Latest News

McGill, News

Divest McGill holds three day sit-in at James Administration Building

On March 29, Divest McGill set up camp at James Square and inside the James Administration Building to protest last week’s Board of Governors (BoG) decision for McGill not to divest from its holdings in fossil fuel companies, based on a report by the Committee to Advise [on] Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR). According to Divest McGill’s Facebook event, the sit-in will last until the afternoon of Thursday, March 31.

Divest McGill organized various activities to take place during the sit-in. The sit-in commenced with a rally in support of divestment, a Solidarity with Black Lives Matter Toronto gathering, and a candlelight vigil for climate justice. The agenda for March 30 included a teach-in for climate justice featuring speakers from McGill Faculty and Alumni for Divestment, a daily divest rally, a cypher for climate justice with Dan Parker, and a candlelight vigil for climate justice.

In its Facebook event, the group explained its motive.

“During this time, we would like to make space for other social justice campaigns to speak out against the ways that the McGill administration has made decisions that are not in line with the views of the greater community,” Divest McGill wrote. “We have a number of programming activities prepared for the next few days, and are prepared to stay until our demands are met.”

Antonina Scheer, U2 Earth Science and Economics and Divest McGill organizer, clarified the reasons behind the decision to sit-in.

“We wanted to do something a little different than just doing another petition—although we’ll probably do that also because we’re not going anywhere,” Scheer said. “[A sit-in] happened in September, but it has to happen again. We have to play the role of activists and push a bit harder and just create pressure.”

Student’s Society of McGill University (SSMU) Vice-President (VP) External Emily Boytinck criticized the lack of administrative pathways to pursue divestment.

“I have personally been involved with the campaign over three years now, and can attest to the fact that in that time we have completely exhausted the administrative channels, leaving us no choice but to escalate our tactics,” Boytinck said.

According to Boytinck, the sit-in has already produced a response from the university administration.

“On Tuesday, we spoke to Michael Di Grappa, Olivier Marcil, Susan Aberman, and Andre Costopoulos, since Suzanne Fortier was in California and not in her office,” Boytinck said. “We did, however, receive a letter from Susan Aberman indicating that we can meet with the Principal on Thursday. We will be meeting with her this afternoon and are cautiously optimistic. She has not been particularly supportive in the past, and for almost a year we have been trying to obtain a meeting with her with no avail. So at least the sit in has obtained this meeting, showing that our actions are not in vain. We have a letter of demands prepared and would like to talk to her about them.”

Among Divest McGill’s demands, also outlined in the Facebook event, is a call for transparency.  

“[We demand] that the Committee to Advise [on] Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) engage in a public, transparent consultation process and rewrite the report on Divest McGill’s petition based on those consultations,” the Facebook post read.

Scheer highlighted the negative social impacts of climate change, as one reason Divest McGill disagrees with the findings of CAMSR’s report.

“We also have to acknowledge that the World Health Organization has estimated […]  that 150,000 people die every year because of climate change,” Scheer said. “So, I don’t know how [CAMSR] can say with a straight face that that’s not social injury [….] It’s tremendously callous and outrageous that they would say that. I think we’re absolutely justified in our response.”

According to Marcil, McGill’s VP (Communications and External Relations,) the administration appreciated the peaceful nature of the protest.

“The senior administration values respectful discourse and discussion of issues on our campuses, and defends the right of students to express themselves through protest,” Marcil wrote in an email to the Tribune. “I'd like to particularly note the respectful way this protest was conducted, right down to the way the protesters cleaned up the area they were in before they departed. It is obvious that feelings are running high on this issue and undoubtedly the conversation will continue.”

Scheer affirmed that Divest McGill will lobby for divestment until the administration yields to their demands.

“Even when we leave [the square], we’re keeping the pressure on, so we’re not really going anywhere.” Scheer said.

McGill, News

McGill alumni return diplomas following BoG’s decision to not divest

On April 1, Divest McGill held a diploma returning ceremony, during which McGill alumni returned their diplomas to demonstrate their disagreement with the Board of Governors’ (BoG) decision to not divest from fossil fuel companies. The ceremony took place in front of the James Administration Building and began with nine students and members of Divest McGill exiting the James Administration Building after four days of participating in a sit-in outside of Principal Suzanne Fortier’s office. 

