(Photo from Straits Times)
The Straits Times reported today that “a crowd of more than 100 people, mostly foreign workers, refused to leave Rex Cinemas at Mackenzie Road, after the theatre cancelled the premiere of a movie on Thursday night”
The paper added that a total of three police cars and about seven police officers were at the scene and that the police were called in after some in the crowd apparently began shouting at cinema staff when screening of the Tamil movie, Veeram, was abruptly cancelled after a long six hours wait at the theatre.
A cinema spokesman said the 9pm screening was cancelled as it could not download the film in time.
Community worker, Ravi Philemon so happened to be there at the scene of the event and shares with us his account of what went on at the theatre.
[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”] ravi_pAlthough most of people who had bought the tickets were foreign workers, it would have been better if they are identified as movie-goers, and as hardcore fans of a Tamil superstar Ajith.
The moviegoers did not refuse to go for no reason. They wanted to watch the first show of this movie premiered anywhere in the world. They said that they don’t mind waiting. They only wanted to know when the first show will screened and wanted the theatre manager to say when the movie will premiere.
The theatre manager at first said that the movie is embargoed from release in India and that is why they could not screen it. The moviegoers called out his bluff. If it is embargoed in India, what has that got to do with the screening here? Some of these moviegoers said that they had queued up from 8am today till 6pm, when the ticketing booth was opened to get the tickets for this premiere, and that the theatre manager should be truthful to them.
Even then, the moviegoers did not turn rowdy. This was when the police arrived. The police used words like “dei!, dei! move out! move out!” Which I thought was very disrespectful to the moviegoers.
This was when I approached the police officer talking loudly to the moviegoers. He tried to talk loudly to me (thinking I was a foreign worker). I told the officer that I am a Singaporean.
At this juncture, the police officer lowered his voice, but still tried to get his point across without wanting to listen to me. I insisted to the police officer that I am willing to listen to him, but that he should listen to me first to understand the situation there better before shouting instructions to the moviegoers.
The police officer agreed and I told him what had happened, and why the moviegoers request was reasonable. The police officer agreed and said that he will speak with the theatre manager.
After speaking with the theatre manager, the police officer came back to address the crowd of moviegoers to say that the theatre manager is very kind and would give the moviegoers a chop on their tickets, which will allow them to watch two movies with that one ticket.
The crowd of moviegoers did not understand what the police officer was saying, and the police officers did not understand what the moviegoers were saying in broken English. It was at this juncture that I volunteered to interpret. And the police officers agreed.
I told the moviegoers about the offer of the theatre manager, and the moviegoers said that they did not want to watch two movies, but only wanted to watch the first show of this movie. I explained the wishes of the moviegoers to the police officers.
At no time were the moviegoers rowdy. They were very reasonable. But I can understand how the problem could have escalated if the wishes of the moviegoers were not properly conveyed to the police officers. Even the police officers said that it was a reasonable request and said that they would speak to the theatre managers again.
it was at this juncture that a more senior person in charge of the theatre arrived. He spoke to the police officers and explained why he could not accede to their requests.
When the moviegoers realised that a more senior person had arrived, they gathered around him, but not in a threatening manner. Only to listen to what he has got to say as he spoke in a very soft voice. The police then told the moviegoers not to crowd around, and remember the riot in Little India.
Taking the cue from the police officers, the senior person appealed to the moviegoers in Tamil that they were all Tamilians, and should not let the shame of Tamilians which happened in Little India in December repeat itself.
I felt that there was no necessity for the police officers and the senior person in charge of the theatre to bring up the Little India riot in a matter where the contention was if the moviegoers would be able to watch the premiere of their cinema idol. I felt that things were not going anywhere and left.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

TOC Developing Story: Fleshing out the NTU stabbing incident

Updated 4 March, 2009. TOC investigates the background to the story. By Terence Lee & Darren Boon.

非法直播英超联赛,机顶盒业者被判入狱三个月,罚款5400元

一家售卖机顶盒业者,因非法转播英超足球和其他相关体育直播内容,被判入狱3个月,并罚款5400元。 机顶盒贩卖商Synnex Trading公司董事贾晓峰售卖内装非法电影、电视节目、随选节目以及体育赛事直播的机顶盒,同时也对顾客声称所提供的内容都基于合法。 Synnex Trading也因此被控四项侵犯版权罪,被勒令支付16万零800元。 对此,英超法律服务总监凯文(Kevin Plumb)表示,利用非法设备转播内容一行为必须严正以待,因此英超将会对盗版业者起诉。 “我们拥有相当热情的新加坡球迷,所以我们有责任保护那些以正规程序观看英超的球迷。若球迷以非法的方式观看可能会面临很多的风险包括被欺骗,或其身份遭歹徒盗窃”,凯文表示。 针对判决,他也表示赞成,因为这其中并没有所谓的灰色地带,直播内容必须被保护。 凯文强调,“目前我们在新加坡拥有团队,致力于保护属于我们的知识产权与打击盗版行为,因此我们会持续调查和追查任何由非法设备转播内容的供应商。 早在4月时,英超连同新电信、星空与福克斯网络集团将另名业者An-Nahl起诉,指他侵犯版权,在2017年5月4日在丹戎加东大厦的商店内,售卖“非法串流设备”,以及在同年5月23日被发现拥有12件非法机顶盒。 An-Nahl负责人阿都阿兹(Abdul…

Govt to quadruple construction projects with more efficient building methods by 2020

The government aims to quadruple the number of construction projects with more…