Connect with us

Updates

The Goldmans on their pursuit of OJ Simpson: ‘We were called racist for not agreeing with the verdict’

Published

on

 

Ron Goldman put up a fight before he was murdered – on that much everyone agrees. On 13 June 1994, the young waiter was found slumped against a gate, a few feet away from the body of OJ Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. Now, 23 years on, he remains one of the most famous innocent bystanders of all time. Goldman had gone to Brown Simpson’s house to drop off a pair of sunglasses her mother had left at the restaurant where he worked; he arrived either during the murder of Brown Simpson or immediately after. Instead of fleeing, he went towards her.

That is when the killer attacked him. Goldman, 25, had always looked after himself – worked out, ate right – but the body of which he had been proud was so brutalized during his killing – he was stabbed more than two dozen times – that when photos of it were shown in court jurors cried, gagged and fled the courtroom; Judge Lance Ito had to call a recess. The Simpson trial remains one of the most divisive cases in US history, but on two matters the defense and the prosecution agreed: Goldman fought desperately for his life and his death was terrifying, protracted and brutal.

If his killer was surprised by how much of a fight Goldman put up, then Simpson has been similarly taken aback by the tenacity of the Goldman family. Ron’s father, Fred, and his younger sister, Kim, attended almost every day of the murder trial in 1995 and their devastated expressions were a constant reminder of the human cost of a case that quickly became about everything – race, celebrity, the Los Angeles police department, the US – but the murders themselves. When the jury declared Simpson not guilty, prompting a wail of despair from Kim audible to the 150 million Americans (57% of the population) watching on TV, she and Fred set out to find justice. They filed a wrongful-death civil suit against Simpson; he was found responsible for the murders of Ron and Brown Simpson and ordered to pay their families $33.5m. Simpson claimed he was bankrupt, so the Goldmans have been pursuing him indefatigably for his assets ever since.

Ronald Goldman in 1991
 ‘He was happy-go-lucky, the clown in the room’ … Fred Goldman on Ron Goldman in 1991. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

They have seized, among other things, the rights to Simpson’s notorious book, If I Did It, in which he describes hypothetically how he would have killed Ron and Brown Simpson. Simpson’s original publishers dropped it after a public backlash, but the Goldmans decided to publish it themselves, considering it Simpson’s long-overdue confession. They have said repeatedly that they do not care about the money and that they have recouped less than 1% of it. But they want to ensure that the man they insist killed Ron will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. (The Brown family has been much less aggressive with Simpson, at least partly for the sake of the two children Brown Simpson had with him.)

Simpson used state and federal laws to evade his financial obligations to the Goldman, moving to Florida, where state laws prevented the Goldman from taking his home. But even legendary athletes can run only for so long. In 2008, he was convicted of multiple felonies after he stole sports memorabilia from a collector in a Las Vegas hotel room. In recordings made before the robbery, Simpson referred to the Goldmans as “the gold-diggers” and said he did not want to commit the crime in California, because state laws meant the Goldmans would be able to seize the mementos. On 3 October 2008, 13 years to the day after he was acquitted of double murder, he was found guilty and sentenced to 33 years’ incarceration.

“We feel very strongly that, because of our pursuit of him for all these years, it did drive him to this,” Kim told reporters after the sentencing. When asked how she would feel when Simpson came up for parole in nine years, she replied: “We’ll be there, waiting and watching.”

***

It is 20 July 2017 and Fred is in a hotel room in midtown Manhattan, New York. The TV is tuned to a 24-hour news channel. Suddenly, an egg-timer appears on screen, counting down the hours to Simpson’s parole hearing, which will, of course, be televised. “Coming soon: OJ’s hearing, where we’ll hear from OJ himself!” says the presenter. Fred turns off the TV. The moustache, curled at the ends, that became a familiar sight during the murder trial in 1995 is a little sparser these days. Dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and jeans, a Star of David necklace resting against his broad chest and hearing aids hooked over his ears, Fred, 76, looks like a typical Jewish-American grandfather. He has the warm demeanour to match, but today his face is furrowed with anxiety. He did not sleep well last night – “of course”. When I ask how he is feeling, he considers the question carefully. “I’m gonna say apprehensive,” he replies.

Share
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Updates

FROM THE WAYNE MCGREGOR INTERVIEW: “I SEE BEAUTY IN THE DYSFUNCTIONAL”

Published

on

By

Mr. McGregor, how would you describe your unique style of choreography?

I see beauty in things that are dysfunctional rather than just pure line and shape. The aspiration of classical ballet has often been about a kind of grace and effortlessness and lyricism in the body, an instrument that’s in fantastic motion. I think that’s really beautiful and really interesting, but I also think there’s a whole other range of physical potential that a human body can do. So, I’m interested in that side of it. I’m interested in bodies misbehaving.

Where do you think that comes from?

