Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 文化治理下的台北電影節
Taipei Film Festival Under Cultural Governance
Authors: 張嘉真
Chang, Chia-Chen
Contributors: 柯裕棻
Ko, Yu-Fen
Chang, Chia-Chen
Keywords: 台北電影節
Taipei Film Festival
Cultural governance
Film festival
Arts administration
Date: 2016
Issue Date: 2016-09-20 11:43:46 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本研究主要以文化治理切入分析影展,並以台北電影節作為研究個案。台北電影節與政府的緊密關係則為本研究選擇文化治理之因。本研究先梳影展與文化治理的概念,並回溯台北電影節十八年來的歷史,最後透過田野研究與深度訪談聚焦於影展工作者。



然而卻與影展工作者特質相互矛盾,影展工作者多半愛好自由、對工作有相當執著等,也因此更容易對繁瑣行政體系產生反彈,同時影展工作常見的短聘制度更是不利公文體系的運作和經驗傳承。原以方便管理、防弊為出發的行政流程,卻吻合Foucault 談論的治理性,治理並不特定指涉國家機器,而是由不同論述推砌。除了由外向內,更同時進行主體化,成為由內向外的規訓。
This study aims to analyze film festival through the concept of cultural governance. Due to the perceived close relationship between Taipei Film Festival and Taipei government, this festival has been chosen as the case study. It will begin by exploring the concepts of “film festival” and “cultural governance”, and the history of Taipei Film Festival and will focus on the workers through field study as well as in-depth interview.

The field of film festival is highly complex. Its diversity of actors, close relationship with film industry, limited time and space, and the global situation concerning film industry all play parts in the performance of a film festival.

Taipei Film Awards, a competition specialising in Taiwanese films, also makes Taipei Film Festival more confined in its creativity while brining it much resources. The close relationship Taipei Film Festival has with Department of Cultural Affairs, Taipei City Government makes its cultural aspect gets oppressed with endless administrative procedures to follow in order to gain financial and administrative support. Culture, in this case, has turned into a tool of administration; while on the other hand is ruled over by political decisions as well.

The strict administrative procedures pose strong contrast to the nature of film festival workers as they often develop a system on their own to deal with the tons of work that befall on them. They therefore tend to oppose onerous oversight. On the other hand,
the short-term contracts, which are common in film festival, also keeps the system from working fluidly. Administration is now coherence with what Foucault called “governance”. Instead only refer to government, governance is about different discourses. Governance is a process of subjectification, not only from to inside, also become the discipline which works from inside to outside.
Reference: 英文部分
Ahn, SJ. (2011). The Pusan International Festival, South Korean cinema and globalzation. HK,China: Hong Kong University Press.

Bennett, T. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In L. Grossberg., C. Nelson & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp.23-37). N.Y.: Routledge.

Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of a museum : History, Theory, Politics (Culture: Policy and Politics). London: Routledge.

Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A Reformer's Science. London: Sage.

Bennett, T. (2000). Acting on the social: Art, culture, and government. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9), 1412-1428.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of
Symbolic Goods. Media, Culture and Society,2: 261-93.

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. California: Stanford University Press

Burgess, D. (2012). Bridging the gap: Film festival governance, public partners and the “vexing” problem of film festival distribution. Canadian Journal of Film Studies, 21(1), 2-20.

Chan, F. (2011). The international film festival and the making of a national cinema. Screen, 53(2), 310-317.

de Valck, M. (2005). Drowning In Popcorn At The International Film Festival Rotterdan? The Festival as a Multiplex of Cinephilia In de Valck, M. & Hagener, M. (Eds), Cinephilia : Movies, Love and Memory. (pp.97-111) Amsterdam, Netherlands : Amsterdam University Press.

de Valck, M. (2007). Film festivals: From european geopolitics to global cinephilia. Amsterdam, Netherlands : Amsterdam University Press.

de Valck, M. (2014). Film Festivals, Bourdieu, and the economization of culture. Revue Canadienne d'Études Cinématographiques, 23(1), 74-89.

de Valck, M, & Loist, S. (2009). Film festival studies: An overview of a burgeoning field. In Iordanova, D, and Rhyne,R (Eds), Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit (pp. 179-215). St. Andrews: St. Andrews Film Studies.

Dayan, D. (2000). Looking for Sundance: The social construction of a film festival. In Bondebjerg, IB.(Eds), Moving Images, Culture and the Mind (pp. 43–52). Luton: University of Luton Press.

Garnham,G. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the economics of information (Media Culture & Society) series. SAGE.

Geertz, C. (1972). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 10, 1-37.

Giddens, A. (1976). Classical social theory and the origin of modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 703-729.

Giddens, A. (1991). Structuration theory: past, present and future. In C. G. A. Bryant & D. Jary (Eds.) Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation (pp.201-221). London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1982). Afterward: The subject and the power. In Dreyfus, H & Rabinow, P. (Eds.) Michel Foucault Effect: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. (pp.208-226). Brighton and Chicago: Harvester.

Foucault, M. (1991). Politics and the study of discourse, Questions of Method, Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. & Miller, P. (Eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality. (pp.53-101). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harbord, J. (2002). Film festival: media events and space of flow, In Film Culture (pp.59-75). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Loist, S. (2014). Cultural transfer and political conflicts. Film festivals during the cold war. Paper presented at the annual meeting Pour une histoire des festivals( XIXe-XXe siècles), Leipzig, Germany.

McGuigan, J. (2004). Rethinking cultural policy. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

O’Brien, D. (2014). Cultural policy: Management, value and modernity in the creative industries. New York: Routledge.

O'Connor, J. (2010). The cultural and creative industries: a literature review (2nd ed.). London, UK: Creativity, Culture and Education. 

Oovey, L. (2010). Table 1: African film festivals, in Dina lordanova and Ruby ChBung (Eds) FFY2: Film festivals and imagined Communities.SI Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies, 266-7.

Peranson, M. (2008). First you get the power, then you get the money. Cineaste, 33(3), 37-43. 

Pérez. (2008). Voluntarism and determinism in Giddens’s and Bourdieu’s theory of human Agency. The Essex Graduate Journal, 8.

Ursell, G. (2000). Television production: issues of exploitation, commodification and subjectivity in UK television labour markets , Media, Culture & Society, 22, 805-825.

Williams, R. (1994). The analysis of culture In Story, J. (Eds), Cultural theory and popular culture(pp.48-56), Georgia, U.S: The University of Georgia Press.

Wong, CHY. (2011). Film festivals: Culture, people, and power on the global screen. New Brunswick, NJ & London, UK: Rutgers University Press.

Staiger, J. (1985). The politics of film canons. Society for cinema & media studies, 24(3), 4-23.

Stringer, J. (2001). Global cities and the international film festival economy In Shiel, M.& Fitzmaurice, T. (Eds), International film festival circuit as part of the global space economy (pp.134-144) Oxford, U.K: Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text ,18 (2), 33-58.

Turner, J. (1986). Review essay: The theory of structuration. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 969-977.

Virno, P. (2003). A Grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life. N.Y.: Semiotext(e).


丁雪茵、鄭伯壎、任金剛(1996)。〈質性研究中研究者的角色與主觀性〉,《本土心理學研究》,6: 354-376。




王志弘(2005)。〈記憶再現體制的構作:台北市官方城市書寫之分析〉,《中外文學》,33(9): 9-51。

王志弘(2011)。〈文化治理是不是關鍵詞?〉,《台灣社會研究季刊》,82: 205-212。

王志弘(2014)。〈文化政治的內蘊衝突與政治折衝〉,《思與言》,52(4): 65-109。


王志弘(2015b)。〈修養、位移與大迴路:本土行動理論的三種路徑〉,《台灣社會學研究季刊》,56: 151-183.


王俐容(2005)。〈文化政策中的經濟論述:從菁英文化到文化經濟?〉,《文化研究》,1: 169-195。

文化部影視及流行音樂產業局(2015)。《2013影視廣播產業趨勢研究調查報告》。台北:文化部影視及流行音樂產業局電影產業組、周玉禎、陳曉慧 文化部影視及流行音樂產業局廣播電視產業組、林雅智、蘇柏彰。

李櫻穗(2013)。〈產業結構變遷與服務業發展策略之研究〉,《商學學報》,21: 25-52。



林淑芬(2004)。〈傅柯論權力與主體〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,16(1) : 117-150。


吳彥明(2011)。〈治理「文化治理」:傅柯、班奈特與王志弘〉,《臺灣社會研究》,82 : 171-204。







范家豪(2007)。〈「規訓與懲罰」權力分析文本的二階觀察:描繪傅柯「權力系譜學」的視域圖譜〉,《教育經營與管理研究集刊》,3: 143-167。







萬文隆(2004)。〈深度訪談在質性研究中的應用〉,《生活科技教育月刊》,37(4) : 17-23。


趙雅麗、劉慧娟(1996)。〈資訊傳播科技系統設計:一個結構化理論為主的建構模式〉,《新聞學研究》,53: 231-250。

劉婉珍(2010)。〈反制宰制_博物館人的能動與政治行動〉,《博物館學季刊》,24(3): 5-19。

國家電影資料館(2008)。《2008年台灣電影年鑑》。上網日期:2015 年11 月03日,取自

曾炫淳(2011年6月17日)。〈傳統中見新意 2011台北電影節策展人塗翔文專訪〉,《放映週報》,411。取自


畢恆達(2001)。〈如何回家?〉。《應用心理研究》,9: 37-52 。

楊皓鈞、王玉燕(2009年6月12日)(柏林天空下的電影風情畫 2009台北電影節策展人游惠貞專訪)《放映週報》,211。取自

楊皓鈞、王玉燕(2009年6月18日)。〈用影展形繪城市的天際線 陳儒修、聞天祥看台北電影節〉,《放映週報》,212。取自

賴光祺(2008)。《高度現代性之下的主體構成——紀登斯(Anthony Giddens)思想在教育上的推演》。政治大學教育研究所博士論文。



遲恆昌(2010)。〈西門町的對位閱讀:回應李明璁的「去/再領域化的西門町〉,《文化研究》,10: 168-173。



王志弘譯(2010)。《資本的空間》。台北:群學。(原書Harvey, D. [2001]. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography.)

李康.李猛譯(2007)。《社會的構成》。台北:左岸文化。(原書Giddens, A. [1984]. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.)

劉北成等譯(1992)。《規訓與懲罰》。台北:桂冠。(原書Foucault, M. [1975]. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison: Vintage Books)

王志弘、徐苔玲、沈台訊譯( 2016)《文化工作的政治》。台北:群學。(原書Banks, M. [2008]. The politics of cultural work: Palgrave Macmillan)
Description: 碩士
Source URI:
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
006201.pdf3667KbAdobe PDF615View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing