Sex Crimes

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Music

      R. Kelly to Face Another Trial in Chicago, Next August

      by

      The R&B star was convicted last month in Brooklyn of sex trafficking and racketeering charges after decades of sexual abuse allegations.R. Kelly, the R&B superstar who was convicted last month in Brooklyn on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges, has been scheduled to stand trial again starting on Aug. 1 in Chicago.In this case, Mr. Kelly faces charges that he produced child pornography, enticed children into sex acts and that he and two former employees conspired to fix his 2008 criminal trial in Illinois by paying off witnesses and victims in an effort to get them to change their stories.Judge Harry Leinenweber of U.S. District Court set the date of Mr. Kelly’s trial for three months after he is scheduled to be sentenced in the Brooklyn case, where he faces 10 years to life in prison after a jury found him guilty of all nine counts against him, including eight violations of an anti-sex trafficking law known as the Mann Act. The Chicago trial has been postponed several times because of the pandemic and the Brooklyn case.The federal charges in Chicago came six months after Mr. Kelly, 54, became the focus of scrutiny from law enforcement following the release of the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly,” which included testimony from several women who accused the singer of abuse dating back to the 1990s.The conviction in Brooklyn was Mr. Kelly’s first criminal punishment despite a long history of sexual abuse allegations.In 2008, Mr. Kelly was tried in Illinois on 14 counts of child pornography and was ultimately acquitted. According to the federal indictment in the Chicago case, which was filed in July 2019, Mr. Kelly and others paid a witness about $170,000 in 2008 to cancel a news conference at which he planned to announce that he possessed video evidence of Mr. Kelly engaging in sex acts with minors. The indictment also alleged that Mr. Kelly instructed his victims to deny to a grand jury a sexual relationship with the singer.Mr. Kelly’s acquittal in 2008 allowed his music career to flourish, and at the trial in Brooklyn, witnesses said his escape from a conviction emboldened him, describing his behavior as increasingly more disturbing in the following years.Mr. Kelly will later face state sex crime charges in Illinois and Minnesota. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Television

      Bill Cosby Is Sued; Woman Says He Sexually Assaulted Her in 1990

      by

      The suit was filed under a change in New Jersey law that extended the deadline to sue in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.A woman sued Bill Cosby in New Jersey on Thursday, accusing the entertainer of drugging and sexually assaulting her at a hotel in Atlantic City in 1990, when she was 26.The woman, Lili Bernard, now 57, an actor and visual artist, has long been public about her accusations against Mr. Cosby. She was able to file the suit because New Jersey overhauled its laws on the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases in 2019.Under the old laws, Ms. Bernard would have been time-barred from filing suit because lawsuits had to be filed within two years of the alleged assault. The reforms extended the time limit to seven years and created a special two-year window, ending next month, to bring cases regardless of how long ago the alleged assault might have occurred.Ms. Bernard, a former guest star on “The Cosby Show,” said in court papers that Mr. Cosby had acted as her mentor before an incident in which she said he drugged and raped her at the hotel, the Trump Taj Mahal. She began to feel dizzy after drinking something he gave her, she said in the court papers.“I have waited a long time to be able to pursue my case in court and I look forward to being heard and to hold Cosby accountable for what he did to me,” she said in a statement. “Although it occurred long ago, I still live with the fear, pain and shame every day of my life.”The suit comes more than three months after Mr. Cosby, 84, was freed from prison in Pennsylvania where he was serving a three-to-10-year prison sentence after being convicted of sexually assaulting another woman, Andrea Constand. The 2018 conviction was overturned by the state’s Supreme Court on due process grounds.In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, denied Ms. Bernard’s allegations and attacked the so-called “look back” reforms.“These look back provisions are unconstitutional and they are a sheer violation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights and denies that individual of their Due Process,” he said in a statement. “This is just another attempt to abuse the legal process, by opening up the flood gates for people, who never presented an ounce of evidence, proof, truth and/or facts, in order to substantiate their alleged allegations.”The suit against Bill Cosby was based on a change in New Jersey law that expanded the statute of limitations governing lawsuits in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.Dominick Reuter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Wyatt said that in 2015 Ms. Bernard had made a criminal complaint to the New Jersey authorities who decided against moving forward with the case. Lawyers for Ms. Bernard said she was told her complaint fell outside the criminal statute of limitations.New Jersey eliminated the criminal statute of limitations for most cases of sexual assault in 1996.More than 50 women have accused Mr. Cosby of a range of sexual assault and misconduct, including rape. Ms. Constand’s case was the only one that proceeded criminally and other women have said their efforts to sue Mr. Cosby on sexual assault grounds have been blocked by statutes of limitation.Ms. Bernard had lobbied for changes in California’s laws on sexual assault, joining legislative efforts by other women who had similarly accused Mr. Cosby. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Television

      This Bill Cosby Juror is Lobbying for a Clear Legal Definition of Consent

      by

      Stunned by what she learned about the law during deliberations in the sex assault case, Cheryl Carmel is lobbying for consent to have a clear definition: a positive, unequivocal “yes.”Some jurors were stunned during deliberations in Bill Cosby’s 2018 trial on sexual assault charges when they asked the judge for the legal definition of consent.He told them there was none under Pennsylvania law.“He said you, as reasonable people, have to come up with your own definition,” said Cheryl Carmel, who was the jury forewoman.Mr. Cosby had been charged with administering an intoxicant to a woman, Andrea Constand, and then penetrating her without her consent. Ms. Constand had come to his home outside Philadelphia and accepted wine and pills that she said she thought were herbal medicine.Though Mr. Cosby described the sexual encounter in 2004 as consensual, Ms. Constand said she was too intoxicated to physically or verbally resist.“Here was a sexual assault case and there was no definition,” Ms. Carmel recalled in a recent interview. “It just boggled my mind.”Since the trial ended, Ms. Carmel has been working to address what she and many others view as a critical gap in the law, joining an effort to get Pennsylvania to define consent as an affirmative act, one that emphasizes that the absence of “no” does not constitute permission.Mr. Cosby was found guilty of sexually assaulting Andrea Constand, right, but his conviction was later overturned on due process grounds.Corey Perrine/Associated PressIt is an unusual quest for a former juror, most of whom, researchers say, seldom engage in activism precipitated by their experience during a trial. But Ms. Carmel is determined.“This is a problem throughout the United States, that this is not defined,” she said. “There has to be something that can be done to correct this, to ensure that future jurors can more efficiently do the job they need to do.”Many states in America lack definitions of consent in their criminal laws governing sexual assault. Of those that do, some characterize consent as the absence of an objection — that if you didn’t somehow physically or verbally communicate “no,” and were not unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, then you consented.Activists like Ms. Carmel believe that laws should require a “yes” signal to establish consent.Efforts are now underway to add or refine a definition of consent in several states, such as New York, Vermont and Utah. They are an outgrowth, experts say, of a #MeToo era reckoning that has already led to initiatives — some more successful than others — to extend or eliminate statutes of limitations in sexual assault cases and to restrict nondisclosure agreements that can silence victims in sexual harassment lawsuits.“We are in a moment of flux where we are seeing an effort to catch criminal law up to the current cultural understanding of consent,” said Deborah Tuerkheimer, a former prosecutor who teaches at Northwestern University and is an expert on laws regarding sexual assault.Many of those advocating change say the laws should clearly define consent to mean a positive, unequivocal “yes,” an agreement that is indicated verbally or through some other action that is freely given and informed. By this definition, someone who assented to sex but was being coerced, or deceived, could not have actually consented.The proposals roughly mirror regulations already in place in a small number of states like Wisconsin, and at many colleges, where consent in sexual encounters has long been a front-burner issue.Dawn Dunning, who testified at Harvey Weinstein’s trial in New York, has also been involved in efforts to introduce an affirmative definition of consent in sexual assault cases.  Richard Drew/Associated PressIn New York, supporters of the change include Dawn Dunning, an actress who accused Harvey Weinstein at his trial of sexually assaulting her. Without a solid definition of consent, she said in an interview, “It’s just a gray area, which is the last thing you want when you are talking about sexual assault.”In Utah, critics of the current law cite sections like one that says sexual assault is “without consent” when “the actor knows the victim is unconscious.”Professor Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and former federal judge, said the state’s language puts too much weight on proving that the defendant knew there was no consent. “What if a guy says, ‘It was 50:50, I was not sure,’” the professor asked. “In Utah that means you are not guilty of rape.”Specifics vary from place to place, but only a handful of U.S. states now define consent as requiring an affirmative act — a freely given agreement in words or actions. As efforts to expand that number proceed, debates continue about how far the reach of the law should extend into sexual encounters.While proponents of change applaud all efforts to further delineate consent, and eliminate confusion, others question whether it is practical to legislate that every step in a sexual encounter requires an affirmative yes, or to criminalize behaviors where miscommunications and simple misunderstandings, not aggression, are to blame.