This delicious 😋 choux is made by @botak_sweets 🤤🤤🤤 maigawd punya sadappp. I almost don't wanna share. Beautifully made with smooth filling, I could even smell it before I open the box, so wangi 😍 with the right amount of sweetness. Definitely something I would wanna eat again 😊 and totally made my day after that whole kfc disappointment 🙈 I also wanted to drink extra cups of coffee with this but that would be a bad idea.
.
It is available on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, RM25 for 4 pcs (he delivers by Grab Express, charges depends on location 👌🏼). I ordered the moment I saw his IG story last Saturday (and that time his Saturday slot was out 😂). Macam chipsmore, sekejap ada, sekejap teda. So, if you want it, get ready and book early. Mmg cepat sold out macam hot cakes.
.
Mum initially thought it's onde onde goreng, I almost flip 🤣 she didn't realize how big the thing actually is.
.
WhatsApp +60 11-1182 6624 for enquiries /orders ☺️ jan kasi lama.
.
Thanks again Botak Sweets, these are amazingly good 🥰👍🏼
.
.
.
#MassyEats #kotakinabalueats #kkeats #kkcity #choux #botaksweets #foodreviewer #foodblogger #blogger #foodie #foodigram #instafood #kkfood #hellosabahmy #instadessert #supportsmallbusiness #sapotlokalbah
同時也有23部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過12萬的網紅Bebechan - 日本のフランス人,也在其Youtube影片中提到,恋愛について、外国人男性をもっとよく理解するためのアドバイスをお届けする新コーナーです!デーティングから長続きする恋愛に発展させ、彼のラストガールになりましょう! New kind of video where I'll teach you how to understand foreigners...
「the last thing he wanted」的推薦目錄:
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 Bebechan - 日本のフランス人 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 HowtinFlix Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 柏霖 PoLin Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 [好雷] 他的最後願望The Last Thing He Wanted - 看板movie 的評價
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 艾米希莉的啃書觀影日常- [Netflix電影-他的最後願望The ... 的評價
- 關於the last thing he wanted 在 『他的最後願望| THE LAST THING HE WANTED』NETFLIX ... 的評價
the last thing he wanted 在 Facebook 的最讚貼文
I have been working on many things on many directions. Somehow I felt so down last week despite I have been making a lot of efforts. Have you been there?
But I feel pretty good today (Monday) somehow. I just kept moving forward without too much push and too much worrying.
I organized some photos and videos on my computer last night which I really wanted to do. I kept working out everyday even small amount of time.
Especially musicians and creative people are so self conscious about ourselves! Please be kind to yourself and take it easy! Don’t think too much and don’t worry! You are doing good! Little tiny efforts everyday and sometimes you don’t feel any improvement but that’s very normal!
Especially if you see social media too much then it’s so easy to compare yourself others so I alway say this. Don’t compare! Don’t expect too fast! Be patient is the key to success.
One thing was a great decision for me last week. I booked photo session two days with my friend @vicbrazen Vic is not only a talented photographer but he is a sweet human being! That’s so important for me as a person! Be a nice person behind guitar playing! We got so many great photos to share with you!
How about this one? I am standing in front of my big shed behind my house. I never ever though this shed is good for my photo! @vicbrazen had a great 👁 and wonderful 💡 with my @kanjikawabata #kanjiguitar ...
Hope everyone have a good Monday!! I am so thankful today!!
#monday #mondaymood #mondaymotivation #dontworry #dontcompare #dontexpecttoofast #bekindtoyourself #takeiteasy #keepupthegoodwork #beanicehuman #beaniceperson #kanjiguitar #guitar #redguitar #guitarphotography #guitarphotos #guitarphoto #shed #backyard #guitarphotoshoot #thankful #grateful #guitarwisdom #vicbrazen #tomofujita
the last thing he wanted 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳解答
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
the last thing he wanted 在 Bebechan - 日本のフランス人 Youtube 的最讚貼文
恋愛について、外国人男性をもっとよく理解するためのアドバイスをお届けする新コーナーです!デーティングから長続きする恋愛に発展させ、彼のラストガールになりましょう!
New kind of video where I'll teach you how to understand foreigners better about love! To help you get the guy you like, to help You transform a date into a long-lasting relationship. To help you, BE THE LAST GIRL for him.
チャンネル登録 / Subscribe: https://bit.ly/2D20Xng
LINE友だち追加/ Join our Line: http://nav.cx/6spz5JG
Line ID: @bebechan_couple
Free LDR guide【遠距離恋愛 無料ガイドダウンロード】
https://bebechan.net/freeguide
新コーナー「Be the ラストガール」始めました~。今回は、「外人ハンター」という言葉について自分の意見をお届けします!国際恋愛が嫌われる理由や、外人ハンターという言葉が存在している理由。そして、こういうことが本当に理解出来ない理由も!!沢山の人が反対するだろうけど、それでもいいです。自分たちを応援してくれている国際カップルさんたちの中に、これを理由で傷ついている人たちがいたので、この機会に自分の意見を言わせていただくことにしました。
これは「Be the ラストガール」の1本目の動画になります。どのように国際恋愛に発展させられるか、初デートをどう過ごしたらいいか、相手が真剣かどう見極めたらいいか。などなど!
動画を見逃さないように、チャンネル登録お忘れなく!
Welcome to a new segment called Be the last girl! In this video, I’m giving my views about Gaijin Hunter! I’m talking about why international couples are hated a lot and why gaijin hunter became a thing. Then I’ll explain why it makes no sense for me! I’m pretty sure a lot of people will not agree with me, but It’s okay, I just wanted to have this opportunity to talk about this, as a lot of our international couple subscribers suffer from this.
This is the first video of 'be the last girl', a new segment to help you understand foreigners better about love and relationships! How to enter an international relationship, how to handle the first dates and make sure he is serious.
Please subscribe to see all the upcoming videos!
#国際カップル #国際恋愛 #白人コンプ
Join us on Instagram!
その他のSNSはこちら!
▶Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bebechan_couple
Check out these playlists for more content!
プレイリストから好きなトピックをチェック!
⚫ 国際恋愛:https://bit.ly/2O7k3id
⚫ 教えてオレちゃん:https://bit.ly/32IQmr2
⚫ 日本VSフランス:https://bit.ly/2O7kklf
⚫ その他 : https://bit.ly/2y7onmJ
⚫ 私たちについて:https://bit.ly/2O8x0Zl
-------------------------
↓他の国際恋愛ブロガーさんをチェック!↓
【ハンガリー人夫と日本人妻の国際結婚ブログ】Paprika Purika
https://paprika-puprika.com/
https://www.instagram.com/hanchi6568/?hl=ja
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UHaQuA7h4ZI/hqdefault.jpg)
the last thing he wanted 在 HowtinFlix Youtube 的最佳貼文
齣戲爛到我連Anne Hathaway除衫都唔想睇了, 你可以想像有幾差未?
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/howtindog
FB page: https://www.facebook.com/howtindogs/
#陰謀 #懸疑片 #爛片
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EvqOeYIurtU/hqdefault.jpg)
the last thing he wanted 在 柏霖 PoLin Youtube 的最佳貼文
PoLin 柏霖 《Farewell 告別》Official MV
Farewell is an original song composed by PoLin 柏霖. He wrote the lyrics with Alex Bristo. About the song he says, “I guess it’s a feeling every human being must go through at some point in our lives. A feeling that makes us grow somehow. Farewell is a song that means a lot to me.”
About the MV, he always wanted to introduce contemporary dance into his songs. Therefore connecting two groups of people who can appreciate both contemporary dance and the songwriting of the music at the same time.
He invited British video maker Kie Willis to be the MV director. Kie is a parkour celebrity in the UK, one of the top parkour runners, who has started to shift his career to filmmaking. UK based Japanese dance artist Fukiko Takase plays the role of the inner version of PoLin. Together they created concepts and choreography to translate the song into dance. Fukiko and PoLin formerly danced together in the world-class dance company, Company Wayne McGregor. Fukiko has danced with Thom Yorke(Radiohead) in the MV Atoms for Peace- Ingenue. She has also choreographed for a Japanese pop singer Utada Hikaru’s Forevermore MV, and was invited to Hikaru’s Japan tour as a solo dance artist.
《Farewell 告別》是PoLin柏霖的原創作曲,詞是在倫敦家裡客廳某個晚上與朋友Alex Bristo 一起寫的。由音樂製作呂康惟完成編曲。關於這首歌,他說:「這是我們每個人都會在人生某個時間點體驗過的感覺吧!這種感覺在某面向使我們成長,這首歌其實對我有很深層的意義。」
柏霖是一個英國台灣籍舞蹈藝術家,一直以來他非常積極希望能把他的舞蹈帶進他的MV裡面。 這次他請到英國影像製作導演Kie Willis 擔任這次音樂舞蹈影像的導演。Kie 他是英國的酷跑明星,也是世界排名前列的酷跑運動員;他目前正慢慢轉移重心到影像製作電影拍攝。他邀請到他的好朋友英國日本籍舞蹈藝術家Fukiko Takase 來飾演柏霖內心的自己。他們一起共同創作分享概念完成這支簡單又不簡單的音樂錄像。
Fukiko 和柏霖曾一起在世界級舞團Company Wayne McGregor 一起共事。Fukiko 曾在英國在一首Atoms for Peace- Ingenue MV 中與英國搖滾天團Radiohead 的主唱Thom Yorke 一起拍攝舞蹈音樂錄像。她也曾為日本歌手明星宇多田光編舞,並在宇多田光Forevermore 這首歌的音樂錄像中呈現。也曾經受邀到宇多田光日本巡迴演唱會擔任獨舞。
MV 導演 MV director: Kie Willis
編舞/ 舞者 Choreographers / dancers
PoLin 柏霖 和 Fukiko Takase 高瀬譜希子
*Available on all digital music platforms (search: PoLin )*
—————————————————-
《Farewell》PoLin
I can't help my feelings and my heartache
Regret the last thing you heard me say
I need to find you and reclaim
The part of me you love, you say
My smiles lost every day
Dimming light leaves shadows in my mind
When I close my eyes
When I close my eyes
When I close my eyes...
I could feel your love in the starlight,
That night we kissed the first time
It was the highlight of my life.
When I close my eyes
When I close my eyes
When I close my eyes...
Everybody says love is so blind
They say I’ve been fooled the whole time
I tell myself that I tried
#The part of me you love, you say
My smiles lost everyday
Dimming light leaves shadows in my mind
When I close my eyes
The sun is shining again
Rays can soften my pain
Memories, the Everlasting rain
We will meet again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyrics:Alex Bristo / PoLin
Composed :PoLin
Choreographers/dancers:
Fukiko Takase and PoLin
MV director: Kie Willis
Music Producer:Kang Lu
Sound Arranger:Kang Lu
Guitar :Kuo, Yi-Hao
Recording Engineer:Sean Chen
Mixing Engineer:Sean Chen
Mixing Studio:Come Together Studio
Recording Studio: Mega Force Recording Studio
Special thanks: Studio Wayne McGregor FreeSpace Artist Program
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7y7mjAQTtWg/hqdefault.jpg)
the last thing he wanted 在 艾米希莉的啃書觀影日常- [Netflix電影-他的最後願望The ... 的推薦與評價
Netflix電影-他的最後願望The Last Thing He Wanted 影評] 由安海瑟薇、班艾佛列克和威廉達佛主演的《他的最後願望》(The Last Thing He Wanted)為本週Netflix... ... <看更多>
the last thing he wanted 在 『他的最後願望| THE LAST THING HE WANTED』NETFLIX ... 的推薦與評價
『他的最後願望| THE LAST THING HE WANTED 』NETFLIX 電影. 由前任CATWOMAN ( ANNE HATHAWAY ) 以前任. BATMAN ( BEN AFFLECK ) 主演,不 ... ... <看更多>
the last thing he wanted 在 [好雷] 他的最後願望The Last Thing He Wanted - 看板movie 的推薦與評價
Netflix 新上架的諜報驚悚片《他的最後願望》,改編自一位好像很有聲望的美國記者兼作家 Joan Didion之同名原著小說,反正我也沒聽過,就當一張白紙直接看電影。此片主打當然就是安海瑟薇!她十幾歲時演青春玉女、二十幾歲演清純玉女、那三十幾歲呢?看來正在開闢一條嚴肅驚悚片磨練演技的新戲路!光這一年來院線就有《驚濤佈局》與《黑水風暴》,我竟都沒看 XD 這部《他的最後願望》我終於看了,不管片子整體拍得怎麼樣,我能不能喜愛它的唯一指標就是能不能跟著女主角的喜怒哀樂情不自禁地投入下去... 結果很高興,安海的演技真正做到了這點!
不過說到劇情,恐怕就有點冷硬晦澀,它多方角力多線佈局拍得鬼影幢幢不清楚、甚至好像是有意讓觀眾跟著女主角看見一切卻仍然事事都不確定,而到最後給女主角「回憶如膠卷般飛過」地恍然大悟時、很遺憾地我個人仍然沒有恍然大悟而留了一堆未解疑惑 XD 還好它是重看一遍不花錢的 Netflix片,我第一次專心看完了女主角的感情追尋後,第二次再從頭看起那諜報的佈局與角力,倒是覺得其實線索都有給、甚至暗示很完整,只是它沒直白說的事情需要我們多一點聯想,然後如果能把那時代下的史實政治角力稍微回顧一下,那整個圖像就更加栩栩如生地較容易理解:
https://fr.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1920_1080/pictures/20/01/27/10/28/2719146.jpg
尼加拉瓜 1985
本片發生在 1985 年六月底七月初的尼加拉瓜,背景是 1978-1990的尼加拉瓜內戰,死亡五萬人,兩方是左翼 Sandinistas「桑定民族解放陣線」 vs 右翼 Contras「反對派」。 1984 年桑定民族解放陣線於大選贏得政權,Daniel Ortega 當選總統(他在 2007 年至今又帶領桑定成為了總統),但 1985 年美國政府馬上採取秘密行動「伊朗門事件」Iran-Contra Affair軍援反對派來推翻桑定。
伊朗門事件
這個「伊朗門事件」,為雷根總統任內被爆出來的主要醜聞,最初是非法走私軍火給伊朗以維持兩伊戰爭的均衡態勢,因為美國在 1979 伊朗革命(參考小班舊片《亞果出任務》)後兩國關係惡化,美國已不能官方軍援伊朗,只好偷偷來。後來到 1985 年,此計畫擴大到了軍援尼加拉瓜反對派,即《他的最後願望》主要劇情,相關劇情在阿湯舊片《美國製造》中也有。阿湯在《美》片飾演的運送軍火飛行員角色 Barry Seal 是真有其人,威廉達佛在《他》片的虛構角色 Dick 也很類似,只是他不親自開飛機而只負責押機送貨。
美國與法國
美國面對冷戰、面對中美洲、面對尼加拉瓜這三層次的左右之爭,政策隨選舉與政黨輪替有其變化。本來民主黨卡特總統對世界各共黨與社會主義陣營較寬容、對尼加拉瓜也保持中立、並接受桑定民族解放陣線,但 1980 共和黨雷根當選總統後積極終結世界共產勢力,在尼加拉瓜則對桑定民族解放陣線全力圍堵,並透過中情局在尼加拉瓜培植右翼「反對派」游擊隊打擊 Ortega 政府與桑定,本片安海瑟薇飾演的 Elena在報導雷根選戰時就很尖銳地提出過這質疑。而在整個 1980s雷根圍堵左派桑定時,其他西方國家並不苟同,其中法國密特朗政府更支持桑定與 Ortega 。
雷根與舒茲
本片開場是 1984 年雷根競選第二任總統期間,Elena 的採訪旅程戲份中可以看見當時的美國平民如何理所當然且開心樂觀地渴望雷根連任,每每令知道許多政府陰謀的 Elena看了翻白眼。本片雷根只有在一場遠距離的競選場合中模糊地露面,而本片具體出現的陰謀角色,則是雷根手下的國務卿 George P.Shultz。1980s 生的版友,如果小時候有跟爸媽看三台新聞,應該都記得「美國國務卿舒茲」!本片他是唯一歷史人物、也是大魔王,手下有兩官員:一個是年輕生猛的 Mark Berquist,做事較直接衝動;一個是無任所大使 Treat Morrison ,較年長有城府、謀定而後動。
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/515427964/960x0.jpg
歷史背景談到這,以下很多劇情雷!當然也夾雜著很多我的推測,也不知道推測得是否有道理,還請大家參考並討論:
車伕爸爸 Dick
女主角爸爸 Richard "Dick" McMahon 是個不聞不問不在狀況內、只想大賺一筆的軍火車伕,他從女主角 Elena童年起就耍神秘耍消失做著不為人道的工作,因為他只當個車伕、不問產品內容來源與流向,因此美國政府派來對口的 Max Epperson/Bob Weir可以委託他做這任務二十年。這趟 1985 年六月底的「退休任務」他以為能拿一百萬當退休金、等著他的卻只是一袋毒品,我認為表示這任務背後的美方主持人、以及與美方勾結的當地右派,恐怕早已準備要殺他滅口了...
記者女兒 Elena
但臨時換成了女主角 Elena來,令與美方勾結的當地右派也驚了一下:這人是一般良民,不像她爸是死了都沒人要理的軍火車伕,何況她還是赫赫有名大記者,是不能亂殺的;而且沒想到她不隨機回美,反而還自作主張留了下來、還從黑人小弟 Jones手上搶了輛車子開到了哥斯大黎加 San José!於是美方的聯絡人、那位修車廠的 Barry Sedlow ,給她假護照和新機票,希望她乖乖走人,到他們設計了陷阱的美國自治邦波多黎各 San Juan,在這 7/4 美國國慶時住進他們設下陷阱的飯店。
只是這護照上的名字是 Elise Meyer,卻有另一個計程車司機帶著 Elena McMahon的有槍枝有毒品包包來攔截她,而想想那包包其實是在從 Jones那搶來的車上、Elena 住進 San José旅館時並沒帶著走... 合理懷疑,這計程車司機是 Jones的人!而這也不是第一次 Elena在依照指示行事的途中被人攔截了,之前在美國的機場內航空公司 VIP區域還被一位航空公司小姐攔截過... 到最後我們會知道這都是法國間諜執行攔截任務、恐怕是要拉 Elena過來揭露美國惡行給法國,總之一場美法搶人大戰展開了!
美方,國務卿舒茲手下
面對滯留 San Juan 飯店的 Elena,國務卿舒茲需要手下提解法。衝動派 Mark Berquist於是勾結了牛仔帽黑人,要在旅館製造一場恐攻:表面上是要殺美國人甚至是要刺殺無任所大使,但其實恐怕是要殺 Elena!但同在國務卿舒茲手下的男主角 Treat Morrison 另有他的盤算。
他一開始對國務卿曾表達過的計畫是:要把 Elena收納進來餵她假情報、讓她以名記者身份自寫報導讓輿論支持,儘管國務卿舒茲叫他「別擋 Berquist 的路、要髒手讓他去髒」、還以吃蛋糕用湯匙之喻暗示他「你則是要做乾淨的」。於是他來到了 San Juan ,要來探探 Elena知道了多少、能不能配合。雖然他只能站在陽台上看下面恐攻發生,但突然出現在 Elena面前的兩個大漢,也說不定是他安排的?
法方,黑人小弟 Jones
在這同時,還有黑人小弟 Jones與其黨羽試圖接近 Elena,他一直關心保護 Elena、但一直藏了秘密令她很懷疑。在 Elena飛機落地時,他在右派「反對派」民兵這邊雖然是接收軍火的小主管,但後來證實是法國情報員、因此在此應該是臥底,是有計畫要接應 Elena;事實上從還在美國的機場櫃檯時,他手下的櫃檯小姐就已在試圖接近 Elena卻不可得。他帶 Elena去桑定民族解放陣線的陣營,那裡有小孩踢球老婦煮飯令 Elena情不自禁拿起相機,還有個神秘上司訓話「就順其自然發展、別節外生枝」;然後在回程車上跟 Elena透露更多時,卻被她奪槍佔車逃走了。
在旅館恐攻中,兩個站在 Elena面前的大漢也說不定是他安排的?自己更勇救 Elena開車逃走、還在當地嘉年華擺脫追兵,並主動告知「你爸是個不聞不問的軍火車伕,犧牲掉了誰都不會在意」。只可惜,Elena 打電話給 Alma 時請她查人時,得知有法國間諜也在查同一案,一緊張又逃跑了。她恐怕有懷疑是 Jones派人在醫院殺父親、並在同一天準備假護照給她要她出境?但其實,殺父親與提供護照的應該還是美方,表面看似是修車廠主人 Barry Sedlow 所做的、背後應該還有神秘人物?總之不神秘的 Treat Morrison & Mark Berquist 也知道了,一個要保她一個要殺她。
他的最後願望?
本片小班飾演的 Treat Morrison 最為爭議,演員粉絲最多但觀眾恐怕對角色最感冒,容後再提。本片片名 "The Last Thing He Wanted" 中譯翻作《他的最後願望》,怎麼看這故事就是女主 Elena從本來安全無憂的選戰線記者生活中跑來淌爸爸渾水、只為完成爸爸 Dick 「他的最後願望」這一筆生意。
Elena 在此片片頭是有報導薩爾瓦多內戰中 1982 年 El Mozote Massacre 這場大屠殺的經歷,開場就被媒體掃蕩的生命危險給嚇到了,才有接下來那一段混合著打字與口白聲景、搭配美國庸碌媒體與樂觀人民影像的片頭。史實的 1982 薩爾瓦多事件的確是場美國的媒體政宣戰,儘管眾家美媒爭相報導薩爾瓦多軍政府惡行、以及美國政府疑有的背後支持,但美國政府鋪天蓋地的反宣傳與洗白、成功令媒體噤聲改變了風向。
本片前 1/3的戲份裡,Elena 淪落到只能報導雷根競選的落魄生活,就是那時媒體噤聲的慘況,而 Elena這虛構女主角,當然就要代表美國媒體訴求重拾責任發掘真相、也要代表美國人民訴求停止忽視看見世界狀況,這角色,也許算是小説作者與電影編導給這黑暗年代安插的一位時代良心?不過作為一部個人主角的電影,那集體的時代良心還是要從個人意識出發,也許於是構成了女主角 Elena的殘破人生的設定、以及迷惘掙扎的歷程。
https://fr.web.img6.acsta.net/r_1920_1080/pictures/20/01/27/10/32/1652706.jpg
她的逃離人生
她父親 Dick 一樣有殘破人生,就像 1960s美國現代兩性分工奠定後、拼命在外賺錢卻荒廢了家庭妻小、在外只知賺錢卻對外界不聞不問的美國人身影,這身影就投射在 Dick 那「不問來源不問流向、運進運出拿錢走人」的完美軍火車伕身段上。下一代的 Elena也許年輕時熱情積極揭發真相絕不忽視、但記者當到中年開始進入挫折也乖乖服膺權威安逸下來、只能在採訪選戰時皮肉不癢地給高官一點釘子碰、給自己刷刷正義記者的存在感?
Elena 接下父親的「最後願望」運這趟軍火,是陰錯陽差;她在能搭機走人時仍咬牙留在 San José,才是真正的抉擇。小班飾演的危險情人 Treat Morrison 在第一次與她沙灘漫步的情報交換約會上,有問過她「為何來此?為何留下?」她先以公事公辦的說法敷衍「為錢來此、為獨家新聞留下」,再認真以真心說法「為爸爸來、為故事留下」,最後才直視內心黑暗創傷「不知為何而來、只知失了重心、這次不能走人」因為「如果這次我再 walk away、我的人生都會 walk away」。
美國人與美國心,多少男女懷有遠大夢想、但多少人在追尋一個幻夢時反而遠離了真實?過去的離婚爸爸 Dick 追求個人事業而家庭破裂遠離女兒、今日的離婚媽媽 Elena一樣追求個人事業而家庭破裂遠離女兒,過去的軍火車伕爸爸 Dick 做國際貿易不聞不問拿錢走人、今日的記者女兒 Elena看到這麼多不可告人之事也要不聞不問搭機走人嗎?這 "Walk Away"的逃離人生用在男性與女性身上、用在家庭與志業上,都是相通的。Elena 剩下最掙扎的挑戰,大概就是面臨一通通直指自己過去缺憾的女兒電話時,要認清那絕不可再犯的 "Walk Away"之意涵究竟是什麼。
https://fr.web.img4.acsta.net/r_1920_1080/pictures/20/01/27/10/32/1669866.jpg
他最不願發生的事?
本片片名的主詞畢竟是 "he" 而不是 "she",那「最後願望」的主詞是男人而非女人,那會不會片名 "The Last Thing He Wanted" 不一定指「他的最後願望」而也可能指「他最不願發生的事」?而這個「他」所指的人,在本片除了威廉達佛飾演的 Dick 外,我覺得最有可能的還是小班飾演的 Treat Morrison。
這位 Treat是國務卿面前的紅人,而且是當競爭者 Mark 被國務卿說「可以當 135分之一」的眾議員時、Treat 可是被暗示「可以當一中之一」的總統大位呢!本片裡成長變化同樣戲劇化、但戲份較少表現較隱晦(或是演技較平板 XD )的角色就是他了。他一開始看似只是國務卿幕僚、後來揭露是哪都能去的無任所大使,他的勞工家庭力爭上游之經歷被國務卿覆述了一遍、前途被國務卿看好取向也被國務卿提點。
他一開始是要「拉攏記者 Elena為我們宣傳」、有別於 Mark Berquist直接買凶殺人,中間被提醒「你是逐大位人才、做事如用湯匙吃蛋糕要撇乾淨」、他也終於來到 San José近身看看這 Elena到底該如何面對。他對 Elena「為何前來、為何留下」的答案一次次追問直指內心,恐怕才是得到 Elena與他交心成為一夜情人的觸動點;他有很多機會可以解決 Elena,但他一次次提供 Elena庇護給她避風頭;他知道了 Elena「不願再 walk away」而感動,恐怕也只想把她保護起來希望她別出頭?
https://fr.web.img6.acsta.net/r_1920_1080/pictures/20/01/27/10/32/1683906.jpg
神秘男子 Bob Weir
不過本片 Treat Morrison 並不是最神秘的陰謀者,在暗中默默操控 Elena的另有其人!恐怕就是名字提了很多次、演員戲份卻極少的 Max Epperson/Bob Weir?電影接近最後他終於在黑暗中亮相、說了很神秘的幾句話、Elena 看見聽見後瞬間將許多事連在一起了!神秘的他,到底在本片中留下了哪些線索呢?