I’ve always had a very long body, so I’ve been able to do things differently. I was doing body-popping and a lot of club stuff when I was around 18, when rave culture came around. That kind of permeates the way in which you see people move. I’ve not been in a classical ballet school — where you’ve seen bodies move in a particular way — since the age of eight.

“Everybody carries their own physical history, so it doesn’t matter if you’ve trained in hip-hop or body-popping or classical ballet. It’s all the same, really.”

You never had any traditional ballet training?

No! And that’s why it was so strange that I would get these really amazing jobs at places like The Royal Ballet, where I was the first resident choreographer who had never trained in a royal ballet. But I don’t think any of that matters. Being a choreographer is about the biomechanics and signature of the body. Everybody carries their own physical history, so it doesn’t matter if you’ve trained in hip-hop or body-popping or classical ballet. It’s all the same, really.

Did you go back to school to gain the technical knowledge necessary to talk to professional dancers?

Kind of. I did a degree in choreography and semiotics, as well as contemporary dance training, but I got my practice in ballet through actually doing it, right? So the first time you ever work with somebody on pointe shoes, you ask them, “What can you do?” I had no idea what you can do! But less important than knowing how the pointe shoe works is to have good dancers in the room who, when you say, “Can you do that?” they can go, “Oh no, but I can do this.”

Your approach to teaching choreography seems to rely more on collaboration than authority.

It’s a dialogue. I try to work with the best people possible and suck out their brilliance as much as possible. The job of a choreographer is to find what’s personal to them. When I worked with Thom Yorke, for example, I found out that he’s an amazing dancer. Full stop. He doesn’t really need a choreographer.

So you based the choreography around his natural movement?

Right and I think it should be like that for everyone! The “Lotus Flower” video is choreographed but it comes from him, so he feels he owns it already. He’s giving it to me, and I’m just helping him form it in a different way. When you’ve got somebody so extraordinary, it’s exciting for a choreographer; it’s effortless. Sometimes technique gets in the way of letting dancers be curious and open and try new things. Their idea of physical beauty gets in the way of them exploring. For me, there’s no point in being an artist now and just repeating things that happened in the past.

Source: The Talk

Share
Continue Reading

Updates

OLE SCHEEREN TALKS: “HOW CAN WE BREAK THE MOLD?”

Published

on

Mr. Scheeren, what experiences would you say changed your understanding of the world?

I think when you grow up in Europe, almost no matter where, you have a very sheltered idea of how things are. So going backpacking through China 25 years ago really confronted me with a reality that was unimaginable. Simply the amount of people around you, a completely different definition of personal space, of how things would work, of how people live… The main reason to go was that I knew nothing about the world, and China seemed the most impenetrable. Somehow that trip was a discovery of a reality that I had no idea about before. It was quite a transformative moment for me because it liberated me.

Liberated you from what?

It showed me that things could be dramatically different but maybe equally valid or equally interesting. For instance, I think that the power in China was not in holding on to its past in the way that other developed nations do, it was in the complete focus on the future. There was very little sentimental baggage. It was simply a search for how to progress. That experience was very raw, you could feel this incredible energy somehow in that country. People were hungry for things to happen, people were interested in what the future could be.

“That strong sense of courageousness was a very exciting context for an architect to engage with.”

Ma Yansong says architects should involve the public more when envisioning the future of urban planning.

Well, that strong sense of courageousness, that strong sense of demand, or exploration, was a very exciting context for an architect to engage with. It wasn’t just about how could we stick to what we already know but how can we rethink things for which there are no particular models. For example, in China, someone came to us and said, “We want to build a bookshop that is 100,000 square-meters large.” And you go, “What do you mean? Not even a public library is that size!” But then you visit an existing bookstore in Seoul that is half that size and it’s completely full of people. You see that energy and that density and you think, “Of course you can double it!” But at first it sounds like a completely implausible idea.

But bigger doesn’t always mean better…

True. What is important is to not simply succumb to the generic production of quantity and built mass, but to really ask how could we develop models out of this inevitable density, that are much more valuable towards us as human beings — towards a question of how we want to live, what is the quality of our life, and how do we want to exist in a city that grows extensively. I think we’ve been quite successful in finding clients that were ultimately willing to engage in these dialogues to see how we can break the mold, how we can, in a very literal way, open the skyscraper up to the life of people.

Like with your Interlace apartment complex in Singapore?

Exactly, the Interlace was a redefinition of a building as something that was no longer just an object, but a connective tissue that would form a huge community. The way the building blocks are stacked up forms huge gardens and courtyards, so it was about defining the space to live in that would allow you an incredible degree of freedom to decide for yourself. I think that’s what ultimately makes for an incredible quality of life in that place. Another example is the Sky Forest project in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. For that, we imagined the nature that you could soak up in the middle of a very dense, emerging part of the city.

Have you ever been surprised by how people inhabited your buildings?

In a way, that’s the best thing that can happen, when people are inspired enough to make their own story out of it. It’s not that they have to live your story — I think that would be a rather oppressive scenario. Architecture should never be too prescriptive in terms of telling you what to do. I think it’s actually brilliant when people find ways to reinterpret the spaces we create. For example, by complete coincidence, I found on the Internet a girl living at the Interlace who had posted a series of “My Life at the Interlace” videos, where she rollerblades throughout the complex — that was really a great moment. We couldn’t have scripted anything as good as that.

Source: The Talk

Share
Continue Reading

Updates

DAVID OYELOWO SAYS: “YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER”

Published

on

Mr. Oyelowo, how do you approach playing a historical character?

It’s a very tricky thing because of course you have to be evocative of who they were, how they moved, how they spoke. You have to make people relax and say, “Okay, he feels like him enough that I can just go on this journey with this character.” But if it becomes an imitation, if it’s about mimicry, if all people were saying is, “Oh, yeah, he really got the voice,” you’re dead! That’s the worst compliment you can pay.

Really, why?

Because when you go to see a movie, there is a spiritual exchange between the audience and what you’re watching. There is something metaphysical going on, where through the eyes, through what that person is exuding, you go, “I understand who they are. I have a sense of what they’re feeling when they’re not even talking.” There is an embodiment that is total so that you forget all of that. People shouldn’t be looking at the mechanics of what you did.

What should they be looking at?

How you did it emotionally. I believe that we go to the movies to see ourselves. “How would I react?” If all you’re seeing is a superhuman human being who had answers for everything, then you’re just watching in awe and it’s just like, “Okay, wow, he’s him and I’m me.” So I think it’s important that we can see ourselves on screen and I think that also means that we’re looking for the greatness in ourselves.

Is it important for your work to inspire people to be better?

It is important to me! I want to do films that hopefully inspire people to be the best version of themselves. If you look at the films I do, all of them, in some way… the remit I set myself is, “How does this enrich people’s lives?” You know, what’s meaningful? I want films that, when my kids see them, they understand why daddy did those films. They understand how it correlates with the way I’m trying to raise them.

Did you gain that perspective when you became a father?

Being a father teaches you very quickly that you are not the center of your own universe. That’s one of the gifts of having to wipe poop! (Laughs) Other people’s poop… Four times, with four children! I’ll be on a plane tomorrow back to my kids, lock my door, and it’ll all be about poop again! (Laughs) That’s the life I lead.

I’m sure that makes it easier to focus on the important things in life.

The fact of the matter is that every actor’s career has highs and lows. When success as an actor comes early, it’s very easy to believe the hype. But to me, it’s about how consistently you do the work – whether it’s celebrated or it’s not. I’ve been in movies with huge movie stars who have been crucified when there are failures and who have been adulated when there are successes.

In the last few years you’ve been in The HelpLincolnThe Butler, and most recently you portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. in Selma. Why is it so important for you to make films about African-American history?

We need those films. Up until recently, films that deal with civil rights and racial unrest have mostly been told through white characters, through white protagonists. Malcolm X is probably the only film I can think of where you have an indisputable black American leader as the focus of the film. What you’ve tended to have is Mississippi Burning or you have Glory or you have these films that are all through white protagonists. Great films – but a different point of view. You can’t have a film about Dr. King and it be all about Lyndon Johnson in my opinion.

Why do you think there are so many films about African Americans coming out of Hollywood lately?

I think it’s synonymous with Barack Obama’s presidency. I think having a black president means that for a lot of white people there is an opportunity to not just focus on what’s negative about the past, but we have clear indications of progress, so it becomes easier to go: “How did we get here, historically? How have we got to the point where we have a black president?” All these films, they were just not getting made before his presidency. I actually saw President Obama about two weeks ago when we took Selma to the White House, and I thanked him for my career.

What was his reaction?

He went, “Ah, I don’t know about that.” But I told him, “Trust me. I can track when these films came my way!” I can chart it because it’s synonymous with when I moved to L.A. I’ve been in five of those movies! So I think that’s what it is.

And last year 12 Years a Slave even won the Oscar for Best Picture.

But a film about a slave is different than a film about a leader. Black people have been celebrated as slaves and butlers… The very first black person to win an Oscar was for playing a maid in Gone With The Wind, Hattie McDaniel. So, you know, that’s not an issue. We’ve been celebrated as subservient people forever. Great! Fabulous! As leaders? No, not so much. Barely ever.

To quote Dr. King, do you believe that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice in the end?

I think it does – if love is where you’re operating from. I think if you have anger and bitterness in your heart, and you just decide to lash out against it, all you do is you feed prejudice because prejudice exists on the basis that you are lesser than. If you prove that you are lesser than, you are only going to perpetuate that myth. I think there is a reason why the phrase is moral because to be moral is to absolutely embrace the fact that there is a right and there is a wrong. So the only way it bends towards justice is to be part of the solution as opposed to being part of the problem.

Source: The Talk

Share
Continue Reading
Advertisement

About Talk Column

We provide you with the latest talks and interviews from the industry.

Contact us here:
info@mashcolumn.com

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending