#that's it. she fulfills the role of taxi driver. that's all she does | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

adamwatchesmovies · 5 years ago

Text

My People, My Country (2019)

I'm certain My People, My Country will snag all the awards at China’s equivalent of the Oscars. Jingoistic to the point of being sickening, every frame is spent forcefully celebrating the People’s Republic of China and enforcing government-approved values. Perhaps it would mean more to someone who lives there. For this viewer, it was a profoundly dull - though eye-opening - 158 minutes. Each of this anthology's seven stories come from a different director and feature some of the country’s biggest stars in a variety of roles and genres. There's a lot to say so pardon the longer-than-usual review.

The Eve

Engineer Lin Zhiyuab (Huang Bo) is floored when he learns Tian'anmen Square is being cordoned off before the founding ceremony of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949. As the man responsible for the mechanism that will automatically raise the flag, he must now find a way to anticipate and address any possible issues - without setting eyes upon the flagpole.

Well, doesn't this sound like an exciting intro to a 2-1/2 hour movie? Immediately, you recognize this is a propaganda film. This means it'll be an interesting viewpoint into the engineer's way of thinking... but not the way they meant it to be. Like all propaganda films, this one presents its subject as all-good, all-powerful and forever successful. The lack of tension serves to make the story even less dramatic than it would’ve been normally. It's too short for you to get invested in the characters and the story is one you simply can't be bothered for.

Passing By

In 1964, China is developing nuclear weapons. Scientist Gao Yuan (Zhang Yi) has not seen his wife (Zhou Dongyu) for three years. An incident at work nearly causes a meltdown, forcing Gao to intervene and put his life at risk.

If my country announced it was developing nuclear arms, I’d be outraged; not waving flags and singing songs. Even if your sentiments towards mutually-assured destruction differ, you'll leave this tale flabbergasted. Once we get into the drama between Gao and his wife, it’s a sweet love story. Then, the details hit you. The scientist’s fate is left ambiguous, as the story ends with the country’s victorious display of power. Anyone who knows anything knows only three things come from nuclear tests gone wrong: Superpowers, giant fire-breathing dinosaurs, of agonizing death. I guess we’re supposed to admire the man's dedication to his country, at the expense of his marriage and life?

The Champion

Dongdong (Han Haolin) and his father own the only television in their small village. It’s 1984 and China’s women’s national volleyball team is playing for the gold medal against the United States. While he holds the antenna in place, the village can view this historic match. Dongdong is torn, however. His school friend is moving away. If he doesn’t say goodbye to her tonight, he’ll never have the chance to tell her how he feels.

Of all the stories, this was my favorite. Dongdong wants to step away from the antenna but there are always circumstances pulling him back towards it. It’s got small-town charm and some laugh-out-loud moments… until you begin thinking about the story's real message. It’s the Olympics, sure, but Dongdong is supposed to give up his happiness because he dares to have a little luxury at home?

Going Home

Directed by Sue Xiaolu, Going Home follows a watch repairman tasked with coordinating two watches. The timekeepers will be worn by officials overseeing the ceremony commemorating the return of Hong Kong from British rule to China in 1997.

Yet another mundane story detailing a flag-raising ceremony. With The Champion still in mind, this one seemed even more tedious than it would’ve been otherwise. It takes itself seriously - to a fault. The only time you'll be jolted out of your stupor will be when you spot the actors lovingly gazing at those five yellow stars on that red flag. Seriously, the flag plays such a big role in so many of these stories I wouldn’t be surprised if it got first billing in the end credits - I couldn't read them so I can neither confirm nor deny my suspicion.

Hello Beijing

Deadbeat dad and taxi driver Zhang (Ge You) wins a ticket to the 2008 Beijing Olympics’ opening ceremony. Thinking he can use it to gain the admiration of his son, he flaunts his prize. When the ticket is stolen by one of his fares, he panics.

Like The Champion, Hello Beijing has a more comedic tone than the rest, which is a breath of relief. You take great delight when Zhang realizes his ticket has been swiped. It's an opportunity for him to redeem himself and he does, in a way that’ll make you roll your eyes. By the time the thief’s emotional speech comes in, you're practically nauseous.

The Guiding Star

Two brothers (Liu Haoran and Arthur Chen) are taken in by a kind, elderly couple. Initially planning on robbing them, the boys change their ways when a childhood story of a falling star seen during the day is fulfilled in the form of the Shenzhou 11’s landing capsule.

The longer I go on with this anthology, the less I have to say. This is a basic story. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you mix it up a bit. Tying the country’s space program to a prophecy that goes on to change two nogoodniks’ lives? puh-lease.

One for All

Fighter jet pilot Lü Xiaoran (Jia Song) has fought tooth-and-nail to be the best. When she is assigned to be the backup pilot for the Military Parade of the 70th Anniversary of the Victory in the Second Sino-Japanese War, she is initially outraged. As the big event approaches, she learns the importance of setting her ambitions aside.

We started off with a boring story. It's only fitting to conclude with another. The training sequences are cool and the shots of those jets zipping through the air are exciting but by this point, you know what agenda director Wen Muye is pushing onto you and your defenses are robust. There’s no way you'll let One for All "win" and you look down upon it with disdain.

Overall, the film is well made. The cinematography is grandiose, the landscapes majestic, the performances good. I simply couldn't look past the messages being pushed. Give up three years of your life, the chance to say goodbye to your friend, your lifelong ambitions. Do it for your country. Don't expect to be recompensed for your sacrifice; are you crazy?! Take joy in the sight of that flag, the symbol that ties us all together and makes everyone, from the lowliest thieves to aspiring engineers part of a bigger whole whose collective needs far outweigh the inconvenience of a few. Let's throw in a couple of subtle potshots towards the U.S., Japan, and the United Kingdom for good measure too. I didn't want to say too much in my summaries of the stories, but almost all of these take the corniness to an insufferable level. There's overwrought drama abound, the conclusions always go for the cheapest tricks and worst of all, you'll be bored. There’s so much to learn from My People, My Country that I'm glad to have seen it but found it more frightening than inspirational. (Original Chinese with subtitles on the big screen, October 7, 2019)

4 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 5 years ago

Photo

Joker (2019)

On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley Jr. shot and nearly killed United States President Ronald Reagan, wounded a police officer and Secret Service agent, and permanently disabled Press Secretary James Brady (whose death in 2014 was ruled a homicide from the gunshot wound thirty-three years prior). Found not guilty due to insanity, Hinckley obsessed over Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) while planning his actions. Like Taxi Driver’s protagonist Travis Bickle, Hinckley plotted to assassinate a famous politician. Besotted with Jodie Foster (who starred in Taxi Driver) and disappointed by not attracting her attention after stalking her, Hinckley planned the assassination attempt to impress the actress.

Hinckley and Taxi Driver were both on my mind when watching Todd Phillips’ Joker. Not only do they share thematic connective tissue and similar color palettes, but both films have been plagued by discourse about whether they will inspire someone to commit horrific violence – I respect Taxi Driver as one of the best films released in the 1970s, but it is not something I could rewatch easily. Filmmakers, indeed, should have a sense of social responsibility in their creations. Joker, as a character study first and foremost, paints its politics in broad strokes – preferring to submerge, as character studies should, the audience into the mindset of its protagonist. Joker invites the audience to empathize with a tortured soul who, failed by the state and refusing to hold himself responsible for his worst actions, consciously moves beyond redemption. That point, where the Joker is beyond redemption, is found where Batman fans know him best: murdering only to see if that murder is funny. Whether he reaches that point within the bounds of this film is up for debate.

It is 1981 in Gotham City. The city belches with urban malaise. A garbage collectors’ strike roils the city; socioeconomic inequality is rife; “Super Rats” plague the streets; the municipal services are overwhelmed. Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown-for-hire living and caring for his aging mother, Penny (Frances Conroy). Money is sparse and one of the few joys Arthur and Penny have is Murray Franklin’s (Robert De Niro in a role not far removed from his turn in 1983′s The King of Comedy) primetime talk show. Arthur suffers from random paroxysms of laughter (a real-life affliction known as emotional incontinence, among other names) that, at the very least, invites disdainful looks from strangers who then avoid him. Arthur is seeking help for his depression and other unspoken problems, but Gotham’s social services are soon defunded by the city government and various other events force him to his breaking point.

Also featured in this film are Arthur’s hallway neighbor Sophie (Zazie Beetz) and cameos from Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen), a young Bruce Wayne (Dante Pereira-Olson), and Alfred Pennyworth (Douglas Hodge).

The film does not glorify any of its hideous violence, but those who are not critical consumers of media will interpret this film how they will. Nevertheless, Joker is less on the side of its protagonist than the likes of Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange (1971) and will likely result in a similar reverence once this film has exited theaters. Within the film’s confines, there is nothing surprising about any of its violence; how the violence happens is shocking in its immediacy and realistic ferocity. It is contextualized as being the inevitable result of a sociopolitical system that cares not for the downtrodden, the mentally ill – to reiterate, Phillips is painting with broad political strokes. Arthur, who keeps on seeking professional help and ways to quell his silent rage, is attempting to stay his destructive behaviors long after his first homicide (as the film does not glorify violence, it also does not target those with mental illness; it directs its ire towards those without sympathy for the mentally ill). Those efforts are stymied by factors beyond his control – an almost-plot twist to shock even ardent Batman fans, the idolization of an unnamed clown who has executed three members or accomplices of Gotham’s elite.

It is here that Joker separates itself from the social cynicism and post-Vietnam War disillusionment and of Taxi Driver; it is here that Philipps’ film becomes just as much a reflection of the era it was released in and the nation of its origin as Scarface (1932 original with Paul Muni), Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and The Dark Knight (2008) once did. Those films respectively capitalized on fears of Italian and Irish mafias making urban centers their criminal playgrounds, countercultural diehards claiming free-wheeling Jazz Age outlaws as their own, and a vast surveillance state crafted to declare war on terrorism. For Joker, the societal diagnosis by Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver (2010′s The Fighter) is double-sided, damning those with and without power. The film decries individuals and groups who deify charismatic or compelling figures claiming their actions and/or rhetoric to be indicative of the common person’s interests. These revered figures incorporate grievance into their persona, weaponizing the language of victimhood not only to bring attention and (justifiably or unjustifiably) force change on a problem, but to absolve themselves of their personal sins. They are, dare it be written, populists. Beware those who invoke “the people” to vindicate their crusades.

Arthur Fleck, as an underemployed clown, does not ask for the attention of the masses. He wishes, “to bring laughter and joy to the world,” yet finds fulfillment in making a handful of children’s hospital patients smile. During Arthur’s first appearance as Joker, he assumes the accidental and public mantle that has set Gotham aflame – legitimizing the homicides he has committed and the public’s brutalization of authority figures by playing victim. He is consumed in self-pity; his words become a simplistic screed. Notice how appealing his words are, how rapidly rhetorical animosity precludes political violence. In Joker’s darkest sequence, the protagonist will destroy the last remnants of Arthur Fleck and become the popular icon of violent upheaval rarely seen in any of his depictions in DC Comics. This is Joker at its most dangerous, if only because of how violence – whether in oppression or in resistance – is as integral to the United States as political compromise.

We hear these beats of populism elsewhere, too, mixed with capitalist can-do. It is present in Thomas Wayne’s television appearance announcing his candidacy for Mayor of Gotham City – “I alone can fix it,” this man of wealth implies. This is a departure from otherwise sympathetic depictions of Bruce Wayne’s father over the decades in Batman comic books. As a plot development, it (along with the “almost-plot twist”) seems unnecessary if only to ground Joker in the Batman mythos. Contrast this to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where ill-intentioned, humorless capitalists operating within the military-industrial complex are repelled by the wisecracking “good” capitalists within that same system (see: Tony Stark). Murray Franklin, as a talk show host, concocts a scheme to bolster his ratings by humiliating someone in a worse life station – no background checks needed, let alone any semblance of attempting to understand his subject. Thus, Gotham is subject to personality- and grievance-based politics wrung through the corporate avarice of Network (1976). Joker may not have to space to critique capitalism in its entirety – it is a character study, after all – but the entire apple barrel seems spoiled here.

The least controversial element of Joker is Joaquin Phoenix’s magnificent lead performance. Phoenix has made a living playing men whose lives contend with inner turmoil and unsympathetic worlds. His work in The Master (2012) remains has career-defining role, but as Arthur Fleck and as Joker – through the pained laughter spells, his bodily contortions with his ribcage jutting from his frame, and a brooding nature tempered by an initial gentleness – this will be the role that crosses artistic and popular boundaries that segregate filmmaking. Phoenix may now be defined by this role, as Cesar Romero (a solid contract actor for 20th Century Fox despite being typecast as a Latin lover) and the late Heath Ledger (whose work in The Dark Knight overshadows the rest of his filmography) have been.

Director Todd Phillips, best known for The Hangover series, does an excellent job making Gotham City a character. So often consigned to be the faceless and unfortunate city wracked by domestic terrorism from curiously-named villains, never in a film has Gotham seemed like a place with its own history and haunts. The scenes on mass transit alone sell the city. Phillips’ indulgence for slow-motion (with cinematographer Lawrence Sher’s fawning camerawork) during dance sequences and almost constant dollying can be irritating. One montage between Arthur Fleck and Sophie – specifically, when he enters her apartment, confirming how unreliable a narrator he is – displays a lack of trust in the audience to make their own inferences.

Icelandic cellist and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir has crafted a score for her second film for a major American studio. Guðnadóttir’s career has been defined by an unpleasant mix of bass strings, percussion, and synth, droning repetitively, lacking the emotional catharsis that the films she has worked on are striving for. Her work on Joker is an improvement, but this is as difficult a listen as Joker is to watch. The score is almost entirely texture, not melody – melody is for those older films with sugary sentiment and Hollywood endings that do not reflect life’s ugliness, we are increasingly told. Outside of those with an ear for experimental classical music or instrumental music that groans amelodic passages rather than combining lyrical voices, this music has almost no life outside of the movie. Finally, Guðnadóttir’s style fits the film she has scored for.

As a psychological character piece, the only way that Joker could have secured a wide theatrical release in 2019 would be to tie it to bankable comic book lore. Even as Phillips pitched the idea, Joker faced stiff resistance from Warner Bros. executives – including former chairman Kevin Tsujihara and Greg Silverman – who still had the 2012 massacre in Aurora, Colorado on their minds (that tragedy took place during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises). Warner Bros. noting how poorly Zack Snyder’s vision of DC Comics adaptations was faring, needed to extricate itself from Snyder’s adolescent approach.

In the months before Joker’s release and even within the film, Warner Bros. has embraced its past. Of all of Hollywood’s major studios, Warners always seems to be the most conscious and celebratory of its history*. During the 1930s, Warner Bros. became known for the darker content of its films (its rivals MGM, Paramount, and Fox preferred spectacle, maximizing production values, and prestige pictures). The studio became the spiritual home of the gangster film and hardboiled dramas that pushed the boundaries of violence in American cinema – but not for the sake of depicting violence. Even in their musicals (a genre stereotyped as pure escapism), Warner Bros. layered progressive social commentary amid economic depression. Joker – though its own commentary could be more focused and succinct – inherits the legacy of The Public Enemy (1931), I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932), Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933), and its numerous Warner Bros. ancestors.

How curious that a drama with origins from superhero comic books has been little praised for not following the assembly line production methods of numerous films from similar source material. Cinephiles fret, correctly, that movie theaters are becoming a home to superheroes/villains and explicitly-for-children animated features to the exclusion of everything else. The mid-budget character piece is endangered; certain genres have vanished from theater marquees. Joker, to some consternation, has it both ways. It is an excellent, arguably irresponsible, work to be seen with wary eyes.

My rating: 8/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

* Okay, okay you classic film buffs who have already recognized Joker’s references. Modern Times (1936) and Shall We Dance (1937) are from United Artists and RKO, respectively. But both films have long been part of Warners’ library by acquisition.

#Joker #Todd Phillips #Joaquin Phoenix #Robert De Niro #Zazie Beetz #Frances Conroy #Brett Cullen #Douglas Hodge #Dante Pereira Olson #Glenn Fleshler #Scott Silver #Lawrence Sher #Hildur Gudnadottir #My Movie Odyssey

4 notes · View notes

forgetmenotsandroses · 8 years ago

Text

กอด

SEUNGCHUCHU WEEK DAY 4: FREE DAY

A/N: This might not be my best work ever, but I wrote it on adrenaline in two hours and I think it's alright!! Pretty proud of this :) Dedicated to @slightlystalesushirolls who puts up with my shit. Also Blood Sweat & Tears is a BTS song for y'all who don't know. Happy Seungchuchu Week!!! @seungchuchuweek

PHICHIT:

He’s tearing up and the walls are closing in, and his makeup starts running (should’ve worn waterproof), then something breaks in him and he’s sobbing and wailing and he doesn’t really care about anything anymore.

“Shhh.”

The sound is soothing, the last thing he would expect from Seung Gil. Especially because now there are tear stains and makeup all over his nice jacket and Phichit himself is an ugly, crying mess who’s had too much to drink. It’s the party for the GPF, and he should be happy. After all, Yuri is engaged, Michele and Emil are dancing (how’d that happen?) and even Yakov is actually smiling (until a drunk Viktor begs him to officiate his wedding to Yuri). But all he can think about how he is such a disappointment. How his family will be ashamed to tell their neighbours that he lost, how he let down his entire country.

As happy as he is for Yuri and Yuri, and, he supposes, JJ, seeing them all so happy is a bit… much. Like rubbing salt into a wound. Even though Phichit is eternally happy for his friends, who deserve all the medals they get, some small, selfish part of him whispers, ‘it could’ve been you’. After all, he had worked as hard as anyone to train for the GPF. He’s sacrificed, poured out his own share of blood, sweat, and tears. Thinking of the song in such a situation brings the barest hint of a smile to his face, but Seung Gil notices.

“Are you feeling better?”

He sounds… concerned? It’s odd. Phichit has never pegged Seung Gil as someone who really cared about other people. Borderline sociopathic. But here he is, wrapping Phichit in his arms and telling him it–whatever it is–is going to be okay. They’re nice, all of these unexpectedly sweet gestures.

“Do you want to go out for dinner?”

“Wha–?” Is Seung Gil actually asking him out? Why does that make his heart flutter?

“I just thought that you might want to get out of this bathroom and have something to eat. Have you even tried any of the banquet food?" With Phichit’s mind racing at mach five, it’s hard to comprehend the question (another question?), let alone answer it.

"Uhh.” Is his voice slurring? Does he sound like a drunk idiot? He is a drunk idiot. He should be celebrating the success of his friends. What the fuck is he doing? So many questions…

“I don’t think I’ve eaten since… This morning!”

Seung Gil raises an incredibly well-defined eyebrow at the loud remark, but nods. "Then we should go out to eat something. It can’t be healthy to be drunk on an empty stomach.“

"I’m not drunk! Well, maybe a bit. But not really!”

“Right.”

Seung Gil hauls his intoxicated ass out of the building, somehow managing to hail a taxi. The next thing he knows, they’re sitting in the car and awaiting their destination. Except he’s leaning on Seung Gil’s shoulder. It’s hard work to keep upright when the world is tilting. His body is heavy and he’s just so tired… When he wakes up, they’ve stopped at a hole-in-the-wall restaurant. Seung Gil supports him as he staggers in.

“Where are we?”

“I don’t really know, I just asked for the driver’s recommendations.”

Phichit almost laughs, because the incredibly put together, notoriously logical Seung Gil does not have an exact plan. It’s a miracle! Albeit a strange one. After all, who is Seung Gil to him? He’s being kind at the moment, yes. And he seems less reserved than normal. A bit awkward, actually. Cute. Before Phichit can ponder this further, Seung Gil pulls him into a seat and tells him to order. He ends up with something called 'Escalivada’, which turns out to be grilled eggplant and red pepper with onion and tomatoes. Seung Gil, true to his meat-eating reputation, orders 'Fricandó’; meat and mushrooms in a sort of rich sauce. As they eat, he eyes the mushrooms with distaste, pushing them to the side like a picky child. Phichit frowns.

“You should eat those! No use in wasting food!” “I hate vegetables.”

“Mushrooms aren’t even vegetables! They’re f-fungi." He’s stuttering now? Maybe it’s the alcohol. Or his proximity to Seung Gil. The table is so tiny that they’re knee-to-knee in the corner of the restaurant. He’s put his elbows on the table in an effort to keep himself from face planting into his food, which means he’s practically leaning across the small table. Right into Seung Gil. Just as he comes to this conclusion, Seung Gil seems to realize it too. He flushes a dark pink (highly visible with his pale complexion), and mutters something about needing to use the washroom. He stands up, nearly knocks into a candelabra, and walks off.

With that, Phichit is left alone with his thoughts. About what just happened. Normally, he is the whirlwind force of nature, impulsively trying to make others feel better and generally have fun. But tonight, Seung Gil seems to have fulfilled that role. (Not the fun part, just the impulsive kindness part. Seung Gil doesn’t really seem like one to just get out and party.) After all, hasn’t Phichit just been swept off his feet into this… date? No… meal. There’s nothing romantic going on. Nothing at all. All this thinking hurts his head, so he tries to focus on the present. Seung Gil is being kind, the food is good, and he feels better about the competition. Much better, he notes with surprise. There’s still disappointment with himself, of course. And the shame of letting down both his family and his entire country. But in this moment, he could care less. By the time Seung Gil comes back, Phichit is happy and somehow filled with new energy, or at least adrenaline.

"I think we should go clubbing!”

“What? Wait, shouldn’t we go back to the hotel–”

SEUNG GIL:

It’s Seung Gil’s turn to be subject to a force of nature, though perhaps not the gentle one he himself had attempted to be. Phichit stumbles out, feeling very much himself again and nearly smacking into a lamppost, right before running back in when he realizes Seung Gil is still inside paying the bill. Phichit makes Seung Gil promise that he’ll let him pay him back (“friendly” Asian competition) and they walk outside together.

PHICHIT:

“Really, we should get back to the hotel. It’s getting late now. Almost 11:30.”

“It’s not that late!” But Phichit is obviously losing ground. The adrenaline rush wears of almost as fast as it’s come, and his eyelids begin to droop. And his body begins to feel like it’s made of bricks. Unfortunately, neither knows the streets of downtown Barcelona well. Or has enough money to hail a taxi. Neat, orderly, rigid Seung Gi has a horrified expression on his face.

“I am never going to do anything impulsive ever again. I swear, I will every second of the rest of my life out. We’re lost, and coach is going to kill me when she finds out an–”

“Seung Gil, you should try to just… live a little! Y'know?”

“What? We’re lost! How is that relevant?”

Phichit giggles.

“This isn’t funny! We’re lost in Spain, thanks to my impulsivity.”

“Maybe that isn’t a bad thing. Maybe we should just go with the flow.” Seung Gil sputters.

“Maybe if you weren’t drunk!”

“Hm.” This is a valid point on Seung Gil’s part. If the amount of alcohol he’s consumed at this point is any indication, he should be seeking out a place to rest, and sleep off the headache he’s probably going to have in the morning.

“Fine.”

By the time they reach the hotel, it is 2:53AM. Seung Gil is exhausted and irritable, and Phichit is so sleepy he’s ready to pass out in the lobby. Somehow, they manage to make it to Phichit’s room.

“Seung Gil?”

“What.”

“We might have a slight problem…”

“What is it?”

“I can’t find my room key.”

“Fuck.”

Seung Gil groans comically, or in a way that would be comical had they not spent the last few hours desperately trying to find their way back to the hotel. “You can stay in my room. I can’t deal with this bullshit any longer.”

SEUNG GIL:

That’s how they end up, Phichit flopped onto the comforter in borrowed pyjamas and Seung Gil on the floor, slightly uncomfortable with this breach of privacy.

Phichit starts suddenly.

“What am I doing on the bed? It’s your room! And you’ve shown me nothing but generosity and kindness tonight!”

It’s Seung Gil’s turn to argue.

“You’re drunk! And going to have a hangover, as well as be sore from all the walking we did!”

“So’re you! This is stupid. Just come sleep here. The bed is big enough for two.”

Grudgingly, Seung Gil accepts. But only to get this argument over with. They lie down on opposite ends of the bed, sharing the covers.

“Seung Gil? I really am grateful for tonight. Thank you.”

“Mhmm.”

PHICHIT:

The sunlight on his face wakes Phichit up. He feels safe, warm, and strangely comfortable. A pounding headache overcomes him, though, and the urge to lay down and die overtakes him. Then he realizes. There are arms wrapped around him. And legs tangled with his. And a person snuggled into him. Seung Gil stirs and mutters something incoherent. A dark blush spreads across Phichit’s face.

They didn’t, did they? No, nothing of the sort.

The night’s events slowly come back into focus. His embarrassing meltdown. Seung Gil’s unexpected kindness. Hours spent combing the city for the hotel. Just then, Seung Gil wakes.

“I-I’m sorry! That was a direct violation of your personal space–”

“It’s okay. I didn’t really mind…”

“Oh.”

“But I wanted to apologize for my shameful behaviour last night!”

“No no, it’s okay.”

They stare at each other, both at a loss for words. Conflicting emotions flit across Seung Gil’s face as he detangles himself from Phichit. He silently gets up and fills a glass of water for Phichit to drink. Phichit takes it and drinks–there’s so much to repay him for, why can’t you just say something damnit? But the awkward silence is maintained. Seung Gil breaks it painfully.

“I guess you should go down to the lobby and tell them you lost your key, huh?”

“I guess.”

“I’ll see you out.”

As they approach the door, Phichit leans in and kisses him. Lee Seung Gil. Spontaneously, passionately, and full on the mouth.

He walks out the door and calls out a thank you, tripping down to the elevator.

SEUNG GIL:

Seung Gil leans on the doorframe and dazedly wonders what just happened. (Five hours later, he gets a text asking if he wants to go out to dinner for real this time. He accepts.)

54 notes · View notes

legalroll · 7 years ago

Text

MIND THE GAP: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTIONS

Sexual assault prosecutions in Canada suffer from a curious dichotomy. On the one hand, we enjoy perhaps the most progressive sexual assault laws around, which should be praised as the gold standard. On the other hand, we are facing a crisis of confidence in the prosecution of those laws, marked by low reporting rates and victim dissatisfaction.

The law and prosecution of sexual assault in Canada has a shameful past, and one that strongly reflected a high level of inequality between the sexes. For example, historically a man could not be charged with raping his wife. If a man raped a woman and then married her there was no offence. Intercourse could not be considered “forced” unless the victim was of chaste character, and an accused was allowed to infer a victim’s passivity as consent. The offence of rape required proof of penetration. A victim had to report immediately to be believed, and the testimony of a victim required corroboration for a conviction.

Major reforms to the Criminal Code began in 1983 and continued throughout the 1990s. The offence of rape was replaced with the offence of sexual assault, broadening the range of conduct captured from kissing and fondling all the way to penetration.

In fact, a conviction for sexual assault could stand even if there was no sexual touching, provided there was the apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact that violated the victim’s sexual integrity. 2 The common law rules requiring corroboration and recent complaint were eliminated 3 and a victim’s character and reputation became inadmissible for the purpose of either challenging or supporting credibility. 4 A person could be charged with sexually assaulting a spouse. 5

Importantly, the new law established the concept of affirmative consent, defining consent as the “voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question” and enumerating a non-exhaustive list of circumstances where no consent is obtained. 6 Further, the defence of mistaken belief in consent was limited by excluding self-induced intoxication and wilful blindness and by including a “reasonable steps” requirement. 7 These new provisions reflected a growing belief in society that the law must protect and promote the sexual autonomy and personal integrity of every individual and that individuals should have absolute control over who touches their body and how. 8

Rules of evidence specific to sexual assault were enacted to protect a complainant from the gratuitous disclosure of private records 9 and to limit the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual history where it engaged discriminatory myths and stereotypical reasoning (the Rape Shield Law). 10 And the introduction of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in 2015 recognized and strengthened testimonial and participatory protections for victims of sexual assault who are involved in the criminal process.

The modern concepts established in Canada’s sexual assault laws have been reinforced by our highest court. The Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned against unfair and improper questioning of complainants of sexual assault. We are reminded of Cory J’s words in Osolin that “[a] complainant should not be unduly harassed and pilloried to the extent of becoming a victim of an insensitive judicial system”, “cross examination for the purpose of showing consent or impugning credibility which relies upon ‘rape myths’ will always be more prejudicial than probative … [and] can fulfill no legitimate purpose”, and “[a]s a general rule, the trial of an accused on a charge of sexual assault need not and should not become an occasion for putting the complainant’s lifestyle and reputation on trial.”11

The Court has also rejected the notion that complainants of sexual assault have a higher tendency than other complainants to fabricate stories based on “ulterior motives” and are therefore less worthy of belief.” 12

In Charter jurisprudence as well as the legislation and its preambles, there are strong, recurring statements about society’s interest in encouraging reporting of sexual offences, the high incidence of sexual offending on females and children, the power imbalance that often exists between men and women, the goal of seeking the truth, the need to remove discriminatory beliefs and biases from the fact finding process and the importance of a complainant’s dignity and privacy and right to full protection of the law.

However, despite the progress made in our sexual assault laws, we still face significant challenges in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases. It is estimated that there are over 600,000 incidents of sexual assault per year in Canada but only 5% of incidents are reported to the police, and a charge is laid in less than half of those cases. Where a complaint results in a charge being laid, less than half proceed to a hearing in criminal court. 13 With such low reporting and a high attrition rate, the sad reality is that a very small fraction of sexual assault cases reach prosecution.