“The language of sex is complicated,” said Abbe Smith, professor of law at Georgetown. “The criminal law is too blunt an instrument.”Such concerns were raised during an unsuccessful effort to introduce affirmative language into the American Law Institute’s latest reworking of its model penal code, considered a blueprint for state laws.Mr. Cosby had contended that his sexual encounter with Ms. Constand was consensual, but she said she was unable to consent, or resist, because of the impact of wine and pills he gave to her. Matt Rourke/Associated PressIn the Cosby case, the question of consent arose as the panel deliberated inside the Montgomery County courthouse, using a chart on an easel to record the main points of its discussion.In a civil deposition, Mr. Cosby had said he had not asked for permission verbally when he put his hand on Ms. Constand’s midriff during their encounter at his home outside Philadelphia one evening in early 2004. “I don’t hear her say anything,” he said. “And I don’t feel her say anything. And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped.”According to Ms. Constand’s testimony she was passive and, because of the intoxicants, unable to move, or fight him off, or even understand properly what was happening to her.Some jurors, according to two who were present, wondered aloud whether, if Ms. Constand did not say no, did that constitute consent?When the judge could not provide a legal definition, Ms. Carmel, 62, stepped forward as forewoman. She had a bit of background in the subject because she works in cybersecurity and privacy for an emergency notifications company. At the time, she was helping her company meet new European data protection regulations that require companies to obtain the positive consent of people visiting their websites before using their personal information.She told her fellow jurors how the data protection rules say that consent must be freely given by a clear affirmative act, be specific, informed and unambiguous, and that it can be withdrawn.“By providing that kind of framework it helped everybody get over the hump of ‘She didn’t say no,’ ” Ms. Carmel said. “It helped the conversation move on.”Another former Cosby juror, Dianne Scelza, agreed. “It was important for us to come to some sort of understanding of what it meant and how it played into the verdict,” she said.Mr. Cosby was convicted in 2018 after the jury decided that Ms. Constand had not consented to his actions. Earlier this year the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that prosecutors had violated Mr. Cosby’s due process rights. He was released from prison in June.After the trial, Ms. Carmel was approached by Joyce Short, founder of the Consent Awareness Network, who is trying to get affirmative definitions introduced into states’ laws. She had read about the problems the Cosby jury had with consent and Ms. Carmel’s approach as forewoman.Ms. Carmel said she was able to help focus the Cosby jury’s discussion on consent because, in her work, she had been exposed to the definition used in European data protection regulations. Michelle Gustafson for The New York TimesSince then, Ms. Carmel has met several times with local legislators, lobbying on behalf of a bill to define consent that activists plan to introduce into the Pennsylvania legislature.“I recognized it was important to bring Cheryl to the meetings with the legislators because she could really explain,” said Ms. Short. “Their jaws dropped, literally.”Senator Katie Muth, a rape survivor who is supporting the bill, said: “Having a definition in the law makes one less painful step if you do come forward.”But even proponents of the legislation predict it will be difficult to win passage.“This is going to be a really slow process because of the nuances,” said Jennifer Storm, a former victim advocate for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and author of several books on sexual assault. “It’s not that easy to define consent. It’s way too nuanced for that. Sex is nuanced.”Ms. Carmel, though, said she is patient. After she retires next month, she said she hopes to devote more time to what she says has become her passion — refining the law in Pennsylvania and maybe in other states.“How can we make it easier for people like me to be a juror, to listen to what a judge has to say, to listen to the evidence and come to a reasonable decision?” she said. “I want to make sure other jurors get all of the tools they could possibly use.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Music

      YouTube Deletes Two R. Kelly Channels, but Stops Short of a Ban

      by

      The video platform said it was enforcing its terms of service, one week after the singer was convicted on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges.A week after R. Kelly’s conviction on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges, YouTube has deleted two of the R&B star’s official video channels, but is not banning his music entirely.The two channels — RKellyTV and the singer’s Vevo account, which hosted his music videos — were removed on Tuesday in what YouTube, owned by Google, said was an enforcement of its terms of service.“We can confirm that we have terminated two channels linked to R. Kelly in accordance with our creator responsibility guidelines,” Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson, said in a statement.According to YouTube’s guidelines, it may shut down the channels of people accused of very serious offenses if they have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes, and if their content is closely related to those crimes.On Tuesday, a news report in Bloomberg quoted an internal memo by Nicole Alston, YouTube’s head of legal, which said, “Egregious actions committed by R. Kelly warrant penalties beyond standard enforcement measures due to a potential to cause widespread harm.”In the past, YouTube has removed the channels of creators like Austin Jones, who made popular a cappella videos and in 2019 pleaded guilty to having underage girls send him sexually explicit videos.YouTube’s stance may be the first significant action taken by a major tech platform to remove Kelly’s content. But it is not a total ban. Kelly’s music is still allowed on YouTube through user-generated content, like cover versions of his songs, and on Kelly’s “topic” page, which allows streaming of his recordings while a static image of his album artwork is displayed.And Kelly’s music remains fully available on YouTube Music, a separate streaming platform that competes more directly with audio outlets like Spotify and Apple Music. Last month, Google said that there are 50 million subscribers to YouTube Music and YouTube Premium, which allows viewers to skip ads on videos.When asked why Kelly’s music remains available on YouTube Music, and why that platform has different creator responsibility guidelines, a YouTube spokesperson said only: “Our creator responsibility guidelines are enforced for channels that are linked to the creator. This is consistent with how we’ve enforced our policies in the past.”The answer may lie in the historical roots of YouTube as a platform for individual creators, who often operate without a corporate intermediary like a record company, and thus maintain more direct control over their video channels. But for most major recording artists, like Kelly, their record companies supply their music videos to YouTube through Vevo, which is jointly owned by Google and the major record companies.In 2018, Spotify briefly instituted a policy banning the promotion of artists — including Kelly — whose personal conduct was deemed “hateful.” The policy was rescinded after objections in the music industry that it was vague and seemed to inordinately affect artists of color.Since then, there has been little attempt to police the content of musicians accused of serious misconduct, to the dismay of many activists. Kelly’s music remains widely available on other major streaming platforms like Apple Music, Spotify and Amazon Music, and has been included on hundreds of official playlists on those services. On Spotify, Kelly’s songs have recently drawn an average of about five million streams each month. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Music

      Reporters on R. Kelly's Trial and Conviction

      by

      Subscribe to Popcast!Apple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherLast week, the R&B superstar R. Kelly — one of the most popular musicians of the 1990s and 2000s — was convicted in federal court for his role in an enterprise that recruited women and underage girls for sexual exploitation. He was found guilty on nine counts: racketeering, and eight violations of the Mann Act, a sex trafficking statute.For well over two decades, allegations about Kelly’s inappropriate sexual behavior had been sometimes covered in the press, and sometimes discussed by fans. He was even tried, unsuccessfully, on child pornography charges in 2008. But in recent years, new reporting about his coercive behavior and a documentary giving voice to his victims reframed the public narrative around Kelly. Several victims testified against him, as did several people who worked for the star.On this week’s Popcast, a conversation about the specifics of Kelly’s trial, the meaning of his conviction, and the long — and ongoing — quest for proper recompense for his victims.Guests:Troy Closson, The New York Times metro reporter covering law enforcement and criminal justiceJim DeRogatis, who for more than two decades has covered allegations of wrongdoing against R. Kelly for several outlets including the Chicago Sun-Times, Buzzfeed and The New YorkerConnect With Popcast. Become a part of the Popcast community: Join the show’s Facebook group and Discord channel. We want to hear from you! Tune in, and tell us what you think at popcast@nytimes.com. Follow our host, Jon Caramanica, on Twitter: @joncaramanica. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Music

      T.I. and Tiny Will Not Be Charged in Los Angeles Sexual Assault Investigation

      by

      The district attorney’s office in Los Angeles cited the statute of limitations, which expires after 10 years, in declining to pursue criminal charges regarding an alleged 2005 incident.Prosecutors in Los Angeles have declined to pursue criminal charges against the rapper T.I. and his wife, Tameka Cottle Harris, following an investigation into whether the couple drugged and sexually assaulted a woman in 2005, citing the statute of limitations, according to a document from the district attorney’s office.“The statute of limitations is 10 years and has expired,” the Los Angeles County authorities wrote in a charge evaluation filing made public this week. “Without the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence being evaluated, the case is declined due to the expiration.”In May, the Los Angeles Police Department said it had opened a criminal investigation into the incident, in which a military veteran said she met the famous couple in the V.I.P. section of a Los Angeles club and became incapacitated after drinking with them. She said the couple then raped her in a hotel room.A lawyer representing the woman, who requested anonymity to protect her family, said at the time that she was among nearly a dozen people who said they had been victimized by the Atlanta-based couple or members of their entourage. In February, the lawyer, Tyrone A. Blackburn, sent letters to the law enforcement authorities in Georgia and California, calling for criminal inquiries on behalf of 11 people, including four women who accused the pair of having drugged and sexually assaulted them.The letters described “eerily similar” experiences of “sexual abuse, forced ingestion of illegal narcotics, kidnapping, terroristic threats and false imprisonment” at the hands of T.I. (born Clifford Harris), Ms. Harris (a member of the R&B group Xscape who is known as Tiny) and their associates.The couple denied any instances of nonconsensual sex and their representatives called the claims “a sordid shakedown campaign.”On Thursday, Shawn Holley, a lawyer for the Harrises, said in a statement that the couple was “pleased, but not surprised, by the District Attorney’s decision to dismiss these meritless allegations. We appreciate the DA’s careful review of the case and are grateful to be able to put the matter behind us and move on.”Mr. Blackburn said that the prosecutors’ decision “does not vindicate Clifford Harris and Tiny Harris from the act of raping and drugging Jane Doe. It only amplifies the need to do away with the statute of limitations for sex crimes.”The statute of limitations for most rape cases in Los Angeles before 2017 is typically 10 years. But Mr. Blackburn had initially cited exceptions that allowed the authorities to pursue older cases, as they did when they brought charges against Harvey Weinstein related to an incident that took place more than a decade earlier. He said that exception ultimately did not apply in this case because there was only one alleged victim in Los Angeles. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      Coming to Terms With the Legacy of Rick James

      by

      For a new documentary, the director and the star’s daughter examine both his pioneering work and his misogyny, as well as a sexual-assault conviction.It’s no question that Rick James is a legend for helping bring “punk-funk” to the mainstream with classics like “Mary Jane” and “Super Freak”; for breaking down the color barrier in rock ’n’ roll; and for confronting the whiteness of MTV in the ’80s. But how do you reckon with the man who is just as famous for committing sexual assault and perpetuating misogyny in the music industry? To Sacha Jenkins, director of the fascinating new documentary, “Bitchin’: The Sound and Fury of Rick James,” the answer is complicated.“I think it’s undeniable that he was a brilliant, genius musician and artist, and I think it’s undeniable that he had demons, and it’s undeniable that he did some really horrible, unsavory things,” Jenkins said on a recent video call from Martha’s Vineyard. “So, how do you reconcile the two?”Jenkins talks about his work on the film with the same analytical approach he took to James’s life, allowing audiences to draw their own conclusions about the person behind the larger-than-life image. There is certainly a plethora of biographical information for viewers to take into account in his documentary, debuting Friday on Showtime. “I just wanted to provide folks the tools to make their own decisions,” he added.Jenkins traces James’s story chronologically, from the outspoken musician’s childhood home in 1960s Buffalo, which the singer describes as having, “nice hills, ghetto, rats this big,” stretching out his arms in an archival interview seen in the film.“Bitchin’” details how James began selling drugs there, and how he was in and out of jail several times as a teenager until he joined the military. By 18, he had already experienced the trauma of being sexually abused as a child, getting “whoopings” from his mother and witnessing his father beating her.“I guess you can say, in a way, I was an abused child,” James recalls matter-of-factly in an interview. “But I had a lot of love in my family.”The director Sacha Jenkins, left, with James’s brother, Carmen Sims, center, and Gregory Cromwell, who worked security for James.Christine Shaw, via Mass AppealIt’s fair to suggest that James, who died at 56 in 2004, was already contending with demons he never truly confronted. Even his daughter, Ty James, who is interviewed in the documentary and is a producer, wasn’t privy to the details of his adolescent trauma. “It floated around a little bit, but it wasn’t something that I was totally abreast of,” she said on a separate video call.The world watched those demons play out in personal and professional affairs that were frustrating, toxic and, ultimately, devastating. In essence, he wanted freedom to be a devil-may-care rock star like Mick Jagger — with just as much access to drugs and women. After all, early in his career he performed with Levon Helm (before the Band), and formed the Mynah Birds with the rockers Nick St. Nicholas (who would go on to Steppenwolf) and Neil Young. Later, James battled Motown, because the label wanted to place him in the doo-wop genre, and white-owned networks like MTV because they refused to play music by Black artists.“We’re being sat in the back of the bus, television-style,” he tells a reporter. “This isn’t ‘The Wizard of Oz.’ There are Black people here, and we make music. Don’t we exist?”He had the loud, unapologetic flair of a Black man who grew up powerless, getting beat up by white kids on the block, and who proved revolutionary in another white space: the music industry. In 1981, he called out law enforcement brutality in the song “Mr. Policeman.” “I’m very vocal about injustice,” he says in archival footage. “I’ve never been one to bite my tongue and I never will.”So, in some ways, James was a hero. Even Jenkins, a musician himself, relates to him. “I was someone who liked rock ’n’ roll, hip-hop, skateboarding — a broad range of things. And I was sort of an oddball,” recalled the director, known for “Wu-Tang Clan: Of Mics and Men” and “Word Is Bond.” He continued, “But today, you can have rappers who are influenced by heavy metal, and no one’s going to say, ‘You’re a white boy or you’re a sellout.’ Rick was an early proponent of that.”But the empowerment he gained from his success also granted him excess and entitlement he’d never experienced growing up. “You mix all of those early learnings with an environment where no one tells you no, that math adds up to a bad equation,” Jenkins continued.This “bad equation” included, by the singer’s own estimate, a $6,000-to-$8,000 weekly cocaine addiction, a parade of women in and out of his home — some of whom, the film claims, he videotaped performing sexual acts at parties. “Daddy had his share of women, that’s for sure,” Ty James says in the film.She first met her father when she was 13 and she and her brother were sent to stay with him. She remembers “walking over naked girls at 7 in the morning.”James battled MTV when it refused to play music by Black artists.Mark Weiss, via ShowtimeTy James didn’t meet her father until she was sent to live with him at 13. ShowtimeThis was indicative of the era when rock stars hosting orgies in their mansions or using drugs on tour buses were normalized — even popularized. Jenkins argues that contextualizing the time period is just as critical to examining the musician’s legacy. “You can judge Rick James by today’s metrics, or you can try to be realistic about the times he was living in and what he was doing,” he said.By maintaining a bad-boy image, James and many others “would probably stand out like a sore thumb and be ostracized” today, Gail Mitchell, executive director of R&B and hip-hop at Billboard magazine, says in the film. Offstage, the budding musician Roxanne Shante recalls how he took her under his wing but also how he referred to a woman he was living with as “Bitch” so many times that Shante thought that was the woman’s name.Still, the songs he wrote and produced for female acts like Teena Marie and the Mary Jane Girls highlighted a surprising consciousness. “I knew I could write for girls,” James says in the film. “It was easy for me to write for them. I’ve been such an asshole to them that I could kind of reverse and know how they feel.”But in 1991, he was arrested for holding a 24-year-old woman hostage, tying her up, forcing her to perform sex acts and burning her with a crack cocaine pipe. James served five years in prison.To omit that period when considering his legacy is to avoid the whole truth and his humanity — both good and bad. That’s something even Ty James, a self-professed “daddy’s girl,” had to face before agreeing to be a part of “Bitchin’.”“I said, ‘You know what? I’m totally OK with that because my dad did his time for the things he got in trouble for,’” she said. “It goes to show that nobody’s perfect, especially dealing with the type of demons he dealt with. I’d already lived through it. Coming to terms with that was the hardest part.”As Jenkins said, every Rick James fan has wrestled with these contradictions at some point, including the director. “He processed his flaws in a way that created songs that still stand the test of time,” he reflected. “He made music reflective of his life experiences — being a Black man of a certain class in America. Is it misogynist? Sure. But has misogyny gone away suddenly? Has racism gone away suddenly? I don’t think so.” More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Television

      Michaela Coel Puts Herself Together in ‘Misfits’

      by

      The book, adapted from a speech by the creator and star of “I May Destroy You,” codifies her efforts to achieve transparency in her work and in her life.The city of Edinburgh was the epicenter of a powerful energy pulse on Aug. 22, 2018 — not the kind that precise scientific equipment can detect, but one whose ripples would be felt by sensitive human instruments in the weeks and months that followed.That evening, Michaela Coel, a rising British TV star, was invited to address her colleagues at the prestigious Edinburgh International Television Festival. Speaking to a few thousand industry peers in a lecture hall and countless more viewers watching her online, she shared stories from her ascent, a narrative that was by turns wryly comic and devastating.Coel talked about growing up a member of one of only four Black families in a public housing complex in East London. She described her time at drama school, where a teacher called her a racial slur during an acting exercise. She discussed her surprise, after achieving some professional success, at being sent a gift bag that contained “dry shampoo, tanning lotion and a foundation even Kim Kardashian was too dark for.” She recounted how she had gone out for a drink one night and later realized she had been drugged and sexually assaulted.She spoke of resilience gained from a life spent “having to climb ladders with no stable ground beneath you,” and she classified herself as a misfit, defined in part as someone who “doesn’t climb in pursuit of safety or profit, she climbs to tell stories.”Three years later, Coel — now 33 and the celebrated creator and star of the HBO comedy-drama “I May Destroy You” — regards this speech as a satisfying moment of personal unburdening.As she said in a video interview a few weeks ago, “We go in and out of working with people and we never quite know who they are, and no one ever quite knows who you are. There’s something quite liberating about just letting everybody know.”A misfit, Coel said during her 2018 speech, “doesn’t climb in pursuit of safety or profit, she climbs to tell stories.”Ken Jack/Corbis via Getty ImagesWith its explicit calls for greater transparency, Coel’s address (known formally as the James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture) resonated across the entertainment industry and provided a narrative and thematic foundation for “I May Destroy You.” Next month, the speech will be published by Henry Holt & Co. as a book titled “Misfits: A Personal Manifesto.”To an audience that is still discovering Coel, her life and her work, “Misfits” may seem like an artifact preserving the moment that its author became the fullest version of herself.But to Coel, it represents a particularly validating episode in a career where she has always felt empowered to speak her mind.“I’ve always been annoying people about these things,” she said with a laugh. “I don’t know where I got the cheek to be like this. But from the beginning, there’s always been a story where Michaela was pushing and saying, ‘There’s something wrong here.’”To this day, Coel is relentlessly candid about the choices that go into her work, even when it comes to the decision to call “Misfits” a “manifesto,” which she said was foisted upon her by her publishers.As she explained, “I was like, ‘But it’s so small, it’s not really a book.’ They were like, ‘A book is a binding of papers.’ OK, fine, can we call it an essay book? ‘Mmm, no.’”Coel’s book “Misfits” is out on Sept. 7.She was more circumspect about discussing where on the planet she was while we had our video conversation. Despite a report in Variety that Coel had joined the cast of the Marvel superhero sequel “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” she said, “I’m in America. I don’t know why I’m here. I have a feeling that I’m not supposed to say.” (A spokesman for Marvel declined to comment.)The actor Paapa Essiedu, a co-star on “I May Destroy You” and a longtime friend of Coel’s, said that since their time together as students at London’s Guildhall School of Music and Drama, he had known Coel to be a courageous, forthright person.“Her voice was always very clear,” Essiedu said. “She always felt like she was unperturbed by what was expected of her, and she was able to think and speak independently.”Even so, Essiedu said, “Remember that she is just a normal person,” who talks trash with her friends “and can be funny and can be really annoying. Her day-to-day life is not her espousing how to make the world a better place.”In the speech, Coel described frustrations she had endured on her breakthrough comedy series, “Chewing Gum,” which ran on the E4 channel in Britain and on Netflix in America. She spoke about crying into an unpurchased pair of tights at a drugstore following a phone call where she it was suggested that she would have to hire co-writers to help her on the series.She also talked about turning down an offer to make “I May Destroy You” with Netflix when the streaming service declined to let her keep any ownership rights for the series. (In the lecture, she told this story with an allegorical flair, imagining it as a negotiation with a fictional stepmother she called “No-Face Netanya.”)“I don’t know where I got the cheek to be like this,” Coel said. “But from the beginning, there’s always been a story where Michaela was pushing and saying, ‘There’s something wrong here.’”Wulf Bradley for The New York TimesAmy Gravitt, an executive vice president at HBO who oversees its original comedy programming, said that she was moved by Coel’s lecture when she watched it online.