關於 notion call out ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

（轉）

【有關司法機構被官營媒體攻擊的聲明】

《人民日報》於2020年12月27日發表一篇抨擊香港法院在一宗涉及知名人士的案件中批准被告人保釋的評論文章，而文章發表的時候該獲准保釋的決定已進入上訴程序，我們就此表示嚴重關注。文章攻擊法院的判決，並形容《蘋果日報》創辦人黎智英「惡名昭彰，極度危險」，以及是「亂港禍首」。該報斷言在黎智英案中，不准保釋須是前設的常規，並要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」。文章又認為已經有足夠證據顯示黎智英已觸犯國安法第55條，該條訂明某些案件可以移交中國大陸審訊。當上訴委員會將於2020年12月31日就政府申請上訴許可召開聆訊，由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登該篇評論文章，令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義。

作為致力守護長久以來珍而重之的法治和司法獨立的法律執業者，我們認為有責任提出以下關注，並以個人名義僅此聲明：

1、 官營媒體對司法機關毫無基礎的攻擊應當停止

在數位親建制人士及官方控制和營運的媒體 － 包括《文匯報》及《大公報》－ 要求「司法改革」及嘲諷「黃官」的日益壓力下，出現上述評論文章，我們深表憂慮。我們注意到司法機構自今年9月以來，已就對其日趨激烈的攻擊發表了四份聲明。

誠然，公眾有權討論及評論法院的裁決及其根據的事實及法律，惟討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑，或企圖向法院就某些案件的裁決施加壓力，否則公眾對司法機構的聲譽、專業和獨立勢必受到嚴重破壞。特別是《人民日報》刊登的評論文章，會被視為明顯地向法院將要審理的案件施加壓力，此舉可以是違反審理中的案件不應評論的原則，以及有損公平審訊。這些攻擊應當立即停止。

我們亦呼籲律政司採取行動，維護司法機構免受官方控制或營運的媒體作出毫無基礎和不實指控。正如高浩文法官在其判詞中指出，「在普通法司法管轄區，例如香港，傳統上法官和司法機構是不會公開地就針對其裁決和個人而作出的不公平和不適當的批評為自己辯護，而傳統上負責律政的官員則有責任反駁錯誤的指控，以維護司法機構和個別法官。」

2、 公平審訊及無罪假定

不論如何解讀，香港特區政府有法律責任保護每一位香港居民的基本權利不受侵犯，包括公平審訊的權利。我們質疑一旦涉嫌觸犯國安法第55條下，該等權利是否仍然受到保障。理由有兩方面：第一，我們質疑中國大陸在刑事審訊的程序中，對公平審訊是否有足夠的保障，那是由於中國尚未落實《公民與政治權利國際公約》，這亦是長久以來為人詬病。第二，12名香港居民於2020年12月28日在深圳鹽田法院受審的案件，沒有公開審訊，他們亦沒有權選擇他們委託的法律代表，令人質疑香港特區政府有否履行其法律責任。

上述關注，反映國安法無法為被告人提供足夠的基本人權保障，並在法律上存在很多不確定性。正如英國最高法院院長賓漢（Lord Bingham）在其著作《The Rule of Law》中說明，法治的核心是在一個地方裡，所有不論屬公共或私人的個人和機構，都必須受法律的約束及保障，而法律必須是公開和預先頒佈，以及由法院公開執行。因此，我們促請有關當局嚴格遵守法治原則，自我約束，以及謹慎運用國安法賦予的權力。

帝理邁
林洋鋐
彭皓昕
蔡頴德
黃耀初

2020年12月30日


【Statement on Continuous Attacks on the Judiciary and
Art. 55 of the National Security Law】

We note with grave concern that on 27 December 2020, l the People’s Daily published anr editorial piece criticizing a decision in respect of a bail application that is currently subject to an ongoing appeal. In attacking the judicial decisions in Apple Daily founder, Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-yin’s case, the People’s Daily has labelled him as a “notorious and extremely dangerous” and an “insurgent”. It added that the presumption against bail should be the norm in cases such as Lai’s and urged the judiciary to “make the right decision”. The commentary further claimed that there were sufficient grounds in Mr Lai’s case for invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law (NSL) - which allows certain cases to be transferred to Mainland China for trial. This type of commentary appearing in a newspaper run/controlled by the Central Government, when the Appeals Committee would soon be hearing the Hong Kong Government’s application for leave to appeal on 31 December 2020, is particularly worrying and borders on an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.