Chloé Laflamme, U2 biochemistry and an organizer with Divest McGill, explained that the diploma return was an initiative started by two McGill alumni, Karel Mayrand and Camil Bouchard.

“After our Fossil Free Week in September, […] they came here and pledged to return their degrees to McGill if McGill had not divested by March 30, and [they] invited all alumni who wanted to join them to do so,” Laflamme said.

Thirteen graduates returned their diploma and six proxies were present for the alumni who had mailed in their diplomas but could not be present at the event. 

Bouchard, who obtained a PhD in philosophy in 1974 at McGill, explained that he returned his diploma because the institution’s investment in fossil fuels conflicts with his own values. 

“I have […]  a profound attachment to McGill,” he said. “[But] from now on, I do not feel able to represent McGill in my professional, or other activities. Therefore I will also remove from my name ‘PhD McGill 1974’ until McGill changes its policies and decides to divest from petroleum.”

[metaslider id=44845]​

Naghameh Sabet, Biochemistry ‘88,  who works at Scotiabank as a portfolio manager, expressed her disagreement with the BoG’s decision, and announced that one of her clients would refrain from making a $2 million donation to McGill due to its fossil fuel investments.

“We called McGill, we met with the specific department to receive the $2 million, […] until we got to the point that we were ready to sign,” Sabet said. “When we received the famous email from you, [Principal] Fortier, I informed my client and we are very sorry to say we are not going to contribute the $2 million to McGill anymore [….] If McGill does not reverse their decision, that money will be contributed to another educational institution that acts a little more wisely.” 

Director of Internal Communications at McGill, Doug Sweet, explained that there were no current plans for the BoG to re-open this discussion. 

“I have no idea whether they plan to reconsider, but an educated guess would say it’s unlikely,” Sweet said.

Sweet also noted that McGill alumni are a heterogenous body.

“[Our alumni are] a large and diverse community, as is the community on campus,” Sweet said. “Different people hold different views and McGill respects and understands that.” 

Laflamme explained that the ceremony demonstrated the concern of a larger community that is not always visible on campus.

“People who have left the McGill physical community also do not agree with the direction that the university is going in,” Laflamme said.

Laflamme further added that Divest McGill members will continue their campaign until the university’s position and decision process reflect the McGill community’s interests.

“We definitely feel that the process is not over,” Laflamme said. “The [BoG’s decision], we thought, was extremely inaccessible to the community and had a huge lack of transparency. If there’s going to be a final decision that is made, it has to be done properly with consultation of everybody who will be involved.” 

leacock building
Joke

Principal Fournier purchases fleets of car to aid walk from Leacock to McIntyre

After a disappointing meeting with members of Divest McGill, McGill University Principal Josie-Anne Fournier announced plans to address a growing student complaint: The hike from Leacock Building to the McIntyre Medical Building.

“We will be purchasing 20 fleets of Cadillac Escalades to transport students to and from Leacock and McIntyre for free," Fournier said. “These vehicles will help students get to class on time, as well as reduce the hundreds of students the Health Centre receives each year due to slipping injuries."

Fournier is also intersted in making this experience as positive as possible for students added,

“We will also mandate that the engines be kept running at all times, so we can ensure that a student coming from the McLennan Library holding a cup of Premium Molson Coffee would be kept warm as soon as they board the Cadillac," Fournier said.

Lindsey Graham, a U2 Economics and Political Science double major, applauded the principal taking the initiative to address serious campus issues.

“Although I have never read the emails sent from Principal Fournier's office, I will definitely keep an eye out for the next one," Emma Dubois, U3 Management, added, “Drill, Baby, Drill! Harper 2020!”

Although McGill will absorb all costs for the coming Fall semester, SSMU will take charge of the vehicles and drivers from 2017 onwards.

“We expect all the students to chip in towards this service, which is why we will likely be calling for a $5.50 base fee increase in 2017," incoming SSMU president Jen Fer. “This time, it will pass."