他二十年來跟 Dick 一起做生意,是通家之好?
Alma 查出他每到一處,就有一個事件將結束?
Jones 一聽他名字,就肅然起敬帶 Elena過來?
他訓話 Jones竟是在桑定民族解放陣線軍那邊?
他還和民宿老闆 Paul Schuster合資開了民宿?
電影開頭在 Elena房間塞入爸爸照片,也是他?
在泛美機場櫃檯 Elena被請走時,他也在那裡?
在飯店恐攻 Jones英雄救美時,他也在飯店外?
而 Treat聽 Elena說他出現時如臨大敵嚇一跳!
重點,都還是那個膠卷與筆記等等消息嗎?
此片最後,到底藏鏡人 Bob Meir、民宿老闆 Schuster、法國探員 Jones、乃至他們好像都有點瓜葛的桑定民族解放陣線、還有一個從頭到尾沒說身份的黑人裸泳小弟... 到底他們彼此有何關係?說實話電影並沒拍明顯,Elena 直到片尾退場雖連起了好多事情但恐怕仍狐疑、我們觀眾也仍然懷疑,也許正如她片頭片尾所提問的「誰」已漸漸清楚、但「為什麼」仍然是個謎。
我唯一比較能肯定的,是 Bob Meir 這行人一直在背後推動著 Elena、甚至是推動她去抽絲剝繭找真相、然候讓她自動把「美國非法軍援 Contra 」這個歷史上的「伊朗門事件」公諸於世;而國務卿舒茲與其手下 Mark Berquist與 Treat Morrison 則是要替政府擦脂抹粉、掩蓋罪行,可以簡單地靠殺掉 Elena來達成、可以靠誤導 Elena來替他們宣傳、可以透過 Elena取得關鍵事證來銷毀、如果東窗事發也可以栽贓 Elena... 最後很遺憾,關鍵事證被搶走了、事情再也壓不住,那就咬牙犧牲 Elena當替死鬼吧,The last thing he wanted。
看此片,觀眾也許會覺得很雜亂、疑雲重重且不說清楚、就算部分線索有鋪陳過但鋪陳得未必有條理,總之一種看懸疑諜報片時「恍然大悟」的暢快感做不出來,總令人覺得太多事情難以肯定、太多關聯缺乏線索。只是我個人較看重此片的「情」,重點就在跟著安海瑟薇飾演 Elena的眼光,去體驗她的喜怒哀樂與遺憾、並為她殘破一生的救贖而感動。她的人生的確很殘破,父女夫妻母女事業等多種關係都落一場空,就像她的裸戲也在強調這身皮囊的沈重創傷;但最終,就算她冒著讓女兒失去媽媽的風險,也要頂天立地地向女兒示範圓滿人生的關鍵品質:never wall away。
只是比較遺憾,我覺得小班的 Treat Morrison 這線格局很夠、戲份雖不長但也算完整、只可惜他演得較無感。不然,一個有困苦出身、有力爭上游、有人生缺憾、有是非價值、卻也有政治包袱、而於多種價值衝突中一再努力求全卻不可得的美國人才,他三番兩次安排機位解救交心的女主角卻總差一步、最後不得已痛下殺手冷靜闔上這一頁,該令人看得多痛心呀?總之此片有不少地方很可惜,但我終究分分秒秒都很投入地看了下去,並紮實感到一種唏噓。那就給個 [好雷] 推薦一下,反正 Netflix多看一片不花錢,喜歡有情諜報的觀眾以及安海的粉絲,都值得試著看看。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmrU6gMc1Lc
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 27.246.107.150 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/movie/M.1582447343.A.CEE.html
※ 編輯: mysmalllamb (1.171.46.48 臺灣), 02/26/2020 13:10:48
... <看更多>