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

[Review] #McKinsey
PHONE INTERVIEW VỚI MCKINSEY SẼ NHƯ THẾ NÀO?
Link lưu bài: https://hannahed.co/phone-interview-voi-mckinsey-se-nhu-the-nao/

Các bạn Schofans page mình đã nghe nói tới phone interview chưa nhỉ? Đây là một trong những hình thức lọc ứng viên bằng phỏng vấn qua điện thoại đó. Mặc dù phần lớn công ty ở VN chưa sử dụng phương pháp này, hầu hết các tập đoàn lớn trên thế giới đều đã và đang dùng phone interview trong quy trình tuyển dụng đó (như McKinsey, Google, Facebook, ... nè). Và thường thì trong 1 cuộc phone interview sẽ yêu cầu các bạn giải 1 hoặc vài cases (tình huống) của doanh nghiệp đó. Đối với McKinsey - một công ty tư vấn chiến lược hàng đầu thế giới, thì các cases này còn nhó nhằn hơn nhiều đấy. Dưới đây mình chia sẻ lại bài review rất chi tiết của bạn Phúc Hiệp vừa mới thi McKinsey xong nóng hổi luôn nha!!! On another side note ngày xưa chị vào vòng test của McKinsey thì toạch í.

_________________________________________
Thời lượng: 50 phút.
Interviewer: Business Analyst (Chị interviewer người Việt).
Phần phỏng vấn bao gồm 2 phần:

1. About you: Các câu hỏi để interviewer hiểu thêm về bạn. Phần này của mình khá nhanh, chỉ 10 phút. Tương tự khi bạn phỏng vấn các công ty khác và chương trình MT. Ở phần này thì mình dùng evidence talk, tức là những gì mình đưa ra thì có kèm theo story để chứng minh mình học được và trau dồi nó thế nào. Phần này mình không đi sâu vì mình nghĩ đã quen thuộc với mọi người rồi.
- Những phần đã viết trong CV rồi mình không nhắc lại.
- Cá nhân mình nghĩ với 1 Fresher từ McKinsey khi đi tư vấn client đều là những người lão làng trong industry của họ và có nhiều kinh nghiệm hơn, nên McKinsey-ite phải có sức thuyết phục rất lớn. Vậy nên mình chọn câu chuyện thời gian mình làm PCT CLB Chứng khoán (SIC-FTU) và phải thuyết phục những người hơn tuổi, giàu kinh nghiệm hơn mình như thế nào.

2. Case interview - Đặc sản của Consulting Firm: Mình được cho 2 câu hỏi, cùng một scenario.

Câu hỏi 1: Tóm tắt lại thì rất đơn giản: Một khách sạn đang giảm lợi nhuận nên CEO tìm đến McKinsey tư vấn. Mình sử dụng framework rất quen thuộc là Profit = Revenue - Cost như hình dưới. Sau một hồi hỏi đáp thì Cost không tăng, dịch vụ công ty không giảm chất lượng, thị trường vẫn ổn định, nhưng khách hàng đang chuyển sang dùng dịch vụ của đối thủ vì đối thủ có service đa dạng hơn. Vì vậy mình recommend là đẩy mạnh Marketing, lên nhiều kênh OTA hơn, dùng API và partnership với các đối tác khác liên quan đến ngành du lịch (restaurant, airline, taxi, entertainment place,...) để tạo thành một hệ sinh thái và cross sales (khách hàng của mình cũng là của đối tác và ngược lại). Mình cũng thấy Framework của mình thì sơ sài mà Solution cũng general nhưng thật sự lúc đó không nghĩ được gì khác.

Một số lỗi của mình: Khi ra được vấn đề đến từ việc customer đang move sang đối thủ mình như chụp được phao cứu sinh và cố khai thác phần này mà hoàn toàn quên việc nên cố gắng phân tích toàn diện: Hiểu thêm về công ty hiện tại, các gói dịch vụ hiện tại, các đặc tính của khách hàng,...
Mình không hỏi về một số liệu nào mang tính định lượng.