Joke

April Fools Issue 2016

The McGill Tribune presents its articles for its annual April Fools' Joke issue: 

Stories

Opinion

Enhancing Steering Committee not the answer to SSMU GAs, but question still remains

With a voter turnout rate of 17.5 per cent, the lowest since 2005, McGill students voted on a myriad of issues in the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Winter 2016 Referendum. Among them were the hotly debated amendments 13.2 and 13.3, which would have created a General Assembly (GA) Steering Committee with the power to block motions from debate at a GA. Students rejected the motion with a slim majority of 52.6 per cent. This was the right decision. As discussed on the Tribune’s McGill Matters podcast, the proposed steering committee would have undermined SSMU as a representative body while doing little to actually alter the divisive nature that contentious motions create on campus; however, the amendments were motivated by a real concern among students that SSMU is too political. The steering committee was not the answer, but the question of how SSMU can work to address these concerns remains.

[audiotrack title=”McGill Matters, EP. 1: When SSMU is confronted with external and divisive issues” songwriter=”Zachary Carson, Albert Park, and David Watson” date=”March 18, 2016″ width=”700″ height=”200″ src=”https://24f2041bb5b609d25f1a97039f71682cc9154421.googledrive.com/host/0B9rQxTeDv2duM0FmSjBSYkZFS1k/mcgillmatters1.mp3″ autoplay=”on”]

Amendments 13.2 and 13.3 were proposed after this year’s iteration of an ever present and hotly debated motion—for SSMU to support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement against the Israel for its occupation of Palestinian territory. BDS motions have become synonymous with intense debate on campus, which some—especially those who campaign against them—have described as too divisive. As such, It is easy to assume that the idea of a steering committee arose specifically to block future BDS motions from the GA; however, to assume this is to ignore a much more pervasive concern among students that goes beyond one single issue; that SSMU is being too political. In the 2014-2015 SSMU Student Experience Survey, almost a quarter of student respondents felt uncomfortable on campus because of their political beliefs and less than 20 per cent of students felt that SSMU represented their political beliefs.

The proposed steering committee would not have addressed these concerns. It would have undermined SSMU as a representative body as an unelected committee would have veto power on GA motions. It would have also increased divisive debate on campus. Blocking a potential GA motion on the grounds of “divisiveness” would have meant SSMU was effectively against the motion (the “No” campaign against BDS continually cited divisiveness as a reason to vote against). But to think that rejecting the amendments means the end of these concerns on campus is just as naïve as to think the steering committee would have addressed them. It was rejected with a slim majority, which still means that a significant number of students felt uncomfortable enough with the nature of debate on campus to vote in favour the amendments.  SSMU needs to continue to work to develop a better way to address the concerns of those who believe that SSMU is being too political without completely sidelining those who want to use the body as a platform for political stances.

Neither side of this debate is wrong. At the core of each perspective is a desire for students to feel comfortable on campus and believe that their interests are represented by their student government. It may seem impossible to demand that SSMU somehow reconcile the desires of groups who want contradictory things, but this is a challenge that all governments operating at any level face. No one expects the answer to be perfect, but one failed attempt should not deter future attempts to work towards a solution.

MLB
Baseball, Sports

2016 MLB season preview

Click on a division to get started!

  • Al East

  • AL Central

  • AL West

  • NL East

  • NL Central

  • NL West

Off the Board, Opinion

Greek life at McGill: More than just a toga

Popular perceptions of Greek life will forever be caught under the shadow of the 1978 comedy Animal House, in which a youthful John Belushi and his gang of misfit fraternity brothers engage in debauchery and hilarity as they struggle to keep their organization legitimate at the fictional Faber College. These judgements assume that Greek life—and fraternity life in particular—is little more than an opportunity for an exclusive group of privileged and obnoxious young men to throw parties, get drunk, and hit on girls. Stereotypes claim that fraternity brothers are misogynistic and hyper-masculine while sorority sisters are little more than shallow and image-obsessed Valley girls. In my experience, being a member of a fraternity has taught me important values as well as how to build meaningful friendships.

Many non-affiliated students at McGill do not understand this. I’ve gotten countless blank stares when introducing myself as a proud member of a fraternity accompanied by comments like “Oh. You’re a frat boy,” or “Well you must be great at drinking then!” While parties are certainly an element of Greek life, they are very far from the actual purpose that Greek organizations serve for their members and the university community. As opposed to requiring conformity and single-mindedness, fraternities and sororities give their members the opportunity to show their true selves and join a close-knit, student-run and student-led community where they can express their values without judgement or fear of reprisal.

 

 

 

 

Popular stereotypes and deplorable actions by few individuals should not shape the perceptions of entire organizations.

The Greek system at McGill includes four sororities and eight fraternities governed by the Inter-Greek Letter Council, the school’s second-largest student group. Each chapter is affiliated with a national Canadian or North American organization that unites chapters at universities across the continent. Estimates vary, but approximately 500 students, less than two per cent of the undergraduate student body, are members of fraternities or sororities with chapters at McGill, many of which accept members from Concordia as well. Fraternities are many of the oldest student organizations at McGill, with some existing since the first decade of the 20th century. The fact that Greeks form such a minority at McGill undoubtedly contributes to the lack of accurate knowledge of the community.

In contrast to images of inebriated boys packed into a frat house, Greek organizations give students the chance to form meaningful and lasting relationships with individuals who they might not have otherwise met. Members come from different corners of the world, different faculties, and different upbringings. Joining a fraternity or sorority and completing the pledging or recruitment process gave me a feeling of being a part of something larger than any individual. Pledging processes are assumed to involve hazing simply because of their secrecy; if you don’t know what’s happening, and aren’t allowed to know, it must be something illegal. This is a misunderstanding of what pledging means and the purpose it serves. Through pledging, fraternities and sororities build their recruits into men and women deserving of being lifelong members through traditions that date back to the organizations’ foundings. While these customs are highly secretive and vary significantly from group to group, the universal experience of having to accomplish difficult tasks together as a pledge class and facing challenges together as a unit creates a bond that is inimitable. It also differs from experiences such as playing on a sports team, in that there is no parent or coach or any form of older authority figure involved. By nature of its secrecy, the rewards and sense of fulfillment are largely personal.

Joining a fraternity was the best decision I made since coming to McGill. Brotherhood is not just for the three or four years of university—it’s for life. I will one day graduate from McGill University and leave Montreal, moving away from many of the people I know here. But I know that I will always have a home to return to. Even if I have never met any of the active brothers of the future, I’ll be able to knock on the door of my fraternity and be greeted by a new brother. Relationships made through greek life are longer lasting than any other non-blood relationship.

University years are a formative time in a person’s life, during which fraternities and sororities serve as character-building institutions that require commitment and dedication, encourage creativity, and develop leadership and organization skills. Because the majority of events and gatherings are private, partying forms the most visible part of Greek life for those not involved—but it is really a minor element of the experience and more a celebration of brotherhood or sisterhood than the goal of it. Greeks spend the majority of their time just like every other McGill student: In class, doing homework, or participating in extracurriculars. On top of this, they attend ritual activities, manage a house and organization of up to 80 people, and give back to their community through individual and combined fundraising or volunteering activities. Popular stereotypes and deplorable actions by few individuals should not shape the perceptions of entire organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sports Editor Nick Jasinski is in his second year in the Desautels Faculty of Management. He is a proud brother of the Alpha Beta Gamma chapter of Phi Kappa Pi fraternity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
McGill, News

Police called to AUS/SUS Grad Ball to handle coat check debacle

The end of the sold-out 2016  Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) and the Science Undergraduate Society (SUS) annual Grad Ball descended into chaos at coat check. Guests were unable to retrieve their belongings and around 2:30 a.m. the police were called to intervene. The event took place on the evening of Saturday, March 19, at Le Windsor Hotel in Montreal’s Golden Square Mile and included dinner, dancing, and an open bar.

Hailey Krychman, U3 Arts, commended the general coordination and execution of the ball.

“The overall event was really fun,” she said. “I think overall people were very classy, despite being super drunk, and I didn’t really feel like anything was going wrong. The music was great and so was the venue. It was very well organized by the AUS and SUS. Of course because there were open bars, there were sometimes long lines but nothing unmanageable or excessively rowdy.”

However, issues arose as the evening concluded. According to U3 Computer Science and Biology student Cassandra Rogers, with hundreds of guests, and only a few staff members manning the coat check, the night became disorganized as guests attempted to collect their belongings to leave.

“There was no security to speak of managing the crowd or creating a line, and there were only three or four people working behind the coat check desk,” Rogers recalled.  “At the counter, I was shoved and pushed down by other students trying to reach over me to attract the attention of the coat check staff. Some people were trying to climb over other people [….] More than a few men in the crowd were making inappropriate comments about being in such close proximity to so many women [….] The crowd was overflowing up the stairs and into the main hall by the time I was able to escape.” 

According to Cleona Tsang, U3 Psychology, coat check staff eventually stopped using the ticket system all together, leading to students’ belongings being left out in the open.

“There were also just a bunch of coats and bags thrown out past the coat check room and my coat and my friend’s coat and my bag were just on the floor up for grabs,” she said. “Anyone could have taken that stuff. Plus, they gave up with the tickets [halfway through] and just yelled out, ‘Whose is this jacket?’ and whoever said, ‘Mine’ got to take it home. No organization whatsoever. I was lucky I found my stuff, but I was there for an hour and a half.”

Douglass Luo, U4 Economics, also described a volatile situation at coat check.

“Everyone just crowded around the coat check, yelling at each other and trying to shove their way to the front,” he said. “It felt like a riot was about to break out. I’m lucky I was near the front of the line, because I hear a lot of people didn’t get their coats.”

Rogers took note of several students who were inebriated but were unable to receive aid from the McGill Student Emergency Response Team (M-SERT).

“Some people were very drunk and ill, and it seemed like medics or M-SERT staff weren’t really able to fight their way through the crowd to get to them,” Rogers added.

Officers from the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) ultimately responded to the scene and reportedly used harsh tactics to get through the crowd.

“People were screaming and shouting and cursing and someone yelled [that] she was going to punch someone if they didn’t stop stepping on her toes,” Tsang said. “The police arrived and someone—I think it was a policeman—just shoved a bunch of us back by brute force. It was very aggressive and rowdy and a lot of people tried to take control of the situation but the crowd was so unforgiving.”

In a post on the Grad Ball Facebook event page, the AUS and SUS formally apologized and explained what had happened.

“Employees of Le Windsor felt unable to handle the crowd around coat check and decided to call the police,” the Grad Ball Committee wrote.

 At the time of publication, the SPVM had no report of the night’s events, according to Marie-Élaine Ladouceur, SPVM media relations.

“I checked the events of that evening,” Ladouceur said. “I didn’t find any report.”

In response to statements concerning police brutality towards guests, the Grad Ball Committee announced on its Facebook event that it  would look into pursuing a formal complaint with the SPVM. 

“[We] are considering filing a complaint with the SPVM regarding the events which took place on the evening of March 19 at Le Windsor on behalf of guests who felt harassed or mistreated by law enforcement officials,” AUS President Jacob Greenspon said. “As stated on our Facebook post on March 21, we encourage anyone who wanted to provide a statement to email us.”

Greenspon stated that no testimonies have yet been received to follow through with a formal complaint.

“Given that neither the Grad Ball Committee nor any Faculty Executives have received any reports from guests as of yet, it is unlikely that we will file a complaint with the SPVM, but we remain open to the possibility if students come forward,” Greenspon said. “The [AUS] and [SUS] will be following up with Le Windsor to relay complaints we’ve received from our guests and to help find any lost belongings.”

a, Features

In the beginning, God created the scientist

The Christian Old Testament tells beautiful stories. It is poetic, rich in morals, and well-written. The beginning of the world, as described by Genesis 1, creates a haze whereby from nothing, God creates something.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” the Bible reads. “On the first day, God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light, ‘day’ and the darkness, he called ‘night.’”

According to the BBC, Earth was formed by accretion (the coming together of matter due to gravitational force to form larger bodies) from a solar nebula creating an incredibly hot mass, covered in toxic volcanic gases. Though the Bible does not acknowledge the empirical creation of the world, and the /BBC/ does not acknowledge the Biblical explanation, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Before being pummeled by meteor impacts and cooling down enough to form a crust, the Earth did look like the formless, empty, and dark Earth described in the Bible. According to some scientists, however, the Bible’s later claims that God made everything from birds, the moon, and trees—creationism—are false. But the Bible is not a scientific paper, written to stake claims about the world and our surroundings. Rather, it is a book—a very old book—compiled of historical texts and sources from different authors and civilizations.

