❗️重要：電檢處告示並不代表導演團隊立場
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》遭電檢處多番為難❗️
(Please scroll down for English)
香港電影、報刊及物品管理處要求《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》片首加上聲明，我們要澄清這聲明並非創作人的意願。
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》一直為外界爭議度非常高的電影，導演團隊一直為真實紀錄各社會運動而不惜冒著各種風險，電影帶來的回響及反應大家有目共睹。
但！
香港電影、報刊及物品管理處（簡稱電檢處）卻利用各種手段，逼使導演們需要作出非本人意願的聲明！如果不跟從指引，電檢處便可以利用行政手段令放映無法進行！
電檢處要求作出之聲明如下：
《佔領立法會》:
「影片紀錄2019年7月1日立法會綜合大樓受到示威衝擊的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。」
《理大圍城》:
「影片紀錄2019年11月在香港理工大學及周邊地點發生的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。此外，影片部分內容或評論亦可能未獲證實或有誤導成份。」
影意志表示強烈不滿電檢處以下行為：
1.以保障各方為由，實屬保障自己之實來強逼修改影片
2.要求影片開首作出聲明，但不願表明此為電檢處要求
3.以不知明原因推翻由電檢處發出的證明書
4.未能按時發出證明書，並將責任推卸於申請者
以下為影意志與電檢處之洽商經過：
7月中時，影意志為舊版本影片申請電檢證明書。
8月7日（國安法生效約一個月後）
影意志首次收到電檢處通知，表示需要在電影片頭加入由電檢處發出之警告字眼。影意志清楚表示此字句並不是出自導演團隊意願，並不會修改影片。電檢處表示，若不跟從指引，有機會令行政程序時間增加。
9月3日（國安法生效約兩個月後）
影意志重新遞交申請，並於新版本影片中加入電檢處要求之字句，及標明此字句為電檢處要求。
9月8日
影意志收到電檢處通知，表示影片開首有不屬於此影片之告示字眼，要求刪改。影意志表示此要求不合理，電檢處不能在未執行檢視工作前便要求申請者進行更改；但對方亦一貫作風，以會引致檢視工作延誤等為由而要求進行修改。
9月9日
影意志立即按電檢處要求遞交新版本。
9月15日
影意志致電查詢電檢進度，對方則回應未能於本星期批核證明書。影意志表明早於9月3日已遞交申請，理應9月17日收到證明書；電檢處解釋因為9月11日才正式收到更新版本影片，當作9月14日才正式開始工作，故最快只能於9月21日發出證明書。(影意志：申請表已列明9月3日為申請日期，但因為電檢處內部審查緩慢而將責任推卸。）
9月18日 下午6時40分 （辦公完結時間為下午6時）
電檢處通知影意志需在片頭加上其提供的告示字句，並於9月21日當日交回新版本，否則未能於放映當日發出證明書；影意志重新要求要標示電檢處是發出告示者，並且需於放映當日收到證明書。電檢處回覆，告示並不能標明是電檢處發出，並且只能按照他們要求作出更改。
同時，影意志被告知原有舊版本的電檢證明書不能使用，因為新舊版本不可同時擁有兩張證明書（影意志不明所以，但對方亦無法列出清晰原因）
9月21日
直到放映前兩小時，影意志才收到電檢處發出的證明書，而《理大圍城》被評為III級，需作出退票手續。為觀眾帶來不便，影意志深感抱歉。
影意志及香港紀錄片工作者不希望為業界帶來錯誤先例，但亦不想真相任由香港政府扼殺、及默許歷史被政權改寫！為了能順利放映，影意志暫時接受此條件，但一定會繼續上訴！請大家廣傳此消息！多謝大家一直支持香港電影；煩請以後看電影出現奇怪告示，請大家不要誤會導演們！
*註1：在香港舉行之所有公開放映，需獲得由香港電影、報刊及物品管理處發出的核准證明書，方可進行放映活動；否則，實屬違法。
__________
❗️Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in the statement issued by The Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA) does not reflect the views of the director and the production team.
The Tug of War with the OFNAA over “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".
Although “Taking back the Legislature" and "Inside the Red Brick Wall" have not shied away from controversy, yet the production crew have always strived to objectively capture every social movement against all odds, and the films have received a wide swath of responses since their release.
