近日，香港康文署（LCSD）旗下的電影節目辦事處宣布，原定於2025年12月6日至2026年1月18日舉行的「心間盛筵—人間煙火映百味」電影活動，將取消三部日本電影的放映，分別是《海鷗食堂》（Kamome Diner）、《蒲公英》（Tampopo，4K 修復版）以及《甜味人間》（An / Sweet Bean）。這一決定首先由《南華早報》與中央社等多家媒體披露，事件迅速引起各界關注。

官方對撤片的說法相當簡短，只以「節目調整」（programme adjustments）作為理由。《香港文匯網》和《信報》則指出，康文署同步承諾會在網站公布退票安排，讓已購票的觀眾辦理退款或依程序處理；《環球時報》和新浪財經亦報導相關後續資訊。

這三部作品原本是以「飲食」為主題策展理念的一部分，主辦單位希望透過食物與生活題材，引導觀眾思考文化、人際與情感的共通性。多家港媒與華文媒體如《早晨報》和《經濟日報》均指出，這個影展原意是以溫暖人文的美食電影呈現跨文化的理解，而非與政治有任何關聯。

然而，在多方關注之下，事件的發展逐漸被連結到當前緊張的中日關係。《中央社》和《南華早報》都提到，近月來中日兩國在政治、外交、歷史認知與國際局勢等層面出現明顯摩擦，導致官方與民間交流受到影響。因此，取消日本電影放映被認為難以單純解釋為「節目調整」，更像是在敏感外交氛圍下的象徵性動作。《南華早報》與鳳凰網也特別指出，外界普遍將其視為文化層面的政治反應，而非純後勤調整。更令人質疑的是宣布時間。康文署在影展開幕前三天（12月3日）突然公布撤片，使得媒體認為此舉缺乏規劃性，也增加「另有原因」的推測空間。

基於上述背景，一些觀眾與評論者開始以「文化抵制」與「文化審查」來解讀此事。對許多人而言，電影不只是娛樂，而是一種跨文化交流的媒介；當官方在政治緊張時刻選擇撤下日本電影，自然會被視為在外交關係下採取的文化立場，而非單純排片調整。對於期待透過電影接觸不同文化的觀眾來說，這樣的取消破壞觀影計畫，也引發更深的擔憂：文化交流是否仍能維持獨立於政治之外？

也因為官方理由過於含糊，社會上出現各種嘲諷，其中最常見的就是「如果真的要抵制日本文化，為何不把日本A片也一起禁掉？」這類諷刺語言本質上是對官方尺度不一與標準模糊的不滿。既然以國籍為理由取消電影，那任何來自日本的文化產品理論上都可能被視為「應列入抵制」。雖然這種說法本身極端，也不是認真建議禁A片，但反映民間對政治干預文化活動的不信任與反感。

在短期影響方面，撤片無疑讓已購票的觀眾感到困擾與失望，也讓主辦單位的公信力受損。長期來看，若文化活動因政治氛圍而受到干擾，未來的策展機構可能會基於風險考量而自我審查，不願選入來自敏感國家的作品。這將弱化香港長期以來多元、開放的文化形象，也影響公眾對藝術能否不受政治左右的信心。此外，這件事也可能促使公眾重新思考文化自主、文化審查以及藝術是否必然與政治糾纏的議題。

總結而言，香港此次取消三部日本電影的放映，表面上是一項簡單的排片變更，但從時機、對象到國際背景，整體脈絡顯示這已不再是單純的文化事件，而是文化、政治、外交與社會情緒交錯的結果。它反映的並不僅是一次影展的調整，而是當文化輸入逐漸被政治化後，人們對文化自由、跨國交流與城市多元性的更深層焦慮。

Recently, the Film Program Office under Hong Kong’s Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) announced that the film event "A Feast of the Heart — Celebrating Life Through Food," originally scheduled to run from December 6, 2025, to January 18, 2026, would cancel the screenings of three Japanese films: Kamome Diner, Tampopo (4K restored version), and An / Sweet Bean. This decision was first reported by media outlets including the South China Morning Post and the Central News Agency, quickly drawing widespread attention.

The official explanation for the cancellations was brief, citing only "programme adjustments" as the reason. Media such as Hong Kong Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Journal noted that the LCSD also promised to publish refund arrangements on its website, allowing ticket holders to request refunds or follow the procedures. Global Times and Sina Finance similarly reported on the follow-up details.

These three films were originally selected as part of a thematic curation focused on food, with the organizers hoping to use food and daily life as a lens to encourage audiences to reflect on cultural, interpersonal, and emotional connections. Hong Kong and other Chinese-language media, including Morning Post and Economic Daily, emphasized that the festival aimed to present cross-cultural understanding through heartwarming food-themed films, and was not intended to have any political associations.

However, amid significant attention, the event gradually became linked to the current tense relations between China and Japan. Both the Central News Agency and the South China Morning Post reported that in recent months, China and Japan have experienced pronounced friction in political, diplomatic, historical, and international arenas, affecting both official and public exchanges. As a result, the cancellation of Japanese films is widely seen as difficult to explain merely as a "programme adjustment," and is instead interpreted as a symbolic action taken in a sensitive diplomatic atmosphere. The South China Morning Post and Phoenix News highlighted that the public generally views the cancellations as a political reaction at the cultural level rather than a simple logistical adjustment.

The timing of the announcement also raised questions. The LCSD revealed the cancellations just three days before the festival's opening, on December 3, prompting Hong Kong Economic Journal and other outlets to suggest that the decision lacked planning and fueled speculation that other factors may have been involved.

Against this backdrop, some audiences and commentators began framing the move as "cultural boycott" or "cultural censorship." For many, films are not merely entertainment but a medium for cross-cultural exchange. The removal of Japanese films amid political tension is thus naturally seen as a cultural stance influenced by diplomatic relations rather than a simple scheduling change. For viewers hoping to experience different cultures through cinema, the cancellations disrupt their plans and raise deeper concerns about whether cultural exchanges can remain independent of politics.

Because the official explanation was vague, it also sparked various forms of public satire. Among the most common was the comment, "If you’re really going to boycott Japanese culture, why not ban Japanese adult films too?" Such remarks are essentially a critique of inconsistent standards and unclear rationale. If nationality alone is a reason to cancel screenings, then theoretically any cultural product from Japan could be considered subject to boycott. While these comments are exaggerated and not meant to seriously propose banning adult films, they reflect public distrust and frustration toward political interference in cultural activities.

In the short term, the cancellations undoubtedly caused inconvenience and disappointment for ticket holders, and diminished the credibility of the organizers. In the long term, if cultural events are repeatedly affected by political circumstances, future curators may self-censor, avoiding works from sensitive countries to minimize risk. This could weaken Hong Kong's long-standing image as a diverse and open cultural hub and undermine public confidence in the ability of art to exist independently of political influence.

Furthermore, the incident may prompt broader public reflection on cultural autonomy, censorship, and the complex relationship between art and politics.

In conclusion, while the cancellation of these three Japanese films appears to be a simple scheduling change on the surface, the timing, targets, and international context indicate that it is far more than an isolated cultural matter. It represents an intersection of culture, politics, diplomacy, and social sentiment. The incident illustrates not just a festival adjustment, but also the deeper anxieties about cultural freedom, cross-border exchange, and urban diversity that arise when cultural imports become politicized.