关爱之家 Care and Love (2007)

　　导演: 艾晓明

　　制片国家/地区: 中国大陆

　　语言: 汉语普通话

　　片长: 108分钟

　　又名: Care and Love

　　纪录片《中原纪事》简介：

　　“中原”旧指中州平原，即河南。本片力图呈现今日中原弱势群体因贫困，因血液安全管理失控而经历的痛史。无边坟茔的沃土之上，有多少好男好女舍生忘死，揭露真相，抵御这一旷世灾难。

　　感谢全国经输血感染艾滋病受害人工作委员会的河南成员，感谢高耀洁教授和感染者社群。在他/她们的协助下，作者得以进入中原若干艾滋病高发村采访，倾听农民诉说当年“血浆经济”兴起的历史背景，呈现因献血、输血感染艾滋病的家庭，尤其是妇女儿童的生存状况，并记录民间组织在基层的形成和努力。

　　The Epic of Central Plains

　　Central Plains, the ancient Zhongzhou, refers to Henan province. The Epic of Central Plains documents the stories of rural people and other marginalized groups living with HIV/AIDS caused by critical poverty and the loss of control of blood safety. On the land of epidemic, despite various confrontations, there are men and women activists endeavor to reveal the truth and defend for their health rights.

　　Thanks to the following people for making the documentary possible: local members of National Committee of Infection with HIV/AIDS Through Tainted Blood Transfusions, Prof. GAO Yaojie and the local people living with HIV/AIDS. With their kind support, the filmmakers are able to enter the villages and to listen to the villagers talking about the disaster of "plasma economy". In working with local communities, the documentary also presents the important role those NGOs in grassroots level play.

　　The documentary is Dedicated to the deceased by AIDS, their families, friends and children and all volunteers fighting against AIDS.

　　纪录片《关爱之家》简介：

　　《关爱之家》起因于《中国经济时报》首席记者王克勤的长篇报道《邢台艾滋病真相调查》，影片记录了河北邢台农村妇女刘显红打官司的故事。她因在医院输血感染艾滋病毒，决定公开身份、起诉医院，历经艰险终于获取赔偿。以她的经历为主要线索，影片通过几个家庭的遭遇和感染者成立“关爱”小组集体维权的努力，呈现出在基层农村涌动的公民权利意识。尽管追求法治的路困难重重，但由于社会关怀、媒体介入和法律援助，政府也转变了态度，并出台了改善感染者处境的政策。在通往社会公正的道路上，《关爱之家》呈现了爱与社会改变的可能性。

　　Care and Love

　　The high profile success of The Blood of Yingzhou District—winner of Oscar’s Best Documentary this year—has encouraged worldwide attention on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in China. Almost at same time, two works on the subject have spreaded among the HIV/Aids activists and NGOs in China, The Central Plains (2006), and Care and Love(2007), directed by Ai Xiaoming, a professor from Sun Yat-sen University, and filmed by herself and Hu Jie.

　　Care and Love draws its inspiration from ‘Investigation of HIV/AIDS in Xingtai’, a feature article written by Wang Keqin, a senior journalist at China Economic Times, which tells the story of Liu Xianhong, a woman villager who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion during childbirth. The film documents how she publicized her story, filed a lawsuit with her 8-year-old son against the local hospital and eventually received compensation. The film also records the sufferings of several families and a collective effort to defend their own rights by people living with HIV/AIDS, who set up an organization, ‘Care and Love Group’. The film reveals an increasing awareness of civil rights in rural areas. Growing social concern, media intervention and legal aid have forced the local government to compromise and modify their policy, and improve the situation for AIDS patients. Care and Love thus shows the possibility for social change on the way to social justice.

　　导演拍摄感言：

　　艺术对我来说是很高的评价，我很希望人们把我的纪录片当作艺术，可惜，一些城市观众通常不这样。他们总说我拍的是宣传片，是主观介入、穿梆之作。这些不无怜悯的评价几乎令我痛哭流涕。

　　后来我看到捷克动画大师杨·史云梅耶的解释，他在影片《疯狂疗养院》开头站出来说：这不是艺术。在这个时代，艺术已经沦为广告。

　　史云梅耶的声明让我豁然开朗，的确，在某个时代，不仅艺术堕落为商品，不少人也会丧失了评价艺术的能力。他们更重视的是娱乐，而不是作者和村民传递出来的信息。很多观众不去辨别，什么样的信息是宣传，什么样的信息被屏蔽。而且，有关知情这个权利，由于人们长久以来不能充分地享有，所以，大家习惯于把经常被宣传的东西当作真相，而把那些不经常被宣传的东西当作假相。当我们努力给人们看这些得不到再现的东西时，他们就说，我的摄像机是主观的（的确，它经常在片子中露面，三角架也常常扛在被采访者身上）；影像为了宣传作者理想而予以放大和强化的，并且，它总是只采访单方面人士（例如它只采访了村民，没有采访政府；只采访了受害人，没有采访警方；它不如 CCTV客观——它采访了各方声音）。

　　我不想就本片的技巧说什么，反正人们也认为它没有技巧。就说宣传吧。

　　史云梅耶说，我拍的就是宣传，so what, 你以为我搞不了宣传吗？我也想问，为什么另类的现实、另类的真相不能宣传？我尤其想问的是，为什么有关无权者的信息，有关苦难和弱势群体的状况，传递出来就被斥之为宣传？宣传难道是一种特权吗？

　　我过去是一个学者，现在加入了独立制片人的行列。我决定拍摄与我过去写研究论文时一样，我选择的是问题，目标是推动改变。在拍摄社会问题纪录片时，我的立场是受害人的立场，这常常把我自己变成了个受害者；因为和弱势群体站在一起，不太能得到有权者的理解和鼓励，所以我也常常采访不到政府方面人士。也因为这一点，尽管不是一个职业新闻工作者，村民把我当作自己人。他们始终相信，本片可以向上级领导反映他们的痛苦，可以让社会公众听见他们的诉求，最终能帮助他们解决问题。我在问题中工作，为了解决问题而拍摄，我一点也不客观。这样的角色和纪录片，当然是要受到怀疑的。

　　长话短说，目前的情况是，当一些城市观众质疑这样的纪录片、斥之为宣传时，当地政府有关人士一眼就看出，决不能让这样的宣传流传出去。于是，从去年10月至今，政府方面有关人士一直在动员村民阻止《关爱》的播放。

　　我很希望与当地政府保持友好关系，但我同样不能辜负受害村民的期待。此外我还认为，这个社会缺的就是关爱，怎么能禁止关爱呢？我衷心希望大家都来看这部片子，都来想一想：遇到人命关天的事情，村民该怎么办、政府该怎么办、法官又该怎么办。

　　我再次声明，不必把这个作品当作艺术。它对人们提问，并期待大家来讨论问题。

　　Director’s commentary:

　　Ai Xiaoming

　　To attain the quality of art is always my inspiration, and I very much hoped that film audience would regard my documentaries as art; unfortunately, some urban audiences consistently dismissed them as propagandistic and subjective. I was frustrated by these comments until I came across a statement by the Czech animator Jan Svankmajer who opened his new film Sileni with the following lines: ‘This is not a work of art. Today, art is reduced to advertisements.’

　　Indeed, over time, not only can art degenerate into commodity, many people can also lose the ability to appreciate it. They are more receptive to entertainment than any messages the filmmaker and people from the villages might try to communicate. It becomes difficult to distinguish between what has been propagandized and what has been censored when people have long been unable to enjoy their right to access information—they mistake propaganda for truth, and dismiss what is outside the scope of propaganda as lies. When I show audiences what they do not usually see, they say that my camera is so subjective—yes, it quite often appears in my films and the villagers carried the tripod like my crew—that it exaggerates reality, embellishing my ideals. They blame me for interviewing only villagers but not the government; only victims but not the police, and presenting only one-sided voice as a result. Consequently my films are criticized for not being ‘as objective as CCTV’, which, the urban audiences assume, neutrally shows what has happened by involving different voices.

　　I do not want to comment on the techniques of my films, as people do not believe that they have any. I will focus on propaganda. In another astute comment, Svankmajer reflected: ‘My film is indeed propaganda. So what? Do you think that I am not able to make propaganda?’

　　I want to add: why are we not allowed to propagandize the other side? In particular, why do people always call it propaganda whenever there is a message from the marginalized group? Is propaganda a privilege?

　　I have been a scholar and professor for many years before joining the community of independent filmmakers. Just as I focused on certain subjects in my academic research, I also select particular issues when I film. I decide to work on a film after I have identified there is a problem, and my aim is to support and provoke change. When I made these films, I worked from the vantage point of the ordinary people, though it made me vulnerable to similar treatment. The authorities neither understood nor supported me, after I had taken the side of the villagers or forced to relocate households groups, and quite often they made it impossible for me to interview any officials. I was even detained at one point: a group of young police officers interrogated me, and I fully understood the meaning of humiliation. On the other hand, the people I interviewed became my real crew, they welcomed me quickly as one of them, and was willing to work with me for the program as their voice They always believed that my films would bring their sufferings of injustice to the authorities, make their appeal heard by the public, and eventually help resolve their problems. I have a clear project: I work with those issues and make documentaries in order to join their effort for the change—a consequence is that I am not neutral at all. My role and my documentaries are inevitably regarded with suspicion.

　　As it is now, although the urban audiences are sceptical towards such documentaries and accuse them of being too propagandistic, the local authorities realize immediately that such kind of “propaganda” should not be circulated. Coincidentally, the head of the local propaganda bureau, who knows perfectly well the power of propaganda, is the sister of the head of the local hospital documented in the film where the HIV-contaminated blood bank caused so many villagers to contract AIDS. Unsurprisingly, the local government has made their way to mobilizes the villagers to prevent the screening of the film. I very much hope to maintain a friendly relationship with the local government, but at the same time I cannot betray the villagers. I also think that in a society where care and love are so rare, why should Care and Love be forbidden? I sincerely hope that more people will see this film and ask themselves the question: under such fatal circumstances, what actions should one taken from the villagers, the government, and the judges?

　　I repeat: do not regard the film as a work of art. It does nothing but raises questions and expects solutions.

　　cover designed by