Nevertheless, the OFNAA has gone out of their way to coerce the directors into making statements against their wills. When failed to oblige, they could face having their works barred from screening by the OFNAA with whatever administrative reasons they might come up with.
Therefore, Ying E Chi hereby express our strong discontent to the following actions of the OFNAA:
1. Force the films to be edited under the pretext of protecting everyone, but in fact, only to protect their own interest
2. Request an announcement to be made at the beginning of the film, yet refused to be declared as the one who demanded the announcement
3. Overturn the previous certificate issued by the OFNAA with unspecified reason
4. Fail to issue the certificate on time as promised, whilst shifting the responsibility to the applicant
The statement required by the OFNAA is as follows:
“Taking back the Legislature”:
“This film records the serious incident of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws.”
“Inside the Red Brick Wall:
“This film records the serious incidents at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and nearby areas in November 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws. Some of the contents of or commentaries in the film may be unverified or misleading.”
Here is how the negotiation between Ying E Chi and the OFNAA unfolds:
Mid-July
Ying E Chi filed an application for a Certificate of Approval for the old version of “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".
7/8/2020 (A month after the National Security Law was enacted)
The first time Ying E Chi were notified by the OFNAA that a warning issued by them must be added at the beginning of the film. Ying E Chi then categorically declared that since the content of the warning does not reflect the will of the director, the films will not be edited as a result. The OFNAA responded by saying the administrative procedure might be delayed if their instructions have not been followed.
3/9/2020 (About 2 months after the National Security Law was enacted)
Ying E Chi handed in the application again with a new version of the films including the warning statement as requested, indicating that the warning is issued by the OFNAA.
8/9/2020
Ying E Chi were informed by the OFNAA to remove the statement at the beginning of the film as it does not belong to the film. Ying E Chi responded by calling out the absurdity of such request, as the OFNAA ought not to ask the films to be edited before they even review the whole film. Yet again the OFNAA demanded the changes to be made since it might cause a delay in the reviewing process.
9/9/2020
As a result, Ying E Chi submitted a new version at the first instance at the request of the OFNAA.
15/9/2020
Ying E Chi phoned in to enquire about the application procedure, since the application was made on the 3 Sep, so the Certificate of Approval should be issued on 17 Sep. However, the OFNAA replied that the Certificate of Approval would in fact not be granted this week for they claimed to have received the updated version on 11 Sep, so they could only have begun the reviewing process officially on the 14th, and thus the earliest time the certificate could be issued would be 21 Sep. (Note: Despite the official application date listed on the application form was 3 Sep, the OFNAA still tried to avoid the responsibility caused by their sluggish bureaucratic process.
18/9/2020 6.40pm (Office Hour ends at 6pm)
The OFNAA informed Ying E Chi that a statement PROVIDED by them must be included at the start of the film, and the new version must be handed in on 21 Sep, otherwise the Certificate of Approval would not be issued on the day of the screening. Ying E Chi again requested to indicate the OFNAA as the one who issued the statement, and that the certificate should be granted on screening day. The OFNAA, however, rejected to be identified as the one who issued such a statement, and insisted that all amendments can only be made subject to their approvals and requirements. At the time, Ying E Chi were informed that the Certificate of Approval obtained for the old version of “ Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall" could no longer be used, as there cannot be two certificates for both old version and the updated version. (Ying E Chi, are deeply confounded by this sudden decision, but the OFNAA has failed to offer any clarifications.)
21/9/2020
Not only have Ying E Chi just received the certificate on the day of the screening from OFNAA, but at the same time we have been notified that "Inside the Red Brick Wall” has been classified as a Category III Film, and therefore need to make the refund arrangements.
We are profoundly sorry about the inconvenience caused.
It is not the wish of Ying E Chi and Hong Kong Documentary Filmmakers to set the wrong example for the industry, yet we would hate to have the truth to be buried by the Hong Kong Government or to let those in power rewrite the history. Ying E Chi have compromised for this instance in order to facilitate this screening, we, nevertheless, will keep on protesting, so please spread the words and make our story known. Thank you for continuing to support Hong Kong films, and from now on please do not be misled by any bizarre statements in movies and misunderstand the directors.
*Note: Under the Film Censorship Ordinance (Cap 392), a film intended for exhibition in Hong Kong at any public place has to be submitted to the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration for prior approval. Failing to comply with such requirement may constitute a criminal offence.
