次修例只適用於符合上映定義的影片，是否延伸至網路，需小心研究，如加入網路規管，將超越修例原意及範圍，亦涉及其他政策、科技、執法等考慮，要更長時間研究。

在會上發言的議員，有人點名批判港產電影《十年》等，販賣恐中、煽動港獨，潛藏在電影中的危害國家安全意識不容忽視；有說香港電影明顯醜化香港，煽動年輕人對未來的絕望和恐懼，繼而在2019年做出非理性和違法暴力行爲，破壞社會和平。

明報報導，經民聯議員梁美芬促港府監管《十年》這類電影不會再在香港市場出現，她表示當年在戲院看《十年》時嚇了一跳，該電影販賣恐中、仇中情緒，以及煽動港獨，當年青年新政在「18區開花」以《十年》宣傳政治理念，3至5歲童擔凳，幾百人在廣場觀看，為何有11、12歲參加2019年騷亂，其實有來由」。

據報導，工聯會議員陸頌雄則指2015年上映「以年份做戲名」的電影，「明顯配合攬炒派醜化香港，以危言聳聽的策略拍電影」，繼而令人在2019年做出違法、暴力行為，他又指好萊塢電影也有底線。

延任1年的香港立法會，民主派議員全線退出，只剩下42人，但全年通過了約40項法案和超過3200億港元撥款。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
香港電檢修例 不利國安禁演 「十年」遭點名煽動港獨 | 聯合新聞網：最懂你的新聞網站

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
香港立法會舉行延任一年的最後一次大會，號稱世界六大電影基地位列第三的香港，自此進入有國安禁片的年代。香港立法會昨天三讀通過修訂「電影檢查條例」草案，在45分鐘時間、5名議員發言下，快速通過了這項條例。 ...

# data[].attributes.headline
[CHINESE] Legislative Council of Hong Kong passes censorship law on film

# data[].attributes.subject
[CHINESE] Legislative Council of Hong Kong passes censorship law on film

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
今日（27 日）是第六屆立法會延任後最後一次大會，議程最後審議《2021 年電影檢查（修訂）條例草案》，由於僅得 5 名議員發言，只花 45 分鐘就三讀通過。體育、演藝、文化及出版界議員馬逢國指，已與電影界溝通，業內人士普遍支持，僅擔心延長 28 天電檢時間或影響運作；他亦質疑，危害國安電影仍可在 Youtube、Netflix 等網上串流平台播放，是一個漏洞，希望政府研究增加監管串流平台。

梁美芬指，2016 年為「了解年輕人」，曾入場觀看電影《十年》，驚訝發現電影「煽動港獨」、「仇中」、「美化自焚」等，但政府當時卻坐視不理，甚至有家長帶同 3 歲小孩入場看《十年》，「當年有 3 歲細路入場睇《十年》，所以點解 2019 年會有 11、12 歲出去（參與社運）」，她形容，已失去了數代年輕人，希望不會再出現《十年》這種「荼毒年輕人」的電影。

《2021 年電檢條例修訂草案》內容主要包括，要求電檢處檢查員未來須考慮影片上映會否不利於國家安全，並可延長至 28 天時間，以充份考慮及索取資料；政務司司長如認為影片不利國安，也可撤銷以往片發出的核准或豁免上映的證明書；督察可在沒有法庭手令授權的情況下進入和搜查任何地方，並可要求核准或豁免證明書持有人提供上映的日期、時間和地點，以避免有人利用社交媒體或即時通訊程式隱藏違法放映影片。如未獲豁免或核准的影片，修訂亦提高最高刑罰至監禁三年、罰款100萬元。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
【禁片年代】電檢條例修訂三讀 　45 分鐘極速通過　梁美芬：望杜絕《十年》一類電影 | 立場報道 | 立場新聞

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
今日（27 日）是第六屆立法會延任後最後一次大會，議程最後審議《2021 年電影檢查（修訂）條例草案》，由於僅得 5 名議員發言，只花 45 分鐘就三讀通過。體育、演藝、文化及出版界議員馬逢國指，已與電影界溝通，業內人士普遍支持，僅擔心延長 28 天電檢時間或影響運作；他亦質疑，危害國安電影仍可在 Youtube、Netflix 等網上串流平台播放，是一個漏洞，希望政府研究增加監管串流平台。 梁美芬指，2016 年為「了解年輕人」，曾入場觀看電影《十年》，驚訝發現電影「煽動港獨」、「仇中」、「美化自焚」等，但政府當時卻坐視不理，甚至有家長帶同 3 歲小孩入場看《十年》，「當年有 3 歲細路入場睇《十年》，所以點解 2019 年會有 11、12 歲出去（參與社運）」，她形容，已失去了數代年輕人，希望不會再出現《十年》這種「荼毒年輕人」的電影。 《2021 年電檢條例修訂草案》內容主要包括，要求電檢處檢查員未來須考慮影片上映會否不利於國家安全，並可延長至 28 天時間，以充份考慮及索取資料；政務司司長如認為影片不利國安，也可撤銷以往片發出的核准或豁免上映的證明書；督察可在沒有法庭手令授權的情況下進入和搜查任何地方，並可要求核准或豁免證明書持有人提供上映的日期、時間和地點，以避免有人利用社交媒體或即時通訊程式隱藏違法放映影片。如未獲豁免或核准的影片，修訂亦提高最高刑罰至監禁三年、罰款100萬元。