“There was so much that she said in that speech that resonated as a woman working in this industry,” said Gravitt, who first met with Coel in 2017 following the success of “Chewing Gum.”“When she talked about her desire to see another person’s point of view represented onscreen, that resonated deeply with me as a programmer,” Gravitt said.Far from feeling reluctant to work with someone so outspoken, Gravitt said, “I feel like I only want to work with people who feel comfortable speaking their mind.”Coel ultimately ended up making “I May Destroy You” for HBO and the BBC. When I asked her if Netflix must cry itself to sleep every night for losing out on the show, she answered, “Well, melatonin works a charm.”A press representative for Netflix said in a statement said, “Michaela is an incredibly talented artist who we were thrilled to work with on ‘Black Mirror’ and ‘Black Earth Rising’ among others, and who we hope to work with again in the future.”Coel said she never hesitated to tell her lecture audience about having been sexually assaulted. “I never had that thing where I kept it to myself and was afraid to say it because of what people thought,” she said. “And because I never had that incubation period for shame and guilt to make a home inside of me, it never did.”Talking about the assault now was like “looking at a scar,” she said.“I look at the scar, and it’s like, whoa, that happened,” Coel said. “But now I’m alive to look at this scar, which means that I’ve come around the bend.”At the time she gave the lecture, Coel was already writing what would become “I May Destroy You,” in which her character, a young writer named Arabella, is served a spiked drink and sexually assaulted.“I May Destroy You” is up for nine Emmys, including outstanding lead actress.HBO, via Associated PressTo this day, Coel said, she encounters people who are fans of the show but do not realize it is based on her experience. Other viewers approach her, over social media and in person, to tell her about their own traumas. “I’ve cried with strangers on the street,” she said.“I May Destroy You” became a pandemic-era staple when it ran last spring and summer, and it has inspired its fans in other ways.In February, the series received no nominations for Golden Globes, prompting an outcry from its audience. Deborah Copaken, an author and memoirist (“Ladyparts”) who was a writer on the first season of the gauzy Netflix comedy “Emily in Paris,” wrote in an essay for The Guardian that the snub “is not only wrong, it’s what is wrong with everything.”In an interview, Copaken praised Coel for putting “people on the screen you’ve never seen on TV except as extras or others,” in a series that encompassed topics such as sexual consent and the assimilation of immigrants.“It doesn’t do the thing of making people who aren’t white and Western into paragons of virtue,” Copaken said. “These are interesting people with messy lives. At every turn, it challenges viewers’ assumptions.”Coel herself said she was too enchanted with the broader reaction to her series to worry about the Golden Globes controversy. “I was on this cloud of gratitude,” she said, “and I could hear there was something happening. I was like, guys, I don’t know how to come down from the cloud and deal with this.” Last month, “I May Destroy You” was nominated for nine Emmy Awards, including limited or anthology series. Coel and Essiedu both received nominations as actors, and Coel was also nominated as a director and as a writer on the series.Now Coel faces the happy challenge of figuring out a follow-up to “I May Destroy You,” and she is emphatic that the series has concluded.“To me, it’s very clearly finished, isn’t it?” she said. “Imagine if there was a Season 2? I just think guys, come on, it’s done. Unless somebody has this amazing idea for Season 2 that doesn’t destroy Season 1, for me it is closed and finished.”Coel said she faced no external pressures to deliver her next project. “HBO and BBC were very kind,” she said. “They said, ‘Hey, Michaela, you’ve done a great thing for us. You can just chill out, take as long as you need.’ But I’m not like that.”She quickly pointed her camera at a whiteboard on which she had started to map out a new story arc, but she turned the camera back at herself before any words were legible. She would say no more about the new series except that the BBC had committed to making it.Viewers of “I May Destroy You” sometimes approach Coel, over social media and in person, to tell her about their own traumas. “I’ve cried with strangers on the street,” she said.Wulf Bradley for The New York Times(Gravitt, the HBO executive, said that her network was “in the early stages of talking to Michaela and the BBC and various artists who are all a part of the team of ‘I May Destroy You,’ and excited at the prospect of having this new project to work on together.”)Essiedu said that Coel had not been changed much by reaching a new echelon of fame, and that she remained an artist who was motivated more by the work more than by the celebrity.“She deserves the credits and the plaudits,” he said. “She’s not going to shy away from that, which is something that us Brits are very good at doing. She’s maybe a bit more like you Americans in that approach.”But having twice experienced the satisfaction of feeling that her viewers truly and fully received what she was saying — with her MacTaggart lecture, and with “I May Destroy You” — Coel said she could hardly ask for much more.“As a writer, sometimes I’m fraught, I’m frazzled,” she said. “I’m trying to be clear, piece by piece, and the audience valued me and listened to me.”With a mixture of relief and delight, she exclaimed, “The way that people listen to me in this life! All I’ve learned is to be heard.” More