The reluctance of victims to report sexual assaults may be a reflection of how victims are treated by the justice system. Many victims have expressed lack of confidence in the system and fear of having their personal and sexual lives publicly and unjustly judged. Some report feeling “re-victimized” by questions about their sexual past, by what they were wearing and how they acted at the time of the assault, and by being made to feel as if it was their fault or that they “asked for it” through their behaviour.

Often, victims feel that the outcome of a case is determined by the actions of the victim rather than by the actions of the accused. 14 Some victims complain of spending multiple days on the witness stand and conclude that the reporting and court process is re-traumatizing and may even be worse than the initial trauma itself. 15

Public confidence in the ability of our justice system to effectively prosecute sexual assaults has also been eroded by unfortunate and insensitive comments by the judiciary and the subsequent reporting of those comments in the media. A judge in Alberta asked the sexual assault complainant why she didn’t just keep her knees together and queried “[s]he knew she was drunk … is [there] not an onus on her to be more careful?”16 In acquitting a taxi driver of sexually assaulting his unconscious female passenger, a judge in Nova Scotia declared in his judgment that “a drunk can consent”, which, while a correct statement of the law, is objectifying in its tone. 17 A judge in Quebec, while convicting another taxi driver of sexually assaulting a woman in his car, commented that the victim was “a little overweight, but she has a pretty face” and went on to say she was possibly even “a little flattered” because “maybe it’s the first time he’s interested in her.”18

As a society, certainly we recognize that women do not ‘ask for it’ just because they wear tight clothes and get drunk. We appreciate that women are not in a perpetual state of consent. We know the difference between legitimate impeachment and pernicious myths. And as lawyers, we are committed to our obligation to discharge our responsibilities honourably and with integrity, to protect the dignity of individuals, and to be courteous, civil and act in good faith. 19 At the same time, regardless of our individual role in the criminal justice system, we must all work to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his or her liberty without due process.

This inherent conflict between protecting the rights of victims and ensuring the right of an accused to full answer and defence can never be fully reconciled, but we can aim to strike the right balance between two competing ideals. How do we do that? Some of the problems articulated above can be addressed through education and training for police officers, prosecutors and judges, a process that is already taking place across the country. But the treatment of sexual assault victims in the courtroom demands fairness and decency, which does not undermine the high standard of proof necessary for a conviction and the right to full answer and defence. Our rules of evidence and procedure support such a paradigm and ensure that relevant and admissible evidence can be properly considered by a trier of fact. There are ample tools for the defence to present its case without engaging inadmissible myths and stereotypes or resorting to unethical conduct. Crown Attorneys can and should adequately prepare a victim for court to ensure that she carries realistic expectations about the process, and to ensure that she can most effectively provide testimony in the search for the truth. Judges have a responsibility to ensure that the rules of evidence are respected and that everyone, including a complainant, is treated with dignity.

Through awareness, education and diligence, every sexual assault prosecution could be conducted by judges and counsel who know the law and understand its proper application. Our gold standard of black letter law can be matched by a gold standard of professionalism, which will in turn narrow the gap between the system we have and the confidence of the public in that system.

------

Jill Witkin, Crown Counsel for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, is the co-author of Emond Publishing’s Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Offence Cases: A Practitioner’s Handbook, along with defence counsel Daniel Brown.

Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Offence Cases: A Practitioner’s Handbook Authors: Daniel Brown & Jill Witkin

General Editors: Justice Vincenzo Rondinelli & Brian H. Greenspan

Foreword: Marie Henein

ISBN: 978-1-77255-082-5

Publisher: Emond Publishing

Page Count: 446

Publication Date: October 2017

Regular Price: $99

Series Subscription Price: $85

Details & Sample Chapter: https://emond.ca/pdso

------

Endnotes

1 Crown Counsel, Ontario. Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of the Attorney General

2 R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 SCR 293; R. v. Edgar, 2016 ONCA 120

3 Sections 274 and 275 Criminal Code

4 Section 277 Criminal Code

5 Section 278 Criminal Code

6 Section 273.1 Criminal Code, introduced in 1992

7 Section 273.2 Criminal Code

8 See debates during second reading of Bill C-49 by Minister of Justice and Attorney General Kim Campbell.

9 Sections 278.1-278.91 Criminal Code

10 Section 276 Criminal Code

11 R. v. Osolin [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595 at pp.521-523

12 R. v. G.(A.) [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439 at para 3

13 Rotenburg, Cristine. 2017 Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada, 2009-2014: A statistical profile. Juristat. Vol. 37, no.1. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-x.

14 Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment, Final Report, 1st Session, 41st Parliament, 64 Elizabeth II

15 http://ift.tt/1rLH42v

16 http://ift.tt/2tsnxwO

17http://ift.tt/2lYMwqp

18 http://ift.tt/2lhBBK3

19 Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct: 2.1-1, 4.1 and 5.15 (Ontario)

MIND THE GAP: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTIONS published first on http://ift.tt/2fPSFkQ

0 notes

legalseat · 7 years ago

Text

MIND THE GAP: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTIONS

------

Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Offence Cases: A Practitioner’s Handbook Authors: Daniel Brown & Jill Witkin

General Editors: Justice Vincenzo Rondinelli & Brian H. Greenspan

Foreword: Marie Henein

ISBN: 978-1-77255-082-5

Publisher: Emond Publishing

Page Count: 446

Publication Date: October 2017

Regular Price: $99

Series Subscription Price: $85

Details & Sample Chapter: https://emond.ca/pdso

------

Endnotes

1 Crown Counsel, Ontario. Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of the Attorney General

2 R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 SCR 293; R. v. Edgar, 2016 ONCA 120

3 Sections 274 and 275 Criminal Code

4 Section 277 Criminal Code

5 Section 278 Criminal Code

6 Section 273.1 Criminal Code, introduced in 1992

7 Section 273.2 Criminal Code

8 See debates during second reading of Bill C-49 by Minister of Justice and Attorney General Kim Campbell.

9 Sections 278.1-278.91 Criminal Code

10 Section 276 Criminal Code

11 R. v. Osolin [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595 at pp.521-523

12 R. v. G.(A.) [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439 at para 3

13 Rotenburg, Cristine. 2017 Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada, 2009-2014: A statistical profile. Juristat. Vol. 37, no.1. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-x.

14 Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment, Final Report, 1st Session, 41st Parliament, 64 Elizabeth II

15 http://ift.tt/1rLH42v

16 http://ift.tt/2tsnxwO

17http://ift.tt/2lYMwqp

18 http://ift.tt/2lhBBK3

19 Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct: 2.1-1, 4.1 and 5.15 (Ontario)

MIND THE GAP: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTIONS published first on http://ift.tt/2vSFQ3P

0 notes

londontheatre · 7 years ago

Link

Maureen Lipman photo Elliott Franks

Acclaimed actress and writer Maureen Lipman is to direct the world stage premiere of Jack Rosenthal’s The Knowledge.

The Knowledge is based on the iconic 1979 TV film comedy. Maureen not only played a leading role in the film, but is also Jack Rosenthal’s widow.

Set against the backdrop of the harsh economic times of 1979, the play follows the hilarious struggles of four Londoners as they attempt to better themselves by attempting the fearsome “Knowledge” – the process of becoming a London black cab taxi driver. Standing between them and the coveted Green Badge is the eccentric Mr. Burgess, the examiner. Also known as “The Vampire”, he is on an obsessive mission to maintain standards.”

The Knowledge will preview at Charing Cross Theatre from Monday 4 September and run 10 weeks to Saturday 11 November. Press night is Monday 11 September at 7.30pm.

Maureen said: “It is 13 years since I lost my husband, the unassuming genius Jack Rosenthal. The Knowledge is perhaps Jack’s best realised play – a hymn to the London that he came to love. It shows the years of pain, strain and sacrifice that London cabbies have to endure to acquire The Knowledge, pass the world’s toughest and most terrifying taxi examinations and earn the right to wear the Green Badge. 38 years since The Knowledge was first screened on ITV, London’s finest cab drivers face challenges from UBER and their sat navs, bike lanes, road works and terror. But they represent the unique excellence and expertise that has made London the great city we are all so proud of and they deserve our support … because they, and we, are worth it. This is my 50th year in the acting business and, having acted in the original film, I was thrilled to be asked to make The Knowledge the next show I direct. Simon Block has created a wonderful stage adaptation that preserves all the best of Jack’s original writing, and I am really excited to be involved.”

The Knowledge was nominated for a BAFTA as Best Single Play. In 1995, film historian Geoff Phillips declared it “certainly the best TV play Britain has ever produced”. In 2000, the BFI voted it as one of the TV 100 – the 100 greatest television programmes, of any genre, ever screened.

Casting to be announced.

Creative team: Director Maureen Lipman. Set Design Nicolai Hart-Hansen. Costume Design Jonathan Lipman. Sound Design Andrew Johnson.

The Knowledge is produced by Vaughan Williams and Steven M. Levy.

The Knowledge To qualify as a Licensed London Taxi Driver a candidate (a “Knowledge boy/girl”) must first commit to memory the Blue Book. It is not blue, but does contain 320 “runs“ or point-to-point journeys within six miles of Charing Cross. The first run is Manor House to Gibson Square. Once a candidate has passed a written exam on the runs, they then begin their Appearances: a series of one-on-one oral examinations where the examiner can ask them to “call” the shortest route between any two points “within the six”. A point can be any public building, restaurant, cinema, theatre, shop, museum, tourist attraction, park, pub, station … the range is limited only by the fertility of the examiner’s imagination. “Kinky Boots to Leather Lane via Shoe Lane” would be a standard question type. Regarded as the most difficult taxi exam in the world, and equivalent to any professional qualification, The Knowledge has a dropout rate of 70%. The elite few who make it take an average of four years, in which they must live, eat and breathe central London’s 25,000 streets and (they say) 100,000 points. It has been said that comparing a black cab driver with a minicab driver is like comparing a consultant surgeon with an aromatherapist who’s got a Dr Google app. Who would you rather trust with your loved ones’ lives?

Jack Rosenthal (Writer) Jack Morris Rosenthal CBE (8 September 1931 – 29 May 2004) wrote 129 early episodes of the ITV soap Coronation Street and over 150 screenplays, including original TV plays, feature films and adaptations. He wrote the 1986 TV film London’s Burning, which proved so successful that it was adapted into a TV series of the same name, which ran from 1988 until 2002. He won three BAFTA awards for Bar Mitzvah Boy, The Evacuees (based on his own wartime evacuation) and Spend, Spend, Spend (about Viv Nicholson who won £152,319 – equivalent to £3,167,827.29 adjusted for inflation – on the football pools in 1961). In 1983 he co-wrote the film Yentl with Barbra Streisand. He did uncredited work on the screenplay of Chicken Run. He also wrote the book for the musical version of Bar Mitzvah Boy, with music by Jule Styne. He married Maureen Lipman in 1974 and was awarded the CBE in 1994.

Simon Block (Adaptor) Simon Block is a BAFTA-nominated leading writer working in both stage and TV. He is best known for his work on The Physician, Home Fires, Hotel Babylon, Wire in the Blood, Inspector Lewis and The Eichmann Show.