“The Bible speaks a language that’s over 2,000 years old [and] when some people try reading it as if it scientific fact, you start to distort what is actually meant,” my brother, Alex Nevitt, a seminarian at the Gregorian University in Rome, explained. “You need to speak theology to understand what’s written in the Bible.”

I, like many others, do not speak theology. I am a scientist and an atheist. Though my mother is agnostic, my father is an extremely devout and practicing Catholic and my brother is studying to become a priest. Admittedly, dinner is weird.

“I don’t believe in creationism, I don’t think it’s a truth,” my brother continued. “That is something that’s happened in modern times where the Bible has been read as if it is speaking in scientific language [….] However, the Bible doesn’t speak that way.”

When I was younger, I had a hard time reconciling the Bible with my education because all stories and explanations were always inexplicably tied to God, and my public school never mentioned Him. But my devout father always tried to keep Him in my heart.

“I was brought up in the faith since I was a baby,” my father, Bill Nevitt, explained. “I went to Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school […] and finished and graduated from a Catholic college.”

Ikiru
Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Flashback: Ikiru (1952)

“A man dying of cancer searches for life meaning.”  When condensed into this single phrase, the plot of Ikiru seems trite and simple. Yet renowned director Akira Kurosawa is an original storyteller who uses this familiar narrative to create an existential masterpiece. 

The opening shot of the film is an X-ray of a stomach belonging to Public Affairs Section Chief Kanji Watanabe (Takashi Shimura). The stomach is filled with tumors that will eventually kill him. The narrator of the film introduces the viewer to Watanabe hunched over at his desk.

“It would only be tiresome to meet him right now,” the narrator explained. “After all, he’s simply passing time without actually living his life. In other words, he’s not really alive.”  Watanabe’s job consists of stamping paperwork and appearing busy.  

Having worked monotonously in the public affairs department for 25 years, not skipping a single day on the job, Watanabe is appropriately nicknamed “The Mummy.”  

Upon learning of his death sentence, Watanabe initially plunges into a state of despair.  He takes to drinking and meets a young man at a bar who learns of his situation and guides him through a night of hedonistic enjoyment.  At a crowded dance hall, Watanabe requests a song entitled “Life is Brief.” The happy dancers pause in their footsteps to listen pensively to Watanabe’s soft voice as he sings the lyrics. This plaintive, heart-breaking song perfectly encapsulates the elegiac tone of Ikiru.  

As Watanabe’s imminent death approaches, he rids himself of his sorrow and transforms into a Christ-like figure who, resurrected from his deathlike daily routine, aims to better his community. Through this religious interpretation, women play an important role as Watanabe’s disciples. In the beginning of the film, a group of poor women visit the public affairs department with a proposal to make a sewage pit into a children’s playground.  They are constantly deferred until Watanabe cuts through the red tape and takes action. At Watanabe’s funeral, these women weep and bow to his shrine like worshippers. 

One woman in the film is the youthful and energetic Toyo Odagiri (Miki Odagiri), whom Watanabe enjoys spending time with. While previously working at Watanabe’s office, Toyo quits her job to produce toy bunnies. “I feel like I am playing with every baby in Japan,” she tells him of her work.  At his shrine, she leaves a fuzzy bunny that hops around playfully.  

Kurosawa uses movement strategically in Ikiru. Filming the stagnant office workers sitting hunched at their desks and men talking criss-crossed signify a morbidity of spirit. Perhaps the reason for Watanabe’s laconicism is that talking is a way of not moving. For example, the bureaucrats stall and defer proposals yet achieve no action. Unlike the others, Watanabe is a character of movement. In the most picturesque scene of the film, Watanabe rocks in a child’s swing, not talking but once again singing “Life is Brief.”  

Sound, such as background noise or pregnant silence, is also used strategically by Kurosawa to elicit emotional responses from the viewer. After dining with Toyo, Watanabe descends the staircase of the restaurant as a group of girls sing “Happy Birthday” to their friend. As the camera focuses on Watanabe’s smiling and awakened face, it seems as if the girls are celebrating his rebirth.  

Ikiru, though made in 1952, was not released in the United States until 1960 as it was labeled “too Japanese.”  Ironically, Ikiru’s subject matter could not be more universal, as the film forces the viewer to acknowledge the brevity of human existence and the importance of breaking free from idleness.

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue