Видео

I remember it was a very dark setting, and people all stood up for the entire time. That might be the factor that caused the lack of video content during that concert. Thank you for comment, please check out other contents and maybe even subscribe if you like it.

Thank you so much for the comment, I actually haven't seen the TV series, Fresh Off The Boat. But We cover a lot of Asian contents as well as Oscar contenders, please check out more on our youtube channel.

Yes, I agreed the whole cast was flawless.

Thank you for your comment, please check more contents on our site!

Thank you so much for your comment, I understand your legal comment, the criminal lawsuit was dropped, but in July 2022, Yamaguchi was ordered to pay approximately 3.32 million yen in compensation in a civil lawsuit. It took seven years for her damages to be recognized. So legally, can't use the term as “victim of sexual assault." But this film wasn't released in Japan even though incident was happened in Japan, this shows you how Japan is backed up when it comes to sexual assault case regardless of showing many festivals around the world. In this film there's a scene that perpetrator dragged her out of taxi cab even though she refused to get off through the surveillance camera from the hotel. The security camera footage from the hotel used in the film was provided to him under a pledge with the hotel not to use it for any purpose other than for the trial. But she used that footage in the film. There's some fraud in her approach, but in order to prove what was happened she had go through so much emotion and even contemplating suicide with hate comments in social media. This is the fact that only 4% of sexually assaulted women in Japan report their cases to law enforcement. It’s common for sexual assault victims to struggle with filing a police report right away because of the trauma.If the report is delayed for a few days, it can be difficult to uncover the physical evidence that they were assaulted. I had an interview with Shiori Ito out of the Sundance, this interview might give you an idea what she sent through her head. It's very difficult deal with case, but it's clear that only 4% of sexually assaulted women in Japan report their cases to law enforcement when this incident happened back then. This is something that we need consider. cinemadailyus.com/interviews/black-box-diaries-exclusive-interview-with-director-shiori-to/

@@cinemadailyus Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m impressed by your perspective, which is certainly different from that of a general reviewer. However, I feel there is an undeniable difference in perception, making it difficult to fully understand certain aspects from a Japanese point of view. My response may be a bit lengthy, but I would like to offer a counterargument to some of the points you made. "This shows you how Japan is backed up" I find this line of reasoning somewhat unfair, as it effectively silences any opposing viewpoint. The filmmakers are well aware of the high hurdles to release this film domestically in Japan. From the outset, they adopted a strategy to “gain acclaim abroad and use that as pressure on Japan.” Incidentally, the notion of “foreign pressure” has often been mentioned by those involved, both in social media comments and elsewhere. Have there been any protests against the attempt to screen this film? In fact, I’d actually like to see the film myself out of curiosity, to see just how many contradictions it contains. However, I suspect that the creators may not want Japanese audiences to see it. Here are four reasons for this assumption: First, as you may know, they have not secured the necessary permissions to use certain individuals’ images and audio, which is a serious issue. Without proper permissions, they risk facing lawsuits. Second, some of those directly involved in the “incident” were not invited to previews, and the film’s screenings in Japan have been kept almost completely under wraps. Personally, I believe that, as a gesture of appreciation, it would have been courteous to invite people like the former agent and the journalist who arranged the initial press conference to the screening. Third, the people involved in the court proceedings could easily recognize any inaccuracies or fabrications. Put simply, depending on the content, if there are elements that are either “untrue” or “misleadingly presented as truth,” Yamaguchi’s side may have grounds to sue. Fourth, it would be obvious to Japanese audiences if there’s an element of "scripted or staged performance" due to the way lines are delivered. While it may be difficult for people in Western countries, where intonation is often more emphasized, Japanese people can instantly detect from a speaker's intonation and delivery if something feels rehearsed or contrived. For these reasons, I suspect that the filmmakers are only putting on a show of effort to release it in Japan, but may actually be reluctant to do so. "The perpetrator dragged her out of the taxi cab" This part genuinely raises a question for me. Is there really such a scene? I have never heard of any footage like that being presented in court. If there was indeed video evidence of a man violently dragging a woman out, why wasn’t it submitted in court as clear evidence? (Let’s leave out any discussion of a government cover-up here. If we go down that road, any evidence against her could be dismissed on that basis.) Why would new footage that wasn’t even submitted in court suddenly appear now? It only deepens the mystery. "There's some fraud in her approach" While saying this, I can’t understand why she’s still being praised. Evidence obtained through unlawful means would normally be inadmissible in court, wouldn’t it? Why doesn’t the same logic apply here? To me, your argument seems to imply that “any means are acceptable if it’s for justice.” But how is that different from terrorism, which Americans tend to vehemently oppose? "This is the fact that only 4% of sexually assaulted women in Japan..." Regarding this, I couldn’t find any articles apart from her statement, so I’d like to simply ask: where is the source for this? To use a phrase often heard in Japan, “Where’s the source?” And what exactly does “4%” refer to, or what criteria is it based on? Rape, rape by incapacitation, sexual assault, or simply harassment? Was it a completed assault or an attempt? I assume the data on these distinctions is presented in the film? (I don’t believe it is.) In summary, you seem to think, “She’s wonderful, so she must be right,” “She’s pitiful, so we should support her,” or “She’s a heroine, so anything she does is forgivable.” You’re letting emotions guide your reasoning, leaving little room for rationality. (As I’ve written in various places before), it seems as if you’re living in a time when accusations alone are enough to condemn a person, reminiscent of the era of witch hunts, with no evidence required. This hardly seems like the approach of people from a country with excellent journalism. Granted, perfect neutrality may not exist. However, exalting a film that presents only one side of the story, from one of the involved parties, is not journalism. It’s wrong, and something I cannot condone.

@@奈々氏浩 I will leave my replies in two parts. Here's the first one. I personally think it would be difficult for us to discuss any counterparts without seeing the film. Because most of the arguments are in the film. Her film would be presented at the DOC NYC, which is the largest documentary festival in North America, there’s an online option that you can watch from wherever the country that you are currently residing. That’s coming up next week. As for your counterpart argument, the first thing that you pointed out, “This shows you how Japan is backed up”…In general(what I mean U.S and other countries beside Japan), rape or nonconsensual sexual intercourse is the forcing of a partner to engage in sexual activity against his/her will, by violence, threats. But the crime in Japan has been named Nonconsensual Sexual Intercourse since the 2023 revision of the Penal Code, formerly, the crime was called rape, and from 2017 to 2023, the crime was called forced sexual intercourse. Which is only one year ago, so it’s clearly difficult to prove nonconsensual sexual intercourse case before that which is her case, that’s what I meant "backed up" from other countries. >The filmmakers are well aware of the high hurdles to release this film domestically in Japan. From the outset, they adopted a strategy to “gain acclaim abroad and use that as pressure on Japan.” Incidentally, the notion of “foreign pressure” has often been mentioned by those involved, both in social media comments and elsewhere. Have there been any protests against the attempt to screen this film? In fact, I’d actually like to see the film myself out of curiosity, to see just how many contradictions it contains. However, I suspect that the creators may not want Japanese audiences to see it. I’m pretty sure that Filmmakers are aware of the high hurdles in Japan, the company called Star Sands which is helping her film to distribute in Japan, but as of now, I don’t think they have the release date yet. This case itself, it was very difficult to bring it to the court to begin with, so naturally filmmakers assumed that it would be difficult to release in Japan, I personally know producer Eric Nyari and editor Ema Ryan Yamazaki, they are quite well known filmmakers in the U.S as well as Japan. Their other films are showing at the Tokyo International Film Festival. So they were aware that they needed to gain recognition outside the countries. But the reason they made this film is to raise the awareness of nonconsensual sexual intercourse and sexual assault. That’s what I felt when I interviewed them. >Here are four reasons for this assumption: First, as you may know, they have not secured the necessary permissions to use certain individuals’ images and audio, which is a serious issue. Without proper permissions, they risk facing lawsuits. This part I completely agreed with you, but I’m not a legal expert, they have to deal with their own ways. >Second, some of those directly involved in the “incident” were not invited to previews, and the film’s screenings in Japan have been kept almost completely under wraps. Personally, I believe that, as a gesture of appreciation, it would have been courteous to invite people like the former agent and the journalist who arranged the initial press conference to the screening. This is totally up to filmmakers and production, I can’t comment. >Third, the people involved in the court proceedings could easily recognize any inaccuracies or fabrications. Put simply, depending on the content, if there are elements that are either “untrue” or “misleadingly presented as truth,” Yamaguchi’s side may have grounds to sue. I’m pretty sure if they thought some of the parts in the film are inaccuracies or fabrication, they would sue filmmakers.

Here's the second part. >Second, some of those directly involved in the “incident” were not invited to previews, and the film’s screenings in Japan have been kept almost completely under wraps. Personally, I believe that, as a gesture of appreciation, it would have been courteous to invite people like the former agent and the journalist who arranged the initial press conference to the screening. This is totally up to filmmakers and production, I can’t comment. >Third, the people involved in the court proceedings could easily recognize any inaccuracies or fabrications. Put simply, depending on the content, if there are elements that are either “untrue” or “misleadingly presented as truth,” Yamaguchi’s side may have grounds to sue. I’m pretty sure if they thought some of the parts in the film are inaccuracies or fabrication, they would sue filmmakers. >Fourth, it would be obvious to Japanese audiences if there’s an element of "scripted or staged performance" due to the way lines are delivered. While it may be difficult for people in Western countries, where intonation is often more emphasized, Japanese people can instantly detect from a speaker's intonation and delivery if something feels rehearsed or contrived. For these reasons, I suspect that the filmmakers are only putting on a show of effort to release it in Japan, but may actually be reluctant to do so. I’ve seen this film twice, one at the Sundance and the other at the New Directors, New Films event at the MOMA(Modern Museum of Art in New York), at least in my knowledge, Shiori Ito’s perspective and her diaries, and I can’t really comment how the Japanese people perceived this film, because I’ve been living in U.S for long time, it won’t be given fair perspectives, and I don’t think filmmakers are reluctant to show, I guess there’s inconvenient truth that exist in the film that prevent from releasing in Japan, but you need to see it to understand that. >The perpetrator dragged her out of the taxi cab" This part genuinely raises a question for me. Is there really such a scene? I have never heard of any footage like that being presented in court. If there was indeed video evidence of a man violently dragging a woman out, why wasn’t it submitted in court as clear evidence? The film shows that footage of the perpetrator dragged her out of the taxi cab. This was against her will. Throughout her case, including this film, she’s really delved into her own case, but as you well aware that the perpetrator is well connected with some people in the government who have power including Shinzo Abe, as you know the perpetrator wrote the autobiography of Shinzo Abe. So, some of the key evidence is thrown out or dismissed, but in this footage, they might reach an agreement not showing this footage after the compensation, I do know that she can’t use that, but this footage was very inconvenient truth for the perpetrator and people who support him. >”There's some fraud in her approach" While saying this, I can’t understand why she’s still being praised. Evidence obtained through unlawful means would normally be inadmissible in court, wouldn’t it? Why doesn’t the same logic apply here? She was praised by her courage to bring this to court even though she suffers a trauma, most of the foreigners who have seen this film aren't aware that she couldn’t use this footage. Because it is only recent news that points this issue out through the article in Japan. I know that because I can read Japanese articles. > To me, your argument seems to imply that “any means are acceptable if it’s for justice.” But how is that different from terrorism, which Americans tend to vehemently oppose? "This is the fact that only 4% of people are sexually assaulted in Japan..." Regarding this, I couldn’t find any articles apart from her statement, so I’d like to simply ask: where is the source for this? To use a phrase often heard in Japan, “Where’s the source?” And what exactly does “4%” refer to, or what criteria is it based on? Rape, rape by incapacitation, sexual assault, or simply harassment? In her film, when she made the decision to prosecute, she goes to police and one of the people who specialized sexual assault case brought this stats 4% when she mentioned to prosecute, just give her idea of difficult to prove the sexual assault case in Japan. I don’t have the stats on me or I don’t know that’s truth, but I don’t have any reason to doubt that people in police force who specialized the sexual assault case would lie about the truth in front of camera. >Was it a completed assault or an attempt? I assume the data on these distinctions is presented in the film? (I don’t believe it is.) In summary, you seem to think, “She’s wonderful, so she must be right,” “She’s pitiful, so we should support her,” or “She’s a heroine, so anything she does is forgivable.” You’re letting emotions guide your reasoning, leaving little room for rationality. Part of the reason why the sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute is that when the victim had the sexual assault, often time suffers the trauma that you couldn’t get up or go to police and decide to prosecute right away, because they are mentally confused or in the state of shock, but if you didn’t do that some of the physical evidence would disappear or hard to prove. I think you really jumped the conclusion here by me showing my interview, I don’t think I’ve said nor comments those words, “ She’s wonderful, so she must be right,” “She’s pitiful, so we should support her,” or “She’s a heroine, so anything she does is forgivable.” That’s certainly your misjudgment, I only presented what I saw in the film and my interview, how you judge isn’t my thoughts or how I think. > (As I’ve written in various places before), it seems as if you’re living in a time when accusations alone are enough to condemn a person, reminiscent of the era of witch hunts, with no evidence required. This hardly seems like the approach of people from a country with excellent journalism. Granted, perfect neutrality may not exist. However, exalting a film that presents only one side of the story, from one of the involved parties, is not journalism. It’s wrong, and something I cannot condone. I personnel think without seeing the film and making some judgment isn’t fair assessment to begin with, I’m aware that my perspectives are lean toward Shiori’s side, but after I’ve seen the film, I don’t want to know the perpetrator to do fair assessment for both sides journalism, in my opinion, who does the job interview at the Sushi restaurant drinks over the sake? He should have done it in the broad daylight in the cafe where everyone can see you if anything goes wrong, I’ve never heard this type of job interview in the U.S. Of course, she could have refused that, but he’s the one that might give her a job, he had the upper hand. And also mentioned footage and other cases, that’s enough incident to lean on more of Shiori’s sides. Therefore, I can’t give you fair journalism, but I’m fine with that.

@@cinemadailyus Thank you for your reply! There are hardly any people who engage in this kind of debate as thoroughly as you have. Most give up halfway. You've taken the time to respond at length, and since I'm the one who initiated this discussion, I can't just walk away from it. I write a reply again. To begin with, let me share why I’ve become what you might call "anti-Ito." I vaguely remember the first press conference held by Ms. Ito back in 2017 (by the way, this original press conference has now been removed from the website, probably because it contradicts some of the "settings" in her current story. It’s now impossible to view). I recall seeing it around 9 p.m. on a news flash. I didn’t like Prime Minister Abe, who was embroiled in several scandals around that time, so I remember feeling some anger and thinking, "He’s pulled something like this now, too." But as I wasn’t particularly interested, I left it at that. The next time I saw her was when she appeared as a product on Amazon. She had published a book titled Black Box. I read the reviews and thought, "Hmm, interesting." Here are some excerpts from those reviews: Mr. Yamaguchi took a polygraph test after the incident, which showed he was not lying. Ms. Ito also heard this from the investigators. It was Ms. Ito herself who initially suggested meeting in Tokyo, hinting at her interest. However, she omitted this part of the email. The piano bar in New York where Ms. Ito worked (while she was still a student) was revealed to be a cabaret, raising suspicions of illegal employment. The job offer was not a result of any formal application, nor was it an offer from Mr. Yamaguchi himself, contrary to her repeated claims. Regarding the date rape drug, there is no proof of any drugging; she merely suspected it based on similar symptoms she found on the internet. This was later judged defamatory in an appeal court. Ms. Ito suspects hidden cameras, but his PC didn’t even have a camera function (I wonder if they cut this part from the movie?). She claims to have locked herself in the bathroom but somehow missed the phone right in front of her and decided to come out again (Did they cut this part, too?). Even Ms. Ito admits that later emails were written in collaboration with a friend. She also lied about being in the hospital to avoid immediate replies. After tests confirmed she wasn’t pregnant, she continued to send fearful emails about pregnancy, which conflicted with her cycle (someone verified this detail, but I'll spare you the specifics). She found the name “Kitamura” in an accidentally sent email and spread rumors about Shigeru Kitamura (the head of the criminal affairs division). It is correct that the police sometimes choose not to execute arrest warrants as a matter of judgment. It’s not illegal, nor is it improper not to discuss the investigation in detail. On the contrary, if the police did leak investigative information, that would be problematic (Apparently, there’s a scene in the movie where an officer leaks information while clearly outside the investigation?). Reading these, I just thought, "Oh, I see." The next encounter I had with her was on a website called "Shiori Ito Timeline." That’s where I came to understand the entire controversy. I was shocked that a person with so many lies and suspicions could deceive the world and bask in the spotlight. What I cannot forgive is that despite not actually being a victim herself, she’s parading around as a “representative” of victims, enthusiastically sharing her “experiences” as if she were a celebrity. I know a sexual assault survivor who sees through Ms. Ito and says, “I feel like my own experience is being mocked.” I cannot forgive that. However, I realize that even if I share this with you, you likely won’t understand. It’s like trying to convince someone of faith that "There is no God; we’re just organic matter after we die," using a million words, only to get nowhere. Actually, this message wasn’t written with you in mind. You say, "You can’t discuss it without watching the movie," but I'm not interested in critiquing the film’s quality. I’m critiquing this incident-no, this spectacle. To put it bluntly, this movie is entirely pointless. There’s no evidence. To be harsh, this movie is just her delusion. If there were any new evidence, she could reopen the case. But Ms. Ito will never do that (the statute of limitations expires in 2025! Hurry up!). Without following formal procedures (just like her job application), she simply broadcasts her narrative in books and movies. Meanwhile, the man she accuses has no means of sharing his truth with the world. If that’s not unfair, then what is? I meant to keep this short, but it’s turned out long again. Please forgive me. From the beginning, I knew you and I would never understand each other, but somewhere deep down, I still feel that “talking things through” might lead to understanding. So even though I know I’ll only end up feeling betrayed and hurt, I can’t help but cling to it. In my head, I understand that I should let go of an event like this, one that doesn’t even involve me… By the way, let me clarify that I am not defending Mr. Yamaguchi. As shown in their emails (though I don’t know if this is in the movie), both Ms. Ito and Mr. Yamaguchi have "things to reflect on." But I’ll say it one last time: this is by no means some “massive scandal that shakes the nation.” It’s just a petty squabble between a man and a woman that arose from a misunderstanding.

Você então assistiu outro filme, pois o que eles mais têm é química. E é visível nessa entrevista.

Well, according to the director, on the 1st day on set together, they were swimming, smoking weed and making out... he never said he was shooting during all this... There's something there, but I may have gotten in the way of the movie as well