Maureen Lipman (Director) Maureen Lipman was born in Hull, trained at LAMDA and learned her trade in Laurence Olivier’s Company at the Old Vic. She is well-known for playing Joyce Grenfell in the biographical show Re:Joyce! on stage and on TV and for Beattie in a long-running series of award-winning TV commercials for British Telecom. Maureen’s 19 West End productions include Wonderful Town, See How They Run (Olivier Award), Oklahoma! (Olivier nomination), Peggy For You, Lost In Yonkers, The Sisters Roseneweig, Florence Foster Jenkins in Glorious, and her one-woman show Alive and Kicking. In 2012, Maureen directed and appeared in a successful tour of Barefoot in the Park and in 2013 she appeared in Sarah Wooley’s Old Money at Hampstead Theatre. At the Garrick she played Clara in Chris Luscombe’s production of Priestley’s When We Are Married and Mme Armfeldt in Trevor Nunn’s A Little Night Music. At the Theatre Royal Haymarket she played Ellie in Oliver Cotton’s Daytona and Vita in Harvey. Last year Maureen starred in an acclaimed production of My Mother Said I Never Should at the St James Theatre. Earlier this year she starred in Trevor Nunn’s Lettice and Lovage at the Menier Chocolate Factory. Maureen’s multitude of TV credits range from playing the landlady of The Rover’s Return in Coronation Street, The Wire in Doctor Who and the Princess of France in Love’s Labours Lost to Smiley’s People, He Kills Coppers, Holby City and Midsummer Murders. Film work includes Educating Rita and the mother in Polanski’s The Pianist. Maureen’s own TV shows include Agony, Agony Again, About Face, Ladies of Letters, Plebs, Bull and the award-winning The Evacuees, The Knowledge and Eskimo Days by her late husband Jack Rosenthal. Maureen is also a prolific writer, covering a wide range from autobiography to politics. She was awarded a CBE in 1999.

Nicolai Hart-Hansen (Set Design) Nicolai trained as a set and costume designer at The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama (BA) and The Slade School of Fine Art (MFA), and has worked in the UK. Europe and the US. Selected work includes: La Traviata (Stand Moutier, Switzerland), The Window (Rambert Dance Company) The Divided Laing (Arcola Theatre), Cock/Bull (Aalborg Teater, Denmark), The Lilly of The Valley (ROH2), Nordost (Salisbury Playhouse), Fanciulla del West (Opera Up Close), Vieux Carre (Kings Head/ Charing Cross Theatre), Playing the Victim (Royal Court Theatre, Told by An Idiot).

Jonathan Lipman (Costume Design) Selected theatre credits include: Ragtime, Death Takes A Holiday, The Braille Legacy (Charing Cross Theatre), Grey Gardens, Allegro (Southwark Playhouse), a US tour of Peter Pan, The Country Girl, directed by Rufus Norris (West End & UK tour), and the UK tours of Larkrise to Candleford and Jekyll & Hyde – The Musical.

Andrew Johnson (Sound Design) Andrew’s recent credits include the Olivier Award-winning smash hit The Play That Goes Wrong (West End and Broadway), Titanic, Ragtime, Death Takes a Holiday (Charing Cross), Grey Gardens, The Toxic Avenger – The Musical, Grand Hotel, Dogfight, Victor/Victoria (Southwark Playhouse), Calamity Jane (UK tour), Let It Be (UK tour, Moscow, Japan), The Rise and Fall of Little Voice (UK tour), Midnight Tango (West End & UK tour), Top Hat (UK tour), A Clockwork Orange (Theatre Royal, Stratford East).

Vaughan Williams (Producer) Vaughan has for almost 20 years lived in Islington, 30 yards from Gibson Square, and he has a serious black cab habit. Vaughan was a founder shareholder in and is Chairman of the Charing Cross Theatre, where he has been a regular producer. Following an English Literature degree at London University, Vaughan enjoyed a long career in the City of London. Initially qualifying as a Chartered Accountant with Deloitte, he then joined merchant bankers Morgan Grenfell & Co., where he was appointed to the main Board in 1993. Following the merger with Deutsche Bank, he was appointed a Managing Director in Deutsche’s Investment Bank. Since retiring from banking in 2012, Vaughan divides his time between the theatre and property industries. His theatre productions include: Death Takes A Holiday, Christina Bianco: O Come All Ye Divas!, Ragtime (Offie Award for Best Musical), Titanic, 6 Actors In Search of A Director; the UK premiere of Jerry Herman’s Dear World, the Olivier Award-winning production of La Bohème, In the Bar of A Tokyo Hotel, by Tennessee Williams, and a number of shows currently in development. Vaughan has also recently fulfilled a long-held ambition to appear as lead guitarist in a rock and roll band.

Steven M. Levy (Producer) Steven has spent the past 30 years as a theatrical producer, general manager and theatre owner in both New York and London. Broadway includes: Whoopi – The 20th Anniversary Show, Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All starring Ellen Burstyn, Our Town starring Paul Newman, I’m Not Rappaport starring Judd Hirsch and Ben Vereen, Dame Edna: The Royal Tour; The Beauty Queen Of Leenane, The Lonesome West, Waiting In The Wings starring Lauren Bacall. West End includes: Titanic, Ragtime, Death Takes a Holiday, In The Bar Of A Tokyo Hotel, Piaf, The Mikado, Jacques Brel Is Alive And Well And Living In Paris, Long Story Short, Finian’s Rainbow, Ushers: The Front Of House Musical, Jerry Herman’s Dear World, the Olivier Award-winning La Bohème, 6 Actors In Search Of A Director (written and directed by Steven Berkoff), Fascinating Aïda – Cheap Flights, The Man On Her Mind, John Leguizamo – Ghetto Klown, Patricia Routledge – Facing The Music, Thrill Me (Charing Cross), Singular Sensations, Tom Stoppard’s The Invention Of Love (Theatre Royal, Haymarket), Nixon’s Nixon (Comedy), Gross Indecency (Gielgud), The Boys In The Band (Aldwych). Film includes: Our Town starring Paul Newman, Whoopi (HBO, starring Whoopi Goldberg), The Man On Her Mind (The Talking Pictures Company). Steven’s productions have been the recipients of 14 Tony Award nominations, 5 Tony Awards, as well as the recipients of the Drama Desk, Lucille Lortel, Outer Critics Circle and OBIE Awards.

LISTINGS INFO Vaughan Williams and Steven M. Levy present The Knowledge by Jack Rosenthal adapted by Simon Block directed by Maureen Lipman Monday 4 September – Saturday 11 November. Press night Monday 11 September at 7.30pm.

Charing Cross Theatre The Arches Villiers Street London WC2N 6NL http://ift.tt/HQ6NWc

http://ift.tt/2tamzcA LondonTheatre1.com

#IFTTT #LondonTheatre1.com

0 notes