"The word 'revolution' to us Frenchmen is not a vague term. We know that Revolution is a rupture, that Revolution is an Absolute. There is no such thing as a moderate revolution, there is no such thing as a planned revolution—as one speaks of a planned economy. The revolution we are announcing will overturn the entire existing order or it will not take place at all. If we believe that the present system is capable of being reformed, that it can, in itself, check the fatal course of its evolution towards Dictatorship—the dictatorship of money, of race, of class, of the Nation—we will certainly refuse to run the risk of an explosion capable of destroying precious things that can only be rebuilt with much time, perseverance, selflessness, and love. But the present system will not change the course of its evolution for the good reason that it is no longer evolving; it is merely reorganizing itself with the view of lasting a little longer, of surviving. Far from professing to resolve its own contradictions, which are, in any case, impossible to resolve, it seems more and more inclined to impose them by force through strict regulation of individual effort that grows more rigid and more particular every day, carried out in the name of a sort of State Socialism, which is the democratic form of Dictatorship. Every day, in fact, brings us another proof that the purely ideological era has long since passed, in New York as well as in Moscow and London. We can see the Imperial English Democracy, the Plutocratic American Democracy and the Marxist Empire of Soviet Dominions walking, if not hand in hand—far from it!—at least pursuing the same goal, that is to say maintaining at all costs and even while appearing to oppose it, the system in which they have acquired wealth and power. For, in the end, Russia has profited no less from the capitalist system than America and England; it has played the role of the Member of Parliament who makes a fortune in Opposition. In short: regimes formerly opposed in ideology are now directly united by Technology. A world dominated by Technology is lost for Liberty."

"The word 'revolution' to us Frenchmen is not a vague term. We know that Revolution is a rupture, that Revolution is an Absolute. There is no such thing as a moderate revolution, there is no such thing as a planned revolution—as one speaks of a planned economy. The revolution we are announcing will overturn the entire existing order or it will not take place at all. If we believe that the present system is capable of being reformed, that it can, in itself, check the fatal course of its evolution towards Dictatorship—the dictatorship of money, of race, of class, of the Nation—we will certainly refuse to run the risk of an explosion capable of destroying precious things that can only be rebuilt with much time, perseverance, selflessness, and love. But the present system will not change the course of its evolution for the good reason that it is no longer evolving; it is merely reorganizing itself with the view of lasting a little longer, of surviving. Far from professing to resolve its own contradictions, which are, in any case, impossible to resolve, it seems more and more inclined to impose them by force through strict regulation of individual effort that grows more rigid and more particular every day, carried out in the name of a sort of State Socialism, which is the democratic form of Dictatorship. Every day, in fact, brings us another proof that the purely ideological era has long since passed, in New York as well as in Moscow and London. We can see the Imperial English Democracy, the Plutocratic American Democracy and the Marxist Empire of Soviet Dominions walking, if not hand in hand—far from it!—at least pursuing the same goal, that is to say maintaining at all costs and even while appearing to oppose it, the system in which they have acquired wealth and power. For, in the end, Russia has profited no less from the capitalist system than America and England; it has played the role of the Member of Parliament who makes a fortune in Opposition. In short: regimes formerly opposed in ideology are now directly united by Technology. A world dominated by Technology is lost for Liberty."

97奥斯卡最佳短片提名。 　　很有意思的黑白片，奇异的黑色喜剧，I'LL SHARE IT LATER.:)

受一批关注早期好莱坞恐怖片中酷儿形象的纪录片的启发，本片追溯早期中国电影中的酷儿身影，从传统戏曲与武侠小说出发，寻找那些潜藏的酷儿意象。上世纪二十年代兴起的左翼文学中已出现了酷儿叙事，但这些叙事登上银幕后则愈发隐晦:在相关影片中，部分女性角色展现出微妙的酷儿特质，形成一条常被忽视的暗线。这一影像风格延续至今，并逐渐演变为当代中国酷儿电影的重要脉络。

《戴上手套擦泪》根据瑞典作家乔纳斯·嘉德尔（Jonas Gardell）的同名小说改编。原著也被称为《爱》，是乔纳斯“爱、病、死”三部曲的第一部。小说主题是关于80年代艾滋大流行以及两个男孩在这一时代背景下的悱恻爱情。 　　1982年，男孩雷斯莫斯（亚当·帕森 Adam Pålsson 饰）对离开闭塞小镇科普姆感到如释重负，却不知从此再无相见之日。年轻英俊的他轻快的融入斯德哥尔摩的夜生活，在中央车站和同志酒吧与“同类”拥抱做爱，并由此结识了靓丽自信的保罗（西蒙·J·博格 Simon J. Berger 饰）。保罗住的公寓经常有证人会信徒挨家挨户宣传教义，某天一个叫本杰明（亚当·隆格伦 Adam Lundgren 饰）的证人会男孩上门为保罗布道，但保罗对他说“你知道自己是同性恋吧？”一句话撼动信仰世界。圣诞夜保罗邀本杰明参加烛光晚宴，就在那一晚本杰明和雷斯莫斯第一次遇见。当整个城市下起雪来，男孩们手牵手走过长街，一切就此改变… 　　所有故事都发生在80年代的斯德哥尔摩。同性恋已经去罪化，国家福利阳光普照，年轻人第一次相信他们迎来了所谓的“绝对自由”。但与此同时，一种前所未见的疾病开始蔓延扩散，并且找不到任何诊治手段。艾滋病，被称作是上帝在索多玛后对同志的又一轮天谴。病魔当前，有人轻易斩断血缘纽带，有人退回暗处成为游魂，有人讣告上一片空白，有人心惊胆战的出入病院，即便擦泪也要戴上口罩手套…

《戴上手套擦泪》根据瑞典作家乔纳斯·嘉德尔（Jonas Gardell）的同名小说改编。原著也被称为《爱》，是乔纳斯“爱、病、死”三部曲的第一部。小说主题是关于80年代艾滋大流行以及两个男孩在这一时代背景下的悱恻爱情。 　　1982年，男孩雷斯莫斯（亚当·帕森 Adam Pålsson 饰）对离开闭塞小镇科普姆感到如释重负，却不知从此再无相见之日。年轻英俊的他轻快的融入斯德哥尔摩的夜生活，在中央车站和同志酒吧与“同类”拥抱做爱，并由此结识了靓丽自信的保罗（西蒙·J·博格 Simon J. Berger 饰）。保罗住的公寓经常有证人会信徒挨家挨户宣传教义，某天一个叫本杰明（亚当·隆格伦 Adam Lundgren 饰）的证人会男孩上门为保罗布道，但保罗对他说“你知道自己是同性恋吧？”一句话撼动信仰世界。圣诞夜保罗邀本杰明参加烛光晚宴，就在那一晚本杰明和雷斯莫斯第一次遇见。当整个城市下起雪来，男孩们手牵手走过长街，一切就此改变… 　　所有故事都发生在80年代的斯德哥尔摩。同性恋已经去罪化，国家福利阳光普照，年轻人第一次相信他们迎来了所谓的“绝对自由”。但与此同时，一种前所未见的疾病开始蔓延扩散，并且找不到任何诊治手段。艾滋病，被称作是上帝在索多玛后对同志的又一轮天谴。病魔当前，有人轻易斩断血缘纽带，有人退回暗处成为游魂，有人讣告上一片空白，有人心惊胆战的出入病院，即便擦泪也要戴上口罩手套…

Documenting Horn & Hardart's iconic Automat, one of America's original and most popular restaurant chins in NYC & Philadelphia.

历史上第一部互动电影（interactive movie），观众可以通过按手中的红绿按钮来投票选择后面的剧情。1967年蒙特利尔世博会上捷克馆的一大看点。影片同时也是贯穿着捷克电影新浪潮的主题。

历史上第一部互动电影（interactive movie），观众可以通过按手中的红绿按钮来投票选择后面的剧情。1967年蒙特利尔世博会上捷克馆的一大看点。影片同时也是贯穿着捷克电影新浪潮的主题。

Documenting Horn & Hardart's iconic Automat, one of America's original and most popular restaurant chins in NYC & Philadelphia.