Câu hỏi 2: Đây mới là phần khiến mình thật sự đau khổ và trách bản thân nhiều vì thiếu chuẩn bị. Mình được cho vài số liệu về website của khách sạn trên (traffic, số lượng account, số lượng trả tiền, số lượng đặt phòng,...) và bài toán đưa ra là nếu muốn tăng doanh thu lên 25% thì reservation conversion rate thay đổi thế nào. Các phép toàn không phức tạp (chủ yếu là nhân và chia) nhưng mình lại...không chuẩn bị calculator khiến mình phải tính nhẩm toàn bộ. Thêm nữa là điện thoại mình bị mất sóng 2 lần, âm thanh nhỏ khiến mình bị distract và phải hỏi đi hỏi lại data từ interviewer, tiếng Anh của mình cũng không tốt nên có 2 key words mình không nghe rõ là gì (Tội nghiệp chị interviewer phải kiên nhẫn với mình lắm). Mình tự đánh giá mình là đứa tính nhẩm không quá tệ nhưng hơi tâm lý một chút nên ngớ ngẩn thế nào với một công thức đơn giản như A = B * C khi A thay đổi 25% mình lại cho cả B và C thay đổi 25%. Tất nhiên là đáp án mình đưa ra sai và cách tính cũng sai luôn. Mình đã tỏ ra hơi lo lắng với interviewer.
Mình có hỏi chị interviewer thì chị bảo vòng này ai qualify các standard của McKinsey là pass chứ không phải lấy theo top, nên có khả năng là lấy hết, cũng có khả năng là chẳng lấy ai.

Tự phân tích và đánh giá:
- Đây chắc chắn là một bài học cho sự thiếu chuyên nghiệp của bản thân mình và thiếu tôn trọng dành cho anh chị McK khi có sự chuẩn bị tệ như vậy.
- Điều gì interviewer expect từ mình: Khi apply vào consulting firm, các bạn sẽ được giao tư vấn cho những dự án trị giá hàng trăm triệu USD, phí tư vấn cũng tiền triệu. Vì vậy anh chị sẽ đánh giá rằng "Liệu người mình đang nói chuyện có xứng đáng để mình tin tưởng giao cho công việc quan trọng như vậy không?". Và xét theo tiêu chí này, từ sự chuẩn bị đến khả năng giữ bình tĩnh, chưa nói đến mind-set, mình sẽ tự đánh fail cho mình vòng này.
- Bất chấp trăm ngàn lỗi sai từ bản thân mình, anh chị McK từ đầu đến cuối đều tạo cho mình ấn tượng "Chuyên nghiệp từ những điều nhỏ nhất" mà vẫn giữ được cảm giác gần gũi thoải mái.

Nguồn: Phúc Hiệp - Future Management Trainee Group

<3 Like page, tag và share cho bạn bè cả nhà nhé <3

#HannahEd #duhoc #hocbong #sanhocbong #scholarshipforVietnamesestudents

《親密戲導演》

American Theatre，2018年11月號。
《演員的親密戲》

擷自內文：
「性愛場景，如同設計武打場，或是舞蹈動作一般，需要同樣細心編排的動作設計，特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。 」

「我在研究所時期也是演員，所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗，一起跟我上台的人，或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景，所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演，碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧，就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興，這是非常不舒服的經驗，而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」

「親密戲的指示，從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲)，即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲，她仍然發現自己舉步維艱， 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外，毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲，而她們發現到了排練最後階段，她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」

「劇場的一切都是假的，」Sina說，「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事，我們必須永遠記得這點，你不應該因此失去自我，你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的，你必須把自己奉獻給角色，但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
前言：
自己日常閱讀時發現這篇文章，其中許多觀念頗為受用，花了幾天翻譯出來，希望能給台灣帶來不同觀念交流、分享，人家對身體以及一切相關觀念，已經好前面了。

雖為英文系畢業，但仍非專業翻譯，謬誤之處歡迎指正。

歡迎轉貼，請勿用做商業用途。
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
正文：

Intimate Exchanges
Sex scenes require as much careful choreography as flight or dances, especially in the #MeToo era.

《交換親密》
性愛場景，如同設計武打場，或是舞蹈動作一般，需要同樣細心編排的動作設計，特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。

Adam Noble had been teaching an advanced scene class for just one month when he faced a startling encounter with sexual assault in acting. A student came to him asking for a new scene partner, saying she thought the man she had been working with, on the final scene between Stanley and Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire, had tried to rape her.

Adam Noble在他的進階場景分析課上遇到一件令他膽戰心驚的表演性騷擾事件，一名學生跟他要求更換場景搭檔，她說她的搭檔企圖在他們一起工作《慾望街車》最後一景Stanley跟Blanche的戲時，企圖強暴她。

Noble immediately offered to serve as a mediator for the two students, who had been rehearsing alone in the young man’s dorm room, in order to clarify what had happened. The situation was resolved as a misunderstanding, and the two were able to continue working together. But for Noble, who had staged his first theatrical flight in 1992, the incident served as a wake-up call.

Noble立即以協調者身分為兩位同學提供幫助(他們一直單獨在男同學宿舍房間單獨排練)，以求能夠釐清事實真相。後來發現整起事件其實是個誤會，兩位同學也因此能夠繼續一起順利工作。但對於Noble來說—他從1992年就設計了他的人生第一場舞台打搏鬥戲—這起突發事件有如一記響鐘。

“We were sending these kids off on their own devices with no foundation for how to approach this stuff,” he recalled. The lack of resources for both students and teachers regarding the staging of intimate scenes was apparent.

「我們讓這些孩子在完全不具備如何處理理這種事的相關基礎知識時候，就放手要他們自己發展，」他這麼回憶。「因此，老師與學生雙方都缺乏排練親密戲的必須知識，這件事是顯而易見的。」

Noble developed a method called Extreme Stage Physicality to provide students with a framework to address what he called in an article for The Flight Master maginize “scenarios of intense physicality” with comfort and confidence. He began teaching ESP to high school, undergraduate, nd graduate students across the country. He found that the methodology was effective for all ages, and the number of reported incidents and problems dropped to zero.

Noble後來發展出了一套他稱之為「極端舞台形體」（ESP)的技巧，他對《The Fight Master》雜誌表⽰這個技巧提供了一組完整架構給學生使用，讓他們在「激烈的肢體情境」中可以感到安心並且擁有自信。他開始在高中、大學、研究所教導這套ESP技巧。他發現這套方法適用於所有年齡層，後來這些單位的性騷擾通報數量為零。

“For me as a director, it had to work for aggression, and it had to work for intimacy,” Noble said. “ It had to work across the board for those moments when the body steps in to fill the void, whether it’s violence or intimacy. Theres’s a point where the text and the words are no longer enough and the body steps in. There had to be a way for them to work on it safely.”

「身為導演，我認為在工作時，必須涵蓋侵略性以及親密性這些面向，」Noble說，「這些都必須要被全面地工作到的，特別是在那些時刻，當你的身體必須要介入來填補空缺的時候，會有那麼一個點，光靠文本跟台詞已經不足以支撐而你的身體必須要介入，在這時候必須要有一個安全工作的方法。」

That way would later be referred to as intimacy choreography, a term first used in 2006 by Tonia Sina, creator of the Intimacy Directors International. While studying movement pedagogy, including flowing and mime, Sina was helping to choreograph intimate scenes in student-directed plays and found what she described as “a hole” in choreography and no resources to help with her work.

那套方法，後來被「國際親密戲導演工作坊」創辦人之一Tonia Sina稱為「親密戲形體排練」。當 Sina在鑽研動作教育學時—其中包含小丑與默劇—一面幫忙在學生執導的劇目中擔任動作設計，就在這時候，她發現了在動作設計這個領域中的「空缺」，而這方面，她發現自己完全沒有任何資源可以幫上忙。

For her thesis he created a technique to help actors improve the conditions of their work as well as the results. Published in 2006, “ Intimate Encounters; Staging Intimacy and Sensuality” drew from her own experience as an actor. While attending graduate school at Virginia Commonwealth University, Sina’s personal life was disrupted due to the lack of structure provided for staging intimate sscenes. While rehearsing Picasso at the Latin Agile, she and her acting partner staged a love scene together, alone-a standard practice for such scenarios- with unnerving results.

她在她的論文創造了一套技巧，來幫助演員精進他們工作的狀態以及成果。2006年，她從自身演員經驗出發，發表了《親密接觸:表演中的親密性及其感官性》。大學就讀維吉尼亞聯邦大學時，Sina的私生活就因為沒有一套擁有完整架構的技巧來排演親密場景，而深受其苦。在排練Picasso at the Latin Agile 時，Sina跟她的表演搭擋需要排練一段愛情戲，而且是獨自排練—一個司空見慣的情況—然後最後結果卻令人不安。

“The second our lips touched it was not rehearing,” Sina recalled. “It was just kissing. We both felt it. We both knew. It ended up spiraling. We ended up leaving our parters for a month and we had a showmance. It caused a lot of mayhem in our personal lives because we couldn’t let these characters go. We didn’t have a safe way to do the intimacy, and we didn’t have a safe way of coming out of it.”

「當我們的嘴唇碰在一起時，那就不是在排練了。」Sina回憶道。「那就只是單純在接吻而已。我們都感覺到了，最後越演越烈，我們都因此而跟各自伴侶分手，在那個演出期間我們的私生活真的變得很混亂，因為我們都不肯放下我們劇中角色。我們沒有一個安全的方法來做親密戲，也沒有一個安全的方法來離開它。」

The two dated for a month, but their romantic relationship ended shortly after the show closed. And while Sina’s experience was consensual, there are many cases in which an intimacy director could have prevented non-consensual encounters and abuses of power, especially for young women in the industry.

他們兩個交往了一個月，但隨著戲告一段落感情也就馬上結束了。儘管Sina的案例是當事者雙方都心甘情願，仍然有非常多的例子不是如此，在那樣的狀況下其實親密戲導演是有大把機會可以防止這種違反自身意願的接觸，以及權力的濫用，特別是對業界年輕女性而言。

“While I was in grad school I was also an actress, so I was experiencing it firsthand- situations that had been completely inappropriate from co-workers, people who had been onstage with me, director and there’s a sex scene and they say, ‘You guys just do it. Just try something.’ So you’re improvising a sex scene with your partner. That’s extremely uncomfortable and very victimizing at times.”

「我在研究所時期也是演員，所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗，一起跟我上台的人，或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景，所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演，碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧，就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興，這是非常不舒服的經驗，而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」

Alcoa Rodies, co-founder of Intimacy Directors Internatial, witnessed and was a victim in such scenarios throughout her career. After almost chipping a tooth when a scene partner decided to intensify a kiss onstage, she was told, “ That’s part of the profession. Get used to it.” Knowing there were hundreds of other women who would gladly take her spot in a show if she left, Rodis thought she had to accept that kind of behavior for the rest of her career.

IDI共同創辦人Alcia Rodis在她自己生涯中，親眼見過幾個案例，並且，也曾經有過身為受害者的經驗。在她的對手演員決定在場上把吻戲變得異常激烈時，她的牙齒幾乎都要裂了，儘管如此，她還是被告知「這行就是這樣。早點習慣吧。」因為Rodis清楚知道如果她選擇離開的話，會有其他幾百位女性會搶破頭想要她的位置，她一度以為她必須要在整個職涯中接受這種狀況。

“We sort of learned that’s not the case, and we don’t have to just take it. We can actually be part of the process and work together,” Rodis said.

「我們後來知道其實並不是這樣的，我們不需要逆來順受。我們其實可以在整個工作過程中同心協力地工作。」Rodis 說。

Sina and Rodies, along with co-founder Siobhan Richardson, created the Pillars, the core protocol of IDI’s work and teaching. A codified process, the Pillars consist of Context, Commumication, Consent and Choreography. (They recently estabished a fifth pillar, Closure, to assist actors in walking away from a character after a performance.) Not having this process, Sina said, can be damaging and dangerous.

Sina跟Rodis，以及創辦夥伴Siobhan Richardson發明了「骨幹」這個IDI在工作及教學上的核心要素草案。其中包含：文本、溝通、同意以及動作(近期還加上了第五個骨幹:收尾。來幫助演員在戲結束之後順利離開他的角色。)Sina說，沒有這些幫助的話，是有可能帶來危害的。

“None of it’s real-it’s theatre,” said Sina. “It’s a fake story that is being portrayed by actors, and we have to keep remembering that. You shouldn’t be losing yourself. You need to have some semblance of yourself and some awareness of what you’re doing. Yes you can commit to the character, but you need to come out again.”

「劇場的一切都是假的，」Sina說，「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事，我們必須永遠記得這點，你不應該因此失去自我，你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的，你必須把自己奉獻給角色，但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」

IDI currently recommends four certified Intimacy Directors, with 16 candidates in training to become certified. Currently only established movement teachers, choreographers, and directors who have worked directly with a founder are able to apply for training. The organization also offers workshops for actors, directors who want to learn basic consent and choreography, and for stage managers and choreographers wanting to learn more about intimacy direction. In August 2018, a 10-day International Intimacy Pedagogy was held in Illinois.

IDI最近推薦了四位經過認證的親密戲導演，陸續還有其他十六位正在培訓。目前，機構只提供專業的、並且曾和創辦者共事過的動作老師、編舞以及導演可以申請接受培訓。IDI有提供工作坊給演員及導演學習「同意」與「動作」的基礎概念，另有舉辦工作坊，給有意願了解更多關於「如何給予親密戲指示」的舞臺經理與動作設計。2018年8月，他們在伊利諾州舉辦了為期10天的國際親密戲教育學工作坊。

Along with the Pillars, another crucial aspect of intimacy directing is recognizing and respecting traumas in one’s colleagues. All IDI-certified choreographers have completed state-offered metal health certification courses.

除了「骨幹」之外，另有一個至關重要的概念：辨識並且尊重同事的創傷。所有IDI的動作設計都完成了由州政府認證的心理健康課程。

“None of us are therapists, and none of us are counselors,” Rodis said. “But we know what to do if someone is having a metal health crisis, and we know what resources to give them. Because of the nature of the work we’re doing, and because some of us are so new, we’re getting further education on trauma.”

「我們都不是心理治療師，我們也都不是諮商師，」Rodis說「但是，我們知道當有人心理出現危機時該給他們什麼資源。因為就我們現在所做的工作本質上來說，我們都是新手，所以我們有必要持續在創傷這個議題上進修。」

While recognizing that theatre professionals are just that- professionals hired to tell a story- the founders also understand that that job can involve actors putting themselves through traumatic experiences night after night.
“We know what you’re doing is different than going to the office every day,” Rodis said, “If you’re playing Lady Macbeth every night, after a while it’s going to wear on you. So we also offer resources on how to close out at the end of every night.”

正因為知道劇場這個職業就是由一群受聘的專業演員來講一則故事，創辦者清楚的認識到這個工作可能需要演員讓他們自己日復一日、夜復一夜的經歷那些創傷。「我們明⽩你的工作不同於朝九晚五的上班族，」Rodis說，「如果妳每天晚上都在飾演馬克白夫人，過一陣子這個角色其實是會影響到妳本人的，正因為如此，我們也提供方法讓你在每晚演出過後把角色給關起來。」

One such resource is the ability to discuss sexuality and sexual experiences openly and without discomfort- a shift from the norm in American culture, which, as actor/director/teacher Claire Warden observed, has little problem with violence but tends to balk when it comes to sex, leaving directors feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.

其中一個資源，就是擁有能力來討論性以及性經驗而不會感到不適。談論性這件事，不同於具有多重身份(演員、導演與老師)的Claire Warden觀察到的一個美國文化現象:談到暴力時大家都沒問題，不過一但談到性的時候大家都顯得有點畏畏縮縮的，這其實讓導演們都覺得不舒服與尷尬。

“We’ve got this really skewed view of sex and sexuality and intimacy, and an obsession with it,“ Warden Said, “ A lot of shame, judgment, power, and confusion lies around it, which has made it uncomfortable and awkward to talk about openly.” The root problem, she said, may be that “sexuality and intimacy have kind of blurred into one.”

「我們對於性與親密的相關議題有一種扭曲的觀念，同時卻又深深為其著迷」Warden說，「這同時又有許多羞愧、判斷、權力以及困惑參雜其中，因此讓它成為一個公開談論時會帶來不適與尷尬的議題。」根據她說，其實真正根深蒂固的問題是，我們把「性」與「親密」混為一談。

Intimacy direction was never mentioned when an actor we’ll call Emily(not her real name) was performing in a dramatic two-handler and struggled to choreograph a love scene with her female scene partner. Having never performed a same-sex love scene before, Emily found herself at a loss, and her director- whose only technique was to yell the stage direction “Rolling heat!” Repeatedly- was no help. The two actors were unable to stage the scene on their own and found themselves onstage at the end of rehearsal with the director yelling. “Just do it. It’s time.”

親密戲的指導，從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲)，即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲，她仍然發現自己舉步維艱， 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外，毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲，而她們發現到了排練最後階段，她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」

Emily recalled that “when it came time to do it in performances, fight director friends of mine ho came to see the how said, ‘That look incredibly uncomfortable for you both. You looked like you were in pain and it was obvious.’’’ Her friends asked her where the intimacy director was. Emily had never heard of such a director, saying, “ I wish I’d known about it at the time when all the yelling was happening.”

Emily後來說，「後來真的演出時，我有個舞台搏鬥導演朋友來看演出，到了所謂的『就做吧』片段時，他說『那看起來對妳們兩個都極其不舒服，妳們看起來超痛苦，而且非常明顯。」她的朋友繼續問她親密戲導演在哪。Emily那時從來沒有聽過有「親密戲導演」這種導演，她說「我真希望在所有的吼叫發叫的當下，我能夠知道『其實有親密戲導演』這件事。」

Emily now a director herself, said she is carful to ensure that her actors are comfortable when staging intimate scenes. “I am hyper-aware of my actors’ sensitivity and I’m constantly checking in with them: ‘Are you okay? Are you comfortable with this? Let me know if you’re not comfortable. We don’t have to do this. We can do something else.’ And my actors thank me for it. They’re not used to that.”

現在身為導演的Emily表示:「在排練親密戲時，我總是對我的演員的感受保持超級高的敏感度，我會不停的詢問他們『你還好嗎？你對這個覺得自在嗎？如果有不舒服要讓我知道。我們不一定要這麼做，我們可以有替代方案的。』我的演員總是對此心存感激，他們對這樣的工作方式其實還不是那麼習慣。」

Uncomfortable situations can present themselves with or without directors in the room. Often scene partners are encouraged to stage the scenes on their own, outside of rehearsal, a practice that can lead to feelings of fear and helplessness. Sina was kissed inappropriately- a kiss that hadn’t been choreographed or rehearsed- in front of an audience of 500 people and had to be in character as she received it.

不舒服的狀況不論導演在不在場都有可能發生。通常演員們會被鼓勵私下自己排練，其實，這麼做很容易引發恐懼與無助感。Sina曾在500位觀眾面前被不當的親吻—一個沒被事先設計或是排練過的吻 —而她在被親的同時還要想辦法讓自己「待在角色裡」。

“There are times where it’s, ‘Kiss, but don’t kiss until previews.’ It’s the worst,” Rodis said. “At best it’s a bad story, at worst they start grabbing you, ‘be in the moment.’ That’s the definition of assault.”

「有時候的情況是親，但是在試演前不會真的親，那種是最糟的。」Rodis說，「當那種狀況發生時，你能得到最好的結果是一個爛故事，最糟的結果是你開始被這件事給抓住還要『待在當下』， 這其實就是侵犯的定義。」

Along with establishing the definition of assault, IDI training also defines consent in clear, unquestionable terms that differentiate between that and permission. A director can give permission to touch another actor, but only a fellow actor can give consent.

除了建立侵犯的定義以外，IDI還以清清楚楚、不容模糊的語彙界定了「同意」與「允許」的差異。 導演可以「允許」演員去觸摸對手，但只有對手演員自己才可以真的表示「同意」。

“The conversation is always very professional and technical, so when we’re talking about parts of the body, it’s the biological name of the part of the body.” said Warden. “And we as intimacy directors never ask anything about and never inquire about the actors’, directors’ or anyone else’s personal sexual life, history, story, proclivities, etc.”

「所有的討論都是非常專業的，當我們必須要談論身體的部位時，我們都會用生物學名稱。」 Warden說，「身為親密戲導演，我們絕對不會去問任何演員、導演或是任何人的個人性愛生活、歷史、故事或是性傾向...等等任何事情。」

The language doesn’t change when the workshops contain students, Warden said, though she may move more slowly.

語彙的使用並不會因為工作坊有學生而改變，Warden說，只是她會教的更慢而已。

“A lot of what we’re saying for adults is still, ‘That is not real. None of this is real.’’’ said Sina. “In rehearsal, we don’t add acting to it until the very last minute, We choreograph it like we do anything else. Just do the moves so everyone knows what’s happening. Then they can add the emotion to it when the actors are ready and they feel they know the choreography well enough. And if you can get that to happen for minors, it separates the sexuality from the choreography and allows them to treat it like it is: choreography.”

「即便我們跟成年人都一直在強調『這都不是真的，這一切都是假的。』」Sina說。「排練的時候，我們不到最後一分鐘是不會加上『表演』的。在最後關頭之前。我們都像是處理其他素材一樣，做形體動作讓大家都知道會發生什麼事。一直到演員們都準備好了，對動作都夠熟悉時，他們才會真的帶入感情去演出。如果你能夠讓這些未成年先開始這麼做，慢慢的所有人就能夠把性跟動作設計分開來來看，然後以正確的眼光看它:動作設計。」

The inability to treat intimate scenes as simply choreography is a problem Sina has observed at numerous drama competitions, where students without sexual experience or knowledge, let alone the ability to separate themselves from the characters they were playing, have performed sex scenes. These situations can be traumatizing for people without the knowledge or resources to handle it.

Sina在無數個戲劇比賽上觀察到一個問題，學生們往無法把親密場景當成動作設計一樣來處理，這群學生們沒有性經驗或是相關知識，想當然就無法在性愛戲中把自己跟扮演的人物切割開來看待。這種狀況是非常有可能讓人受創的，特別是對那些沒有相關知識，或是資源來處理這種狀況的人。

“If they’re not being led through it properly, it can be very, very dangerous,” she said. “It’s illegal in our country to do anything sexual with a minor or have two minors do something sexual in front of an adult. It’s very thin line between choreography and a crime when you’re dealing with minors.”

「如果他們沒有被好好引導的話，那真的非常非常的危險。」她說，「根據我們國家的法律，讓一個或多個未成年人在成年人面前做出帶有性愛意味的事情是違法的。所以面對未成年時，在『動作設計』跟『犯罪』之間其實只有一條非常模糊的線。」

Demand for IDI services and training has spiked in the past year, since the #MeToo movement has exposed abuse in the entertainment field, including theatre, and the issues of consent and empowerment in the workplace (not to mention outside of it) have become central.

自從去年#MeToo運動開始後，對IDI這個機構的服務與訓練來說，他們面臨了重要挑戰。在娛樂產業(包含劇場)的職場上(更別提職場外也是)，現在，關於「同意」與「權力」的議題都變得重要無比了。

“At the moment there’s so much need and demand and only so many of us to go around,” Warden said. “I cannot be in every single room and play out there, but what I can do is empower actors or directors or even stag managers to go into a room and say, ‘I would like to offer a way of talking about this.”

「目前來看，親密戲導演的需求與實際從業人數是不成正比的，」Warden說。「很顯然的，我不可能出現在每一個房間裡指導，但我可以做的是賦予演員、導演甚是舞臺經理權力，讓他們能夠在每個房間替自己發聲『我想要提供另外一種工作方式』。」

Also encouraging to Warden is the increased awareness among young students.

對Warden來說，令他欣慰的是年輕一代學生中對這件事情有意識的人數越來越多了。

“My hope, my intentions and my dream is that the next generation of actors, writers, and directors come out with a very different understating of respect and consent with their bodies and each others’ bodies,” Warden said. “And that leads us into an even more free and safe way to creat deep, authentic, risky stories.”

「我的願望、我的本意、以及我的夢想都是下個世代的演員、作家、以及導演都能夠對他們自己以及他人的身體，有一種非常不同於現在的理解、尊重、權利，」Warden說，「這可以讓我們以更自由，同時也更加安全的方式來創造出具深度、真誠、精彩的故事。」

Carey Purcell, New York city-based reporter

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.