We, the undersigned, in our personal capacity and as lawyers committed to safeguarding the Rule of Law and the independence of judiciary, we feel duty bound to draw attention to the following matters:

(1) Unfounded attacks against the judiciary by state-run/controlled media should cease

The above-mentioned commentary was made amid intensifying calls for “judicial reform” and deriding “yellow judges” from various pro-establishment figures and state-run/controlled media, including Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po. To that end, we note that the judiciary has had to issue a total of four statements since September this year, in light of the intensifying attacks mounted against it.

Whilst members of the public have the right to discuss and comment on court rulings for reasons grounded on fact or law, such discussion should not cross into bare assertions, imputations of political bias, or attempts to put pressure on the Judiciary to decide specific cases in a particular manner. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity, professionalism and independence of the judiciary would be seriously undermined. Notably, the commentary published by People’s Daily, could be perceived as putting pressure on the judiciary to decide a pending case in a particular manner, which breaches the sub judice rule and could prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. These attacks should cease immediately.

We also call on the Secretary of Justice to take action to defend the Judiciary against unwarranted accusations led by state-run/controlled media. As Judge Russell Coleman noted in his judgment, “it has been the traditional view that Judges and the Judiciary do not speak out in defence of their decisions or to defend themselves against unfair and inappropriate criticism [...] in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong, it was the tradition that the minister responsible for the administration of justice has the duty of defending the Judiciary or individual Judges against wrong accusations”.

(2) Concerns about fair trial and presumption of innocence

The Hong Kong Government has the legal obligation to protect any Hong Kong residents, whose rendition is sought, from violation of his/her fundamental and non-derogable rights, including the right to fair trial. We question whether such rights can be guaranteed upon invoking of Article 55 of the NSL. The reason is two-folded. First, we question whether China has adequate protection on the right to fair trial during the criminal process, as mainland China has not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has been long criticised on such. Second, the fact that the 12 Hong Kong residents who stood trial at Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court on 28 December 2020 were denied the right to open trial and the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, casts considerable doubt on whether the Hong Kong Government can fulfil its legal obligation.

These concerns reflect that the NSL lacks adequate protections to safeguard an accused’s fundamental human rights and lacks legal certainty. As Lord Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law, at the core of the rule of law is the notion “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”. Accordingly, we urge the authorities to uphold strict adherence to the rule of law and exercise restraint and caution in invoking its power under the NSL.
Mark Daly
Michelle Tsoi Wing Tak
Kenneth Lam
Davyd Wong
Janet Pang Ho Yan

Dated this 30 December 2020

前天，為台中一福堂的火災覺得難過。

今天早上，在查看《台灣婦產科百年史》時，看到張耀東醫師的介紹，想找找張婦產科的現況，卻查到這則 https://www.facebook.com/groups/185427322881021/permalink/381414979948920/
覺得好難過喔！

2014年回台中訪談桂美姊時，桂美姊跟我提到張婦產科。當年的訪談心得：

As in all higher primates, only more so in the human case, prior experience and learning loom large in the way mothers and allomothers nurture infants in their charge. Compared with other mammals, like dogs or cats, human mothers have a near absence of what ethologists call "fixed action patterns". Nurture, in our species, is more nearly an art form passed down from mothers or others to subsequent generations. Contrary to the notion of a "maternal instinct", a person's responsivness to the needs of infants is to a large degree acquired through experience --- through both the experience of nurturing and the experience of being nurtured. As we have seen throughout this book, both males and females start out with an innate capacity for empathy with others and for nurture, but past experiences along with proximate cues are critically important for the development and expression of nurturing responses.
Mothers and Others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding By Sarah Blaffer Hrdy

很多朋友都說我的想法很「前衛」、很「新潮」，讓人跟不上。其實，我倒覺得我的想法相當簡單而原始啊！只是想探究媽媽跟孩子從生命起始點開始建立的點點滴滴。這是個相互成就的過程。若追本溯源，這還關係到我們的媽媽是怎麼養育我們的。

父權、現代化、醫療化......種種因素不斷介入破壞這連結，這一切發生於很近期，很短的時間。即便是女性主義，在媽媽與孩子的關係上，有些流派有很大的偏差，對媽媽與孩子一體的部分，避而不談。

昨天，與桂美姊的訪談，談到她第一個工作，在台中當時的貴族醫院：張耀東婦產科。桂美姊強調，像這樣的貴族醫院，照顧上還是把孩子放在媽媽身邊一起照顧的，即便當時產後退奶餵小孩配方奶已是常規。我想，在台灣的脈絡，把孩子放在嬰兒室比我原本想像來得晚，值得好好探究，寫進論文裡。

而另外心中掛念的是沒落的台中舊市區，有沒有復興的可能？我滿懷期待。
http://youtu.be/GZwUjLJqCbs

台中大都會歌劇院，無法喚起我對台中的情感，在大樓林立的七期，滿懷憂傷。

圖片來源： https://goo.gl/KPB1gs

#不斷消失的老建築

【水世界】的前製設定與現場劇照

WATERWORLD (1995)
In celebration of today’s anniversary of this wet mess/epic. Let’s celebrate the hard work this crew put into bringing this world to life. Water movies are never easy but when it comes to this movie anytime you bring it up and a crew member from it is in earshot, the stories pour out. Not always bad, I know a AC that said he had a blast, he loved the boat rides out and all the camaraderie the crew had to have to get thru it. To all the crew that helped bring WATERWORLD to life, We salute you and thanks for the memories. I personally enjoy this hot mess of a movie, it’s one of the last ones of its kind...done practically...in a way.
let’s take a deepest of dives into WATERWORLD

The director, Kevin Reynolds, knew there would be problems before production had even started, “During pre-production. Because having never shot on water to that extent before, I didn’t really realise what I was in for. I talked to Spielberg about it because he’d gone to do Jaws, and I remember, he said to me, “Oh, I would never shoot another picture on water”.
“When we were doing the budget for the picture, and the head of the studio, Sid Sheinberg, we were talking about it and I said, “Steven told me that on Jaws the schedule for the picture was 55 days, and they ended up shooting a 155 days”. Because of the water. And he sat there for a moment and he said, “You know, I’m not sure about the days, but I do know they went a hundred percent over budget”. And so, Universal knew the potential problems of shooting on water. It’s monstrous.”
The film began with a projected budget of $100 million which had reportedly increased to $175 million by the end of production. The principle photography had overrun for at least thirty days more than originally planned due to one major decision.

Whereas today they would film in water tanks with partially built sets, employing green screens to fake the locations, back in 1995 they decided to build everything full size and shoot out on the ocean.

This causes extra logistical problems on top of those that already come with making a major action blockbuster. Cast and crew have to be transported to sets. The camera boats and sets float out of position and will have to be reset between takes taking up valuable production time.

The first draft of Waterworld was written by Peter Radar, a Harvard graduate who wanted to break into the film business. His contact in the film industry was Brad Kevoy, an assistant to the legendary director Roger Corman.

Roger Corman is best known for making films very quickly on a small budget. He also liked to give young talent a chance to direct and write their own films. Brad informed Peter that if he could write a Mad Max rip off, he would arrange to finance and let him direct the picture.

Radar came back and pitched the idea for what would become Waterworld. Kevoy took one look at him and said,

“Are you out of your mind? This would cost us three million dollars to make this movie!”
So Radar kept hold of the idea and decided to re-write the script but, this time, going wild. He wrote what he wanted to see on-screen, limited only by his imagination, not a real world production budget.

He managed to get the newly written script shown to a pair of producers with whom he had made contact with. They loved it and ironically they passed it onto Larry Gordon. He shared the enthusiasm saying it had the kind of cinematic possibilities he was looking for. A deal was signed on Christmas Eve of 1989.

As further script rewrites progressed, it became clear that Waterworld was too big for the Larry Gordon’s production company to undertake by themselves. In February 1992, a deal was signed with Universal Pictures to co-produce and co-finance the film. This was now six years after the first draft had been written.

Universal had signed director Kevin Reynolds to Waterworld. Whilst he was finishing his latest film, Rapa Nui, pre-production for Waterworld was already underway.

The decision was taken that the largest set for the film, known as the atoll, would be built full size. The atoll was the primary location for film and in the story served as the location for a small population of survivors.

The logic behind this decision was due to the high percentage of live action filming required in this location, as well as a huge action set piece. No sound stage would be big enough to incorporate this number of scenes and it was crucial that we see the mariner sail his boat into the atoll, turn around and set out again. A full-size construction was the only way to go as the use of miniature and special effects would be impractical.

The next problem was deciding where to build this huge set. After much research, Kawaihae Harbour in Hawaii was chosen as the location. The atoll could be constructed in the harbour and rotated when needed thus allowing for open sea in the background. Later towards the end of principle photography, the atoll could be towed out into the open sea for the filming of the big action sequences which would be impractical to shoot in an enclosed harbour.

Director Kevin Reynolds also discussed the possibility of using the same water tank as James Cameron’s The Abyss, which had filmed there around five years ago,

“We had even entertained the notion of shooting at that big nuclear reactor facility where they had shot The Abyss, to use it for our underwater tank. But we found it in such a state of disrepair that economically it just wasn’t feasible. We didn’t have as much underwater work as they did. Most of The Abyss is interiors and underwater and model work, ours is mostly surface exterior.”

The production company had originally envisioned building the atoll by linking approximately one hundred boats together and building upon this foundation, just like the characters in the film. The production crew set out to search Hawaii and get hold of as many boats as possible.

During this search, a unique boat in Honolulu caught their attention. Upon further investigation, they discovered it was built by Navitech, a subsidiary of the famous aircraft production company, Lockheed.

They approached Lockheed with the strange request of figuring out how they could build the foundations of the atoll. Lockheed found the request unusual but didn’t shy away from the challenging. They agreed to design the atoll foundation and Navitech would construct it.

Meanwhile, an 11ft miniature model of the atoll was sent out to a model ship testing facility in San Diego. Scaled wave tanks are used to determine the effects of the open sea on large scale miniature models of new untested ship designs. This would help determine what would happen with the unusual design of the atoll when it was out of the harbour.

The atoll, when finished, was approximately ¼ mile in circumference. It took three months to construct and is rumoured to cost around $22 million. As the atoll would be used out on the open sea, it required a seafaring license. Nothing like this had been done before and after much deliberation, it was eventually classed as an unmanned vessel. This meant that all cast and crew would have to vacate the set whilst it was towed into position. By the end of production, the atoll was towed out to sea a total of five times.

Shooting out on the open sea presented a series of logistical problem as Reynolds describes,

“We had an entire navy, basically – I mean, this atoll was positioned about a mile off-shore in Hawaii, it was anchored to the bottom of the ocean so it could rotate. What you don’t think about are things like, you’re shooting on this atoll to maintain this notion that there’s no dry land, you always have to shoot out to sea. Away from the land. So we chose a location where we had about a 180 degree view of open water. Nevertheless, any time when you’re shooting, there could be a ship appear in the background, or something like that, and you had to make a choice. Do I hold up the shot, wait for the ship to move out, or do we shoot and say we’re going to incur this additional cost in post-production of trying to remove the ship from the background.

And at that time, CGI was not at the point it is now, it was a bigger deal. And so, even though if you’re shooting across the atoll and you’re shooting out onto open water, when you turn around and do the reverses, for the action, you had to rotate the entire atoll, so that you’re still shooting out to open water. Those are the kinds of things that people don’t realise.

Or something as simple as – if you’re shooting a scene between two boats, and you’re trying to shoot The Mariner on his craft, another boat or whatever, you’ve got a camera boat shooting his boat, and then the other boat in the background. Well, when you’re on open water things tend to drift apart. So you have to send lines down from each of those boats to the bottom, to anchor them so that they somewhat stay in frame. When you’ve got a simple shot on land, you set up the camera position, you put people in front of the camera and then you put background in there. But when you’re on water, everything’s constantly moving apart, drifting apart, so you have to try to hold things down somewhat.

And these are simple things that you don’t really realise when you’re looking at it on film. But logistically, it’s crazy. And each day you shoot on the atoll with all those extras, we had to transport those people from dry land out to the location and so you’re getting hundreds of people through wardrobe and everything, and you’re putting them on boats, transporting them out to the atoll, and trying to get everybody in position to do a shot. And then when you break for lunch, you have to put everybody on boats and take them back in to feed them.”

The final size of the atoll was determined by the size of the Mariners boat, the trimaran. The dimensions for the trimaran were finalised very early on in pre-production, allowing all other vehicles and sets to be sized accordingly.

Production required two trimarans boats which are so called because they have three hulls. The first was based on the standard trimaran blueprint and built for speed but also had to accommodate a secret crew below decks.

During wide and aerial shots it would have to look like Costner himself was piloting the boat. In reality, a trained crew could monitor and perform the real sailing of the boat utilising specially built controls and television monitors below deck.

The second trimaran was the trawler boat which could transform into the racer through the use of special practical effects rigs. Both of these boats were constructed in France by Jeanneau. Normally this type of vessel requires a year to construct but production needed two boats in five months!

Normally once the boat had been constructed, Jeammeau would deliver it on the deck of a freighter, requiring a delivery time of around a month. This delay was unacceptable and so the trimarans were dismantled into sections and taken by a 747 air freighter to the dock Hawaii. Upon arrival, a further month was required to reassemble the boat and get them prepared for filming.

sets recreating the inside of the tanker were built using forced perspective in a huge 1000ft long warehouse which had an adjoining 2000ft field. In this field, they built the set of the oil tankers deck, again constructed using forced perspective. Using the forced perspective trick, the 500ft long set could be constructed to give the impression that it was really twice as long.

There’s more to a film than just it’s sets and filming locations. Over two thousand costumes had to be created with many of the lead actors costumes being replicated many times over due to wear and tear.

This is not an uncommon practice for film production, but due to the unique look of the people and the world they inhabit, it did create some headaches. One costume was created with so many fish scales the wardrobe department had to search the entire island of Hawaii looking for anyone who could supply in the huge quantity required.

Makeup had to use waterproof cosmetics, especially on the stunt players. As everyone had a sun burnt look, a three-sided tanning booth was setup. The extras numbering in their hundreds, with ages ranging from six to sixty-five, passed through the booth like a production line to receive their spray tan. The extras then moved onto costume before finally having their hair fixed and becoming ready for the day.

In some scenes, extras were actually painted plywood cutouts to help enhance the number of extras on the set. This can easily be seen in one particular shot on board the Deez super tanker.

Filming on the water is not only a difficult and time-consuming process but also very dangerous. It’s been reported that Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino nearly drowned on their first day of filming.

Waterworld’s star Kevin Costner reported having a near-death experience when filming a scene in which the mariner ties himself to his catamaran to survive a storm. The pounding water caused him to black out and nearly drown.

Unbeknownst to most of the crew, Kevin Costner’s stunt double was riding his jet ski across 40 miles of open ocean between his home on Maui and the film’s set on the Big Island. When he didn’t show up for work one day, the production team phoned his wife, who informed them he had already left for work. The stunt double’s jet ski had run out of gas halfway through his “commute” and a storm had swept him farther out to sea. It took a helicopter most of the day to find him. The stunt doubles name was Laird Hamilton.

As well as the logistical problems of creating a film of this scale and on water, they also had to deal with the press who seemed intent on wanting the film to fail. Director Kevin Reynolds discusses the situation,

“It was huge, we were constantly fighting – people wanted to have bad press. That was more exciting to them than the good news. I guess the most egregious example of that that I recall was that the publicist told me that one day…we’d been out the day before and we were doing a shot where we sent two cameras up on a mast of the trimaran and we wanted to do a shot where they tilled down from the horizon down to the deck below. We’re out there, we’re anchored, we’re setting the shot up and a swell comes in, and I look over and the mast is sort of bending.

And I turned to the boatmaster and I said, “Bruno, is this safe?”. And he looks up the mast and he goes, “No”. So I said, “Okay, well, we have to get out as I can’t have two guys fall off from 40 feet up”. So, we had to break out of the set-up, and go back in a shoot something else and we lost another half-day.

Anyway, the next day the publicist is sitting in his office and he gets this call from some journalist in the States and he goes, “Okay. Don’t lie to me – I’ve had this confirmed from two different people. I want the facts, and I want to hear about the accident yesterday, we had two cameramen fall off the mast and were killed”.

And, he goes, “What are you talking about?”. And he goes, “Don’t lie to me, don’t cover this up, we know this has happened”. It didn’t happen! People were so hungry for bad news because it was much more exciting than…they just said it, and you know, it hurt us.”
Upon release, the press seemed to be disappointed that the film wasn’t the massive failure they were hoping it to be. Universal Studios told Kevin Reynolds that one critic came out of an early screening in New York and in a disappointed tone said,

“Well, it didn’t suck.”

It is true that during principle photography the slave colony set sank and had to be retrieved. However due to bad press, the rumour became much bigger and to this day when you mention the sinking set, most people assume it was the huge atoll.

During production, press nicknamed the film “Kevin’s Gate” and “Fishtar”, referring to 1980’s box office failures Heaven’s Gate and Ishtar. Heaven’s Gate failed so badly it led to the sale of United Artists Studio and has become synonymous with failure in Hollywood.

As well as the exaggerated set problems and other various production rumours, there were also difficulties with the script. In a risky move, the film was green lit and moved into production without a finalised script.

The final total is a reportedly thirty-six rewrites. One of the writers involved was Joss Whedon. Joss had worked on many scripts before becoming a director having being at the helm of both The Avengers and the sequel Avengers: Age Of Ultron. He described his experience on Waterworld as,

“Seven weeks of hell”
Everything came to a head just three weeks before the end of principle photography. Kevin Reynolds who was an old friend of Kevin Costner allegedly walked off set or was fired. There was no official statement on what happened.

When Reynolds left the production this event caused many changes to be made. Composer Mark Isham had already composed approximately two-thirds of the film’s score by the time Reynolds left and that event ultimately caused him to leave production. As Mark describes in this interview excerpt,

“Kevin Reynolds quit the film, which left me working for Kevin Costner, who listened to what I had written and wanted a completely different point of view. He basically made a completely different film — he re-cut the entire film, and in his meeting with me he expressed that he wanted a completely different approach to the score. And I said, “oh let me demonstrate that I can give that to you”, so I presented him with a demo of my approach to his approach, and he rejected that and fired me. What I find a lot in these big films, because the production schedules are so insane, that the directors have very little time to actually concentrate on the music.”
Rumours report that Costner took control of production. He directed the last few weeks of principle photography and edited the final cut of the film that was released in cinemas.

Reynolds discusses his surprise at discovering that one of the most famous scenes from what is known as the extended version, was left on the cutting room floor,

“…it would have differed from what you saw on the screen to some extent, and one of the things I’ve always been perplexed by in the version that was released, theatrically, although subsequently the longer version included it, and the reason that I did the film, was that at the very end of the picture, at the very end of the script, there’s a scene when they finally reach dry land and The Mariner’s sailing off and he leaves the two women behind, and in the script they’re standing up on this high point and they’re watching him sail away, and the little girl stumbles on something.
And they look down and clear the grass away and that’s this plaque. And it says, “Here, near this spot, 1953, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary first set foot on the summit of Everest”. And that was in script and I was like, “Oh, of course! Wow, the highest point on the planet! That would have been dry land!”. And we got it! We shot that. And they left it out of the picture. And I’m like, “Whaaat?!”. It’s like the Statue of Liberty moment in Planet of the Apes. And I was like, “Why would you leave that out?”

Written by John Abbitt | Follow John on twitter @UKFilmNerd

If any the crew cares to share any of their experiences on it please comment.
Thanks for reading
If you want more deep dives visit
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewstories/?ref=share