vox--2020-01-23--Joker is the most-nominated film at this year’s Oscars. It shouldn’t win Best Picture.

Every year , between five and 10 movies compete for the Oscars ’ Best Picture trophy .
It ’ s the most prestigious award that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gives out every year , announced right at the end of the ceremony .
And there aren ’ t any set rules about what constitutes a “ best ” picture .
It ’ s the movie — for better or worse , depending on the year — that Hollywood designates as its standard bearer for the current moment .
So the film that wins Best Picture essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of its accomplishments in the present and its aspirations for the future .
Each year ’ s slate of nominations roughly approximates the movies the industry thinks showcase its greatest achievements from the past 12 months .
And one thing that ’ s definitely true about the nine Best Picture nominees from 2019 is that , in tone and theme , they ’ re all over the place .
The most-nominated film overall is also one of the year ’ s most successful commercially , and one of its most controversial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached the milestone of becoming that country ’ s first Best Picture and Best International Feature nominee .
There are three historical dramas : one set during World War I , one that centers on a 1966 car race , and one that co-stars an imaginary Hitler .
There ’ s a quietly funny drama about love and divorce and a revisionist history of Hollywood in the summer of 1969 .
The world ’ s arguably most influential living auteur made a gangster epic with eternity on its mind .
And a critically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the group .
In the runup to the Oscars on February 9 , the Vox staff is looking at each of the nine Best Picture nominees in turn .
What makes this film appealing to Academy voters ?
What makes it emblematic of the year ?
And should it win ?
Below , Vox critic-at-large Emily VanDerWerff , senior culture correspondent Alex Abad-Santos , and film critic Alissa Wilkinson talk about Joker , Todd Phillips ’ s controversial take on the origin story of arguably the most famous villain in comics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and its highest grossing non-Disney film ) is now the Oscars ’ most-nominated film , which I find not particularly surprising but a little exhausting .
I ’ ve never felt that this movie had much to say — it reminds me of a game of telephone , in which Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy said it first and then something got lost in translation .
But it obviously struck a massive nerve with audiences as well as with the industry , which has heaped praise on it beginning with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was programmed at most of the major festivals this fall , and Joaquin Phoenix seems all but certainly poised to win the Oscar for his performance .
You both saw it after the explosive reviews started coming out .
Was it what you expected ?
Emily : Let me tell you about watching Joker three days after Christmas , on a DVD screener , with friends , long after the buzz had died down .
I didn ’ t get it .
And by “ didn ’ t get it , ” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it — the controversy , the concern trolling , the praise .
This struck me as a boring , bland , mostly uninteresting movie , centered on a decent performance that , nevertheless , seemed to be constructed entirely out of GIFs .
The reading of the film that has swayed me slightly toward feeling more charitably toward it ( and even were I to adopt a “ the movie ’ s better than its critical reputation ” stance , I ’ d still find the filmmaking junky and pedestrian ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading of the movie , Arthur Fleck is an example of what happens when the social safety net is so nonexistent that he has nowhere to turn .
The community that bears him up is largely invented , and when he actually spurs some sort of ... revolt ... or something , he ’ s too far gone to develop class consciousness .
Arthur is a potential revolutionary who doesn ’ t realize what he ’ s doing and is turned into a villain by the media .
I ’ d like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not think it is the one I saw !
Joker is so painstakingly obsessed with figuring out ways to pay homage to the “ bold ” cinema of the ’ 70s that it forgets that , say , Taxi Driver has lots of great characters beyond Travis Bickle .
Instead , it finds ways to stay entrenched in Travis ’ s point of view while also making sure we understand the humanity of , say , Cybill Shepherd as the woman he loves from afar .
Joker has no idea how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head , even for a few seconds , which makes it tonally suffocating .
I checked out of it .
What I think the leftist reading of Joker is tapping into is the way that Todd Phillips has made a “ Did you ever notice ... ” movie .
What I mean is that this is a film that hits on a lot of different topics , in a scattershot fashion , but in a way that feels meaningful .
Todd Phillips has noticed that the rich are a problem , so he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
He ’ s noticed that mental health care is seriously deficient in this country , so he ’ ll mention that .
He ’ s noticed that a lot of violent people become famous , so why not that , too .
But the thoughts in this movie ’ s head rarely go beyond these observations .
It ’ s a Jay Leno Tonight Show monologue with occasional violence .
Reading this movie as a leftist treatise would seem a lot more plausible if we got the sense that anybody else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the movie places only his suffering front and center , then fetishizes it .
The real center of this film isn ’ t leftist politics ; it ’ s an anguished whine about how you just can ’ t tell jokes anymore , and , like , fine , Todd Phillips , maybe you can ’ t .
But I ’ m not sure the answer to the sorry state of the studio comedy — and/or the rise of people who insist that comedians joking about the traditionally disempowered are only upholding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big studio superhero-adjacent film .
Anyway , my friends and I were thoroughly bored by this movie , and I continue to admit : I don ’ t get it .
Joker wanted so badly to shock me that I remained unshocked .
It had its finger in the light socket and was begging me to hold its hand .
But , like , I could see what it was doing , you know ?
I wasn ’ t going to take its hand !
What did you think , Alex ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ day that Joker came out , but I was familiar with the controversy erupting — people who were saying that Joker was dangerous versus people who were saying these people were fragile worrywarts .
And I actually , at that point , was leaning toward the Joker fans , because of the curdled argument that art encourages violence ( see : the argument against violent video games ) .
I saw the movie a little later , and I came away thinking that the controversy was more compelling than the movie .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone scream-read Catcher in the Rye from a different room or , as Alissa pointed out in her review , a piece of art that resembles nothing more than an amalgamated simulacrum of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy .
Arthur Fleck is a maelstrom of tragedy and stifled masculinity , and because society never showed him any form of affection , he was forced to burn it down to find warmth .
It felt predictable , all its supposed edginess rooted in style and shock and wrapped around Joaquin Phoenix ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joker such a compelling character in pivotal comic book works like The Killing Joke is the realization that he and Batman are fundamentally so similar .
One bad day can push men to extremes — Batman ’ s bad day pushed him to a relentlessly seek justice , and conversely , Joker ’ s drove him to deranged ghoulishness .
And sane men don ’ t ever let that one day break them .
I wish the movie explored this more — the idea of scorn , of why Arthur Fleck is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even what makes Joker such an impossibly magnetic supervillain if Batman is one of our most beloved heroes .
I kept wanting it to say something , anything , about how or why society punishes the weakest ( Fleck ) and most vulnerable .
And , well , it all just left me flat , thinking that the controversy was the greatest marketing tool for such a middling movie .
It ’ s like Phillips and Joker gave you the CliffsNotes version of the Joker , rather than breaking any kind of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with you all ( and wrote reams on this movie ) , but I do have a question about its reception by audiences .
I don ’ t want to denigrate audience members , of course .
But so many responded to the movie , many in positive ways — and everyone seems to have felt like they at least needed to see it .
I think some of that has to do with what a simulacrum is : a simulation of the original that nearly replaces the original .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Driver and The King of Comedy , among others , so very disturbing ( far more disturbing than Joker ) .
But what else do you think accounts for its popularity ?
Emily : I don ’ t think it ’ s all that difficult to trace the success of Joker — it ’ s a movie that seems like it ’ s saying something big and important , that flatters viewers into thinking they ’ re smart , and it ’ s tied to a superhero property .
Batman remains one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ box office , and Joker remains his chief nemesis .
From an audience point of view , this is win-win-win .
And I don ’ t really blame anybody for finding this movie exciting , even for as boring as I found the film .
In an era when the superhero film has become the dominant force at the box office , there has been concern that the tonal sameness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe — cocky heroes who love to crack jokes and occasionally suffer tragedy — would infect the genre .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of superhero movie efforts in this new era were turgid , gritty messes ( think Batman v Superman , Suicide Squad , etc . )
, a future of superhero cinema hopelessly divided between overly sugary and overly gloomy films seemed like it was about to happen .
But Warner Bros. ’ new tactic has actually been pretty good for the genre , even if I don ’ t love all the movies .
Now , the studio worries less about creating a cohesive cinematic universe and just tries to come up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ characters and directors .
Joker looks nothing like Aquaman which looks nothing like Wonder Woman , and that ’ s all great !
The reaction to Joker reminded me a little of the reaction to 2017 ’ s Logan , the last movie where Hugh Jackman played Wolverine , and you could tell viewers were really into how different it felt from most superhero movies , no matter its faults .
( And I really like that movie , where I find Joker hard to take . )
But , as with Logan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally , someone is taking these characters seriously .
That ’ s where Joker breaks down for me — I don ’ t think it had a coherent center to speak of .
But I can see where if you either think it does or find yourself swayed by its superficially gritty exterior , it seems mighty impressive indeed .
The critic and screenwriter Carol Grant described Joker on Twitter as a “ dorm room poster ” movie , and she ’ s right .
It ’ s a movie designed to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigged against you , but really only you , specifically , not anybody else who might be watching .
I really just wish all the people who ’ d praised this movie had watched either HBO ’ s Watchmen or the final season of Mr .
Robot , which did all of the above but 10 times better and more coherently .
Alex : When you consider the Joker ’ s popularity , I think you also have to consider his legacy onscreen .
In particular , think of Heath Ledger ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dark Knight and then Jared Leto ’ s in 2016 ’ s Suicide Squad .
The two couldn ’ t be more different in terms of quality .
Ledger immortalized the role , giving that menacing edge to predecessor Jack Nicholson ’ s portrayal , while Leto ’ s was considered the worst thing about a movie that was one of the worst things ever to happen to cinema .
Leto ’ s flop energized fans , who believed that this iconic character and Ledger ’ s legacy were disrespected .
The pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phoenix to produce a good take on the Joker was immense because of the residual sourness of Leto ’ s performance .
Fans wanted to see if Warner Bros. was going to keep dragging this character into the pits of mediocrity or if Phoenix would restore the Joker to his rightful place in the pantheon of legendary villains .
Phoenix was and is incredible .
And fans can hold his performance , right alongside Ledger ’ s , as essential to the Joker and to the world of superhero cinema .
Maybe even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all kind of comical , because Joker wasn ’ t even the best movie , let alone superhero movie , of the year .
Emily : I ’ m going to be brief here , but I found Phoenix to be shockingly off in this film .
He ’ s one of my favorite actors , but the performance here seemed to be assembled at random from a highlight reel that cuts across his career .
There ’ s no coherent center to the character , because his performance has been selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow the roof off the theater .
In reading interviews with Phillips and Phoenix , it sounds like the director let the actor experiment a lot on set , but it ’ s clear that all involved then just kept the wildest possible takes .
It feels less like a lived-in performance than a performance constructed out of a Saturday Night Live parody of itself .
( I honestly thought David Harbour parodying this movie on SNL by playing Oscar the Grouch might sink any claim it had to being taken seriously .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance has some sort of emotional center .
Phoenix seems to have chosen to make Arthur Fleck untethered to underline his mental illness and his disconnection from society .
There ’ s a world in which that works — it ’ s arguably what Phoenix did in his best screen performance , in 2012 ’ s The Master .
But here , it felt to me like another case of the movie choosing to be extra over choosing to be meaningful .
Alissa : One last big question .
Joker seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stir up “ the discourse ” and act as free advertising for the film , especially among the kind of people who think going to a movie will make critics unhappy .
( It doesn ’ t , for the record .
It ’ s your money !
Knock yourself out ! )
That , combined with Joker ’ s immense commercial success , seems to suggest the movie is going to set some kind of template for Hollywood , which is forever chasing whatever seems to rake in the bucks .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim of the six big corporations at Hollywood ’ s center , and right they are to do it . )
So what kind of precedent do you think Joker sets ?
Alex : The idea of pitting fans versus critics isn ’ t unique to the Joker .
In fact , it seems to be a common occurrence with Warner Bros. superhero movies that critics didn ’ t like ( see : the aforementioned Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice and Justice League ) .
The idea , perpetuated by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that only true fans will appreciate this movie .
And since critics aren ’ t “ true fans , ” they can ’ t fully appreciate the movie .
And , to be fair , there were people who wrote off Joker before it was released because they felt it was “ dangerous ” — something I don ’ t agree with at all .
But this anti-critic narrative creates a fallacy that makes a film , to a certain extent among its fans , critic-proof .
Joker was the first Warner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before its release .
In a similar vein , we had Star Wars : The Rise of Skywalker come out this year and marketed as the anti-Last Jedi , a movie that was brigaded by fans who believed it betrayed their Star Wars sensibilities .
While directors and executives behind big franchises like Star Wars always take fans into account , it ’ s a bit disconcerting that the vocal fans , some of whom resorted to toxic and racist harassment , may now see their actions validated .
I suppose the counternarrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at Rise of Skywalker ’ s ( relatively ) disappointing box office .
For a movie that did so much to cater to the section of the fandom that hated Last Jedi , Rise of Skywalker still trails its predecessor at the box office .
And that may signal to Star Wars producers and directors that trying to court fans isn ’ t as foolproof as it seems .
The truth is , I ’ m not sure how much Joker will affect the marketing strategies of studios in the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joker , and all the controversy surrounding it , doesn ’ t become a regular occurrence — if only because it ’ s just so exhausting to have an entire conversation about and debate a movie before it ’ s even released .
Whew .
Emily ?
Emily , are you still here ?
Emily : Here ’ s the precedent I ’ m worried Joker sets : I ’ m worried that now , if you want to make a smaller , more personal movie about the state of the world ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joker definitely is on some level ) , you ’ re going to have to filter it through superhero cinema .
Am I looking forward to an Apocalypse Now riff featuring the Martian Manhunter or a Big Chill homage with the Justice Society of America ?
I mean ...
I would see both of those movies , so I ’ m part of the problem .
But I don ’ t love the idea that we ’ re increasingly entering a cinematic era where the ouroboros is the default .
Obviously , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some neat things .
Look no further than the TV series of Watchmen , over on Warner Bros. ’ corporate cousin HBO , for an example of a series that uses superhero motifs to talk about the modern world in a knotty and compelling way .
But that series was made by Damon Lindelof , who has plenty to say about geek culture , if nothing else .
What happens when there are more movies , made by directors who long to tell stories in certain genres , and they discover they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those stories if the main character is Krypto the Super Dog ?
I don ’ t know , but I ’ m not looking forward to finding out .
I don ’ t like Joker because I think it ’ s a bad movie .
But lots of bad movies have been nominated for Best Picture before .
What chills me about this movie leading the Oscar nominations is how much it strikes me as a sign of things to come .

Every year, between five and 10 movies compete for the Oscars’ Best Picture trophy. It’s the most prestigious award that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gives out every year, announced right at the end of the ceremony. And there aren’t any set rules about what constitutes a “best” picture. It’s the movie — for better or worse, depending on the year — that Hollywood designates as its standard bearer for the current moment.
So the film that wins Best Picture essentially represents the American movie industry’s view of its accomplishments in the present and its aspirations for the future.
Each year’s slate of nominations roughly approximates the movies the industry thinks showcase its greatest achievements from the past 12 months. And one thing that’s definitely true about the nine Best Picture nominees from 2019 is that, in tone and theme, they’re all over the place.
The most-nominated film overall is also one of the year’s most successful commercially, and one of its most controversial. A beloved social thriller from Korea has reached the milestone of becoming that country’s first Best Picture and Best International Feature nominee. There are three historical dramas: one set during World War I, one that centers on a 1966 car race, and one that co-stars an imaginary Hitler. There’s a quietly funny drama about love and divorce and a revisionist history of Hollywood in the summer of 1969. The world’s arguably most influential living auteur made a gangster epic with eternity on its mind. And a critically acclaimed adaptation of a celebrated novel rounds out the group.
In the runup to the Oscars on February 9, the Vox staff is looking at each of the nine Best Picture nominees in turn. What makes this film appealing to Academy voters? What makes it emblematic of the year? And should it win?
Below, Vox critic-at-large Emily VanDerWerff, senior culture correspondent Alex Abad-Santos, and film critic Alissa Wilkinson talk about Joker, Todd Phillips’s controversial take on the origin story of arguably the most famous villain in comics.
Alissa: Ah, Joker. Joker, Joker, Joker.
The year’s most controversial film (and its highest grossing non-Disney film) is now the Oscars’ most-nominated film, which I find not particularly surprising but a little exhausting. I’ve never felt that this movie had much to say — it reminds me of a game of telephone, in which Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy said it first and then something got lost in translation.
But it obviously struck a massive nerve with audiences as well as with the industry, which has heaped praise on it beginning with the Golden Lion at Venice. Joker was programmed at most of the major festivals this fall, and Joaquin Phoenix seems all but certainly poised to win the Oscar for his performance.
You both saw it after the explosive reviews started coming out. Was it what you expected?
Emily: Let me tell you about watching Joker three days after Christmas, on a DVD screener, with friends, long after the buzz had died down. I didn’t get it.
And by “didn’t get it,” I mean I didn’t get any of it — the controversy, the concern trolling, the praise. This struck me as a boring, bland, mostly uninteresting movie, centered on a decent performance that, nevertheless, seemed to be constructed entirely out of GIFs.
The reading of the film that has swayed me slightly toward feeling more charitably toward it (and even were I to adopt a “the movie’s better than its critical reputation” stance, I’d still find the filmmaking junky and pedestrian) is an overtly leftist one. In this reading of the movie, Arthur Fleck is an example of what happens when the social safety net is so nonexistent that he has nowhere to turn. The community that bears him up is largely invented, and when he actually spurs some sort of ... revolt ... or something, he’s too far gone to develop class consciousness. Arthur is a potential revolutionary who doesn’t realize what he’s doing and is turned into a villain by the media.
I’d like to see this version of Joker! I do not think it is the one I saw! Joker is so painstakingly obsessed with figuring out ways to pay homage to the “bold” cinema of the ’70s that it forgets that, say, Taxi Driver has lots of great characters beyond Travis Bickle. Instead, it finds ways to stay entrenched in Travis’s point of view while also making sure we understand the humanity of, say, Cybill Shepherd as the woman he loves from afar. Joker has no idea how to get out of its protagonist’s head, even for a few seconds, which makes it tonally suffocating. I checked out of it.
What I think the leftist reading of Joker is tapping into is the way that Todd Phillips has made a “Did you ever notice ...” movie. What I mean is that this is a film that hits on a lot of different topics, in a scattershot fashion, but in a way that feels meaningful. Todd Phillips has noticed that the rich are a problem, so he’ll talk about that a few times. He’s noticed that mental health care is seriously deficient in this country, so he’ll mention that. He’s noticed that a lot of violent people become famous, so why not that, too. But the thoughts in this movie’s head rarely go beyond these observations. It’s a Jay Leno Tonight Show monologue with occasional violence. Reading this movie as a leftist treatise would seem a lot more plausible if we got the sense that anybody else was suffering like Arthur Fleck is. But the movie places only his suffering front and center, then fetishizes it.
The real center of this film isn’t leftist politics; it’s an anguished whine about how you just can’t tell jokes anymore, and, like, fine, Todd Phillips, maybe you can’t. But I’m not sure the answer to the sorry state of the studio comedy — and/or the rise of people who insist that comedians joking about the traditionally disempowered are only upholding a broken status quo — is making a big studio superhero-adjacent film.
Anyway, my friends and I were thoroughly bored by this movie, and I continue to admit: I don’t get it. Joker wanted so badly to shock me that I remained unshocked. It had its finger in the light socket and was begging me to hold its hand. But, like, I could see what it was doing, you know? I wasn’t going to take its hand! What did you think, Alex?
Alex: I was on vacation the day that Joker came out, but I was familiar with the controversy erupting — people who were saying that Joker was dangerous versus people who were saying these people were fragile worrywarts. And I actually, at that point, was leaning toward the Joker fans, because of the curdled argument that art encourages violence (see: the argument against violent video games).
I saw the movie a little later, and I came away thinking that the controversy was more compelling than the movie. I found Joker to be like listening to someone scream-read Catcher in the Rye from a different room or, as Alissa pointed out in her review, a piece of art that resembles nothing more than an amalgamated simulacrum of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Arthur Fleck is a maelstrom of tragedy and stifled masculinity, and because society never showed him any form of affection, he was forced to burn it down to find warmth.
It felt predictable, all its supposed edginess rooted in style and shock and wrapped around Joaquin Phoenix’s blazing talent.
What makes the Joker such a compelling character in pivotal comic book works like The Killing Joke is the realization that he and Batman are fundamentally so similar. One bad day can push men to extremes — Batman’s bad day pushed him to a relentlessly seek justice, and conversely, Joker’s drove him to deranged ghoulishness. And sane men don’t ever let that one day break them.
I wish the movie explored this more — the idea of scorn, of why Arthur Fleck is so reviled but also sympathetic, or perhaps even what makes Joker such an impossibly magnetic supervillain if Batman is one of our most beloved heroes. I kept wanting it to say something, anything, about how or why society punishes the weakest (Fleck) and most vulnerable.
And, well, it all just left me flat, thinking that the controversy was the greatest marketing tool for such a middling movie. It’s like Phillips and Joker gave you the CliffsNotes version of the Joker, rather than breaking any kind of new territory.
Alissa: Obviously, I agree with you all (and wrote reams on this movie), but I do have a question about its reception by audiences. I don’t want to denigrate audience members, of course. But so many responded to the movie, many in positive ways — and everyone seems to have felt like they at least needed to see it. I think some of that has to do with what a simulacrum is: a simulation of the original that nearly replaces the original. There are hints in here of what made Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, among others, so very disturbing (far more disturbing than Joker). But what else do you think accounts for its popularity?
Emily: I don’t think it’s all that difficult to trace the success of Joker — it’s a movie that seems like it’s saying something big and important, that flatters viewers into thinking they’re smart, and it’s tied to a superhero property. Batman remains one of the most consistently popular superheroes at the box office, and Joker remains his chief nemesis. From an audience point of view, this is win-win-win.
And I don’t really blame anybody for finding this movie exciting, even for as boring as I found the film. In an era when the superhero film has become the dominant force at the box office, there has been concern that the tonal sameness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe — cocky heroes who love to crack jokes and occasionally suffer tragedy — would infect the genre. And when Warner Bros.’ first handful of superhero movie efforts in this new era were turgid, gritty messes (think Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad, etc.), a future of superhero cinema hopelessly divided between overly sugary and overly gloomy films seemed like it was about to happen.
But Warner Bros.’ new tactic has actually been pretty good for the genre, even if I don’t love all the movies. Now, the studio worries less about creating a cohesive cinematic universe and just tries to come up with movies suited to the strengths of their characters and directors. Joker looks nothing like Aquaman which looks nothing like Wonder Woman, and that’s all great! The reaction to Joker reminded me a little of the reaction to 2017’s Logan, the last movie where Hugh Jackman played Wolverine, and you could tell viewers were really into how different it felt from most superhero movies, no matter its faults. (And I really like that movie, where I find Joker hard to take.)
But, as with Logan, there’s the implication that finally, someone is taking these characters seriously. That’s where Joker breaks down for me — I don’t think it had a coherent center to speak of. But I can see where if you either think it does or find yourself swayed by its superficially gritty exterior, it seems mighty impressive indeed. The critic and screenwriter Carol Grant described Joker on Twitter as a “dorm room poster” movie, and she’s right. It’s a movie designed to make you think about how the system is rigged against you, but really only you, specifically, not anybody else who might be watching.
I really just wish all the people who’d praised this movie had watched either HBO’s Watchmen or the final season of Mr. Robot, which did all of the above but 10 times better and more coherently.
Alex: When you consider the Joker’s popularity, I think you also have to consider his legacy onscreen. In particular, think of Heath Ledger’s pivotal performance in 2008’s The Dark Knight and then Jared Leto’s in 2016’s Suicide Squad. The two couldn’t be more different in terms of quality. Ledger immortalized the role, giving that menacing edge to predecessor Jack Nicholson’s portrayal, while Leto’s was considered the worst thing about a movie that was one of the worst things ever to happen to cinema.
Leto’s flop energized fans, who believed that this iconic character and Ledger’s legacy were disrespected. The pressure on Warner Bros., Phillips, and Phoenix to produce a good take on the Joker was immense because of the residual sourness of Leto’s performance. Fans wanted to see if Warner Bros. was going to keep dragging this character into the pits of mediocrity or if Phoenix would restore the Joker to his rightful place in the pantheon of legendary villains.
Phoenix was and is incredible. And fans can hold his performance, right alongside Ledger’s, as essential to the Joker and to the world of superhero cinema. Maybe even the best ever?
And that’s all kind of comical, because Joker wasn’t even the best movie, let alone superhero movie, of the year.
Emily: I’m going to be brief here, but I found Phoenix to be shockingly off in this film. He’s one of my favorite actors, but the performance here seemed to be assembled at random from a highlight reel that cuts across his career. There’s no coherent center to the character, because his performance has been selected not for nuance but for moments that blow the roof off the theater.
In reading interviews with Phillips and Phoenix, it sounds like the director let the actor experiment a lot on set, but it’s clear that all involved then just kept the wildest possible takes. It feels less like a lived-in performance than a performance constructed out of a Saturday Night Live parody of itself. (I honestly thought David Harbour parodying this movie on SNL by playing Oscar the Grouch might sink any claim it had to being taken seriously. I guess not.)
A great performance has some sort of emotional center. Phoenix seems to have chosen to make Arthur Fleck untethered to underline his mental illness and his disconnection from society. There’s a world in which that works — it’s arguably what Phoenix did in his best screen performance, in 2012’s The Master. But here, it felt to me like another case of the movie choosing to be extra over choosing to be meaningful.
Alissa: One last big question. Joker seems to have courted controversy, knowing that it would stir up “the discourse” and act as free advertising for the film, especially among the kind of people who think going to a movie will make critics unhappy. (It doesn’t, for the record. It’s your money! Knock yourself out!)
That, combined with Joker’s immense commercial success, seems to suggest the movie is going to set some kind of template for Hollywood, which is forever chasing whatever seems to rake in the bucks. (And indeed, that’s the aim of the six big corporations at Hollywood’s center, and right they are to do it.) So what kind of precedent do you think Joker sets?
Alex: The idea of pitting fans versus critics isn’t unique to the Joker. In fact, it seems to be a common occurrence with Warner Bros. superhero movies that critics didn’t like (see: the aforementioned Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League). The idea, perpetuated by the directors and actors of these movies, is that only true fans will appreciate this movie. And since critics aren’t “true fans,” they can’t fully appreciate the movie. And, to be fair, there were people who wrote off Joker before it was released because they felt it was “dangerous” — something I don’t agree with at all.
But this anti-critic narrative creates a fallacy that makes a film, to a certain extent among its fans, critic-proof. Joker was the first Warner Bros. superhero movie where this critic-haranguing came before its release.
In a similar vein, we had Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker come out this year and marketed as the anti-Last Jedi, a movie that was brigaded by fans who believed it betrayed their Star Wars sensibilities. While directors and executives behind big franchises like Star Wars always take fans into account, it’s a bit disconcerting that the vocal fans, some of whom resorted to toxic and racist harassment, may now see their actions validated.
I suppose the counternarrative to Joker’s success is to look at Rise of Skywalker’s (relatively) disappointing box office. For a movie that did so much to cater to the section of the fandom that hated Last Jedi, Rise of Skywalker still trails its predecessor at the box office. And that may signal to Star Wars producers and directors that trying to court fans isn’t as foolproof as it seems.
The truth is, I’m not sure how much Joker will affect the marketing strategies of studios in the future. But I hope that what happened with Joker, and all the controversy surrounding it, doesn’t become a regular occurrence — if only because it’s just so exhausting to have an entire conversation about and debate a movie before it’s even released.
Whew. Emily? Emily, are you still here?
Emily: Here’s the precedent I’m worried Joker sets: I’m worried that now, if you want to make a smaller, more personal movie about the state of the world (which, for all its faults, Joker definitely is on some level), you’re going to have to filter it through superhero cinema. Am I looking forward to an Apocalypse Now riff featuring the Martian Manhunter or a Big Chill homage with the Justice Society of America? I mean ... I would see both of those movies, so I’m part of the problem. But I don’t love the idea that we’re increasingly entering a cinematic era where the ouroboros is the default.
Obviously, this endless march toward superhero domination can lead to some neat things. Look no further than the TV series of Watchmen, over on Warner Bros.’ corporate cousin HBO, for an example of a series that uses superhero motifs to talk about the modern world in a knotty and compelling way. But that series was made by Damon Lindelof, who has plenty to say about geek culture, if nothing else. What happens when there are more movies, made by directors who long to tell stories in certain genres, and they discover they’ll have an easier time selling those stories if the main character is Krypto the Super Dog?
I don’t know, but I’m not looking forward to finding out. I don’t like Joker because I think it’s a bad movie. But lots of bad movies have been nominated for Best Picture before. What chills me about this movie leading the Oscar nominations is how much it strikes me as a sign of things to come.
Read the Vox staff’s thoughts on all nine of the 2020 Best Picture nominees:
1917 | Ford v Ferrari | The Irishman | Jojo Rabbit | Joker | Little Women | Marriage Story | Once Upon a Time in Hollywood | Parasite


vox--2020-01-23--Tulsi Gabbard asked Twitter’s Jack Dorsey to hold a fundraiser for her. He said no.

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard approached Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about hosting a fundraiser on her behalf , Recode has learned .
Dorsey , who has given money to Gabbard ’ s campaign , ended up turning her down .
What makes her request unexpected is that she has run a campaign that is deeply critical of Big Tech and , at times , of Twitter .
In fact , unlike other candidates who have simply talked , she ’ s taken things a step further by suing Google for temporarily suspending her advertising account following a Democratic debate , part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms are politically biased .
And Gabbard , a member of Congress from Hawaii , has said that , as president , she would “ absolutely ” consider breaking up Twitter , too , along with other tech companies that she deems “ monopolies ” that are “ censoring ” critical voices .
That Gabbard still asked Dorsey to fundraise for her shows how Democrats in 2020 are both talking tough about Silicon Valley ’ s power while also asking some of its billionaires and biggest celebrities to raise money and vouch for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the tightrope that almost all Democratic politicians have to walk these days .
Gabbard ’ s team made the request late last year .
Dorsey initially expressed interest in hosting an event alongside Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian , said a person familiar with the situation , but interest died as they struggled to find a date .
Then came Gabbard ’ s controversial vote on impeachment in December .
Dorsey ultimately declined to host Gabbard ’ s fundraiser , saying he was trying to stay focused on policy areas and therefore was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing specific candidates , according to a person close to Dorsey .
The presidential candidate has said in the past that she spoke with Dorsey , who is also the CEO of the payments giant Square , only after a donation he made to her campaign became public last July .
“ I had not met or spoken to him .
I saw that the contribution was made and reached out and said ‘ thank you so much , ’ and he expressed his support for my candidacy , ” Gabbard told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t return Dorsey ’ s check despite her thoughts on his company .
“ Nothing changes my position.
” In that same conversation , though , Gabbard acknowledged that Twitter would “ absolutely ” be among the companies that she would consider breaking up .
Gabbard has struggled to raise the big money needed to run a competitive presidential campaign .
And so having the financial firepower of Dorsey — the only known billionaire backing her campaign — could seriously help , especially if he were willing to go beyond writing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other rich friends of his to do the same at a high-dollar fundraiser .
But while cutting a personal check is one thing , hosting a fundraiser for Gabbard would be another level of public support from a CEO whose company is facing ongoing battles over disinformation , regulation , and hate speech on its platform .
Plus , Dorsey is still an undecided voter .
Dorsey has explained that he admired Gabbard ’ s distaste for foreign intervention .
But like many Democratic primary voters , he has also shown support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Yang .
“ I ’ ve made personal contributions because I appreciate Andrew ’ s focus on the coming displacement of work due to AI and automation , and Tulsi ’ s strong anti-war stance , ” he tweeted last summer .
“ Along with systematically addressing climate change and economic injustice , these are the key issues of global consequence I want to see considered and discussed more .
”

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard approached Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about hosting a fundraiser on her behalf, Recode has learned. Dorsey, who has given money to Gabbard’s campaign, ended up turning her down.
What makes her request unexpected is that she has run a campaign that is deeply critical of Big Tech and, at times, of Twitter. In fact, unlike other candidates who have simply talked, she’s taken things a step further by suing Google for temporarily suspending her advertising account following a Democratic debate, part of a generally unsupported argument that tech platforms are politically biased.
And Gabbard, a member of Congress from Hawaii, has said that, as president, she would “absolutely” consider breaking up Twitter, too, along with other tech companies that she deems “monopolies” that are “censoring” critical voices.
That Gabbard still asked Dorsey to fundraise for her shows how Democrats in 2020 are both talking tough about Silicon Valley’s power while also asking some of its billionaires and biggest celebrities to raise money and vouch for them. It’s another sign of the tightrope that almost all Democratic politicians have to walk these days.
Gabbard’s team made the request late last year. Dorsey initially expressed interest in hosting an event alongside Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, said a person familiar with the situation, but interest died as they struggled to find a date. Then came Gabbard’s controversial vote on impeachment in December. Dorsey ultimately declined to host Gabbard’s fundraiser, saying he was trying to stay focused on policy areas and therefore was not eager to wade so fully into backing specific candidates, according to a person close to Dorsey.
Gabbard’s aides didn’t return multiple requests for comment.
The presidential candidate has said in the past that she spoke with Dorsey, who is also the CEO of the payments giant Square, only after a donation he made to her campaign became public last July.
“I had not met or spoken to him. I saw that the contribution was made and reached out and said ‘thank you so much,’ and he expressed his support for my candidacy,” Gabbard told reporters in Iowa, adding that she wouldn’t return Dorsey’s check despite her thoughts on his company. “Nothing changes my position.”
In that same conversation, though, Gabbard acknowledged that Twitter would “absolutely” be among the companies that she would consider breaking up.
Gabbard has struggled to raise the big money needed to run a competitive presidential campaign. And so having the financial firepower of Dorsey — the only known billionaire backing her campaign — could seriously help, especially if he were willing to go beyond writing one $5,600 check and instead would invite other rich friends of his to do the same at a high-dollar fundraiser.
But while cutting a personal check is one thing, hosting a fundraiser for Gabbard would be another level of public support from a CEO whose company is facing ongoing battles over disinformation, regulation, and hate speech on its platform. Plus, Dorsey is still an undecided voter.
Dorsey has explained that he admired Gabbard’s distaste for foreign intervention. But like many Democratic primary voters, he has also shown support for and donated to a second candidate: Andrew Yang.
“I’ve made personal contributions because I appreciate Andrew’s focus on the coming displacement of work due to AI and automation, and Tulsi’s strong anti-war stance,” he tweeted last summer. “Along with systematically addressing climate change and economic injustice, these are the key issues of global consequence I want to see considered and discussed more.”


vox--2020-01-24--Odd Job: He lost his leg in Afghanistan. Now he reenacts that horrible day to train others for battl

Odd Job: He lost his leg in Afghanistan. Now he reenacts that horrible day to train others for battle.

In 2006 , Stu Pearson , a Scottish soldier in the British Army , stepped on a mine in Afghanistan .
In the ensuing chaos , Pearson ’ s left leg was destroyed .
He was on the battlefield for six hours before he was extracted to a military base , where doctors managed to clean the wound and save his life .
The ordeal became a major part of the mythology surrounding the UK ’ s involvement in the war in Afghanistan , so much so that it was adapted into a feature film called Kajaki .
Pearson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the worst of his life and as fundamental proof that even in the bleakest of disasters , it ’ s still possible to get out alive .
That ’ s one of the many reasons he works as a casualty model today , leveraging his amputee status to train soldiers and medical workers about what to expect when things go horrifically wrong during a military operation .
Casualty Resources , the company Pearson works for , hires amputee actors like Pearson , who simulate traumatic injuries in the field of battle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who founded the company in 2015 , takes on a client — be it the UK ’ s Special Air Service or Germany ’ s Kommando Spezialkräfte — Pearson is flown out to the division ’ s training center , where he is drenched in grisly makeup to resemble what he looked like on that fateful day in Afghanistan .
There , the medical trainees will get hands-on experience treating someone who ’ s lost a limb in a combat zone .
Pearson ’ s job is to behave exactly how he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though he knows he ’ ll never be able to fully prepare a battalion for the chaotic trauma of a military calamity , he gives them a far more realistic view than a one-legged mannequin could .
Pearson is unique in that he ’ s one of very few Casualty Resources employees who underwent amputation as a soldier .
Most of the other actors , he says , found their way to the company after experiencing accidents or illnesses as civilians .
He tells me he makes a few hundred dollars per gig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the bulk of his income is taken care of by his British government pension .
Casualty modeling remains a niche industry ( especially in the US ) , but Pearson hopes it catches on more — he believes that training with real-life amputees is invaluable in an era where terrorist attacks are becoming harder to predict in both their scope and location .
We talked about that , as well as how he gets in character during a trauma simulation and what it ’ s like to make extra cash by reliving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over again .
The following transcript of our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity .
First things first : Would you mind telling me what happened to you in Afghanistan that resulted in you losing your leg ?
Basically , we were at Kajaki Dam , watching over the dam itself .
[ It ’ s ] a hydroelectric dam that ’ s in charge of about , I think , 75 or 80 percent of the electricity within Helmand Province .
So clearly that ’ s a strategic dam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the hands of the Taliban .
We were based on the hilltops here , taking the high ground as such .
The night before the incident , a UK sniper was on my hilltop .
He ’ d noticed Taliban setting up an illegal roadblock south of our location .
[ We went to investigate . ]
We thought about the chances of mines , because it ’ s the most heavily mined country in the world .
So that ’ s always at the back of your mind .
And we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a goat herder that goes up and down there every day , and our guys have actually been down there setting up flares and stuff.
” So I thought it must be okay , [ it ] must be safe , and then clearly it wasn ’ t .
So I stood on a mine , trying to rescue a friend that had also stood on a mine .
It just escalated from there .
A helicopter came in , and that set off a third mine beside me , which injured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guys beside me got up and stood on another mine .
He lost his left leg as well , and injured me and my friend , Mark Wright , further .
Eventually Black Hawk helicopters were brought in for us from Kandahar , about an hour , hour-and-a-half away for us .
And then once they came down , they extracted us out of there , and then they handed us over to the Chinook [ helicopter ] that had caused the incident earlier .
We got extracted back to Bastion [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the way there , my friend Mark Wright , he sadly passed away .
For me , it was just straight into the operating theater for major surgery , where they then took my leg off above the knee and continued to do work on my right leg to save that , which thankfully they did .
Going back a bit , what made you want to join the military in the first place ?
To be honest , I ’ m really not sure why I wanted to join .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ old , [ in ] 1992 .
I mean , I had a rubbish job , I ’ d just got out of school the year previous , and I joined a Scottish regiment .
I thought I ’ d wanted to transfer to the parachute regiment .
I ’ d done the selection course , passed that , done the jumps course , had my parachute wings .
I was taken into the parachute regiment in 1995 and stayed on there since .
I got medically discharged because of injuries in 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under 20 years .
How did you get linked up with work as a combat model after the amputation ?
Well , basically , a company had started up called Amputees in Action , they started up [ in ] 2006 or 2007 or something like that , and that ’ s obviously when I became an amputee .
Somebody gave me one of their business cards , so I got in touch with them and did some work with them .
Mostly the same as what I do with Ollie [ Hancock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing an amputee in military exercises and stuff , and I just kind of [ did ] that for a couple of years , then somebody put me in touch with Ollie — he ’ d just set his company up — and it ’ s been really good .
I ’ ve traveled all over the place with them .
Mostly to the likes of Europe , Norway , and Germany .
I ’ ve had a few jobs out in the States .
Combat simulation is a very niche job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after you lost your leg ?
When did you find out that you could leverage your status as an amputee into an occupation ?
I ’ m not too sure .
I mean , my thoughts behind being an amputee straight away was , “ Right , fucking get on with it.
” You could say your “ what-ifs ” ‘ til the cows come home , but it ’ s never coming back .
Then , once the job became available just a few years ago , I thought I might actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great training for the troops and paramedics .
The makeup girls , they make it look so real .
It ’ s brilliant training .
I mean , I never had this when I was serving , obviously , because that was before any of this was set up .
Soldiers will have to deal with an amputee , whether it be [ in ] Afghanistan , Iraq , or Syria or wherever .
They think back to the training they have done with us and say , “ Right , what did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I can use my experience to act like my incident just happened in front of them .
Run me through what this job is actually like .
When you book an appointment with a military regiment or emergency services training program , what does that day look like for you ?
Normally we ’ re treated really good .
There ’ ll be a hired car waiting for us , to take us to the hotel or to the Army camp or whatever , and they ’ ll put us up there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and talk to the makeup girls .
They ’ ll say , “ Right , these are the injuries we want , how much time do you need ?
” For example , let ’ s say the exercise starts at 9 am and we are 10 minutes from the base , the makeup girls go , “ Right , I need two hours.
” Everything just falls into place .
The makeup girls , they know what they are doing .
We ’ ll put on the clothes they brought for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for when the makeup girls want to start putting the makeup on us for the injuries , and then we can then just crack on from there .
What do you think a combat medic or an emergency services professional is going to learn from working with a real amputee , rather than with a dummy ?
It ’ s because it ’ s so realistic , and it ’ s an actual person you ’ re talking to .
I mean , there ’ s no way anyone can actually say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as dealing with a bloomin ’ dummy .
It ’ s totally different .
They probably won ’ t see anything as realistic as that until an incident [ happens ] to them or their colleagues on tour .
I ’ ve got pictures of when I was brought straight into Bastion hospital , straight into the operating theater .
The surgeon took pictures of me .
And I got ahold of them a few years ago , and the makeup girls , they fucking love them .
Because that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that .
So they love those fucking pictures .
So when you ’ re doing a training simulation , you ’ re laying there with all of your makeup on .
Are you acting ?
Do you try to behave the way you did when you were at Kajaki ?
There ’ s no way anyone can actually say that dealing with an actual person is the same as dealing with a bloomin ’ dummy .
I ’ ll ask my director of staff , and I ’ ll say , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play this ?
When do you want me to struggle breathing ?
” If they kick my foot twice , whatever , that ’ s the signal that I need to act unconscious , totally unresponsive , stuff like that .
So it ’ s acting in that way , and [ also ] because when I actually got blown up , it genuinely did not hurt .
I heard the bang , and I started screaming anyway because I just thought I was done for , but it didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight away and stabbed myself [ with it ] because I knew it would hurt .
That ’ s something that a lot of the soldiers , when they ’ re actually treating us , will actually forget about : painkillers .
So if I know I ’ ve got lots of soldiers above me that are really nervous and they don ’ t really know what they ’ re doing , I ’ ll maybe give them a little bit of a hand by going , “ Oh , fucking hell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some.
” So I ’ ll play it that way a lot of the time .
Is it ever weird in between simulations , when you have all of your makeup on and are just kinda hanging out with the guys ?
I don ’ t notice , but they ’ ll look at me differently because it ’ s weird to see us walking about the place as if nothing has happened to us .
Out in Germany , where we were with the KSK [ a German special forces division ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barbecue for us at the end of the training week , so they ’ re up for a good beer .
We ’ ll have a good chat with them about how things are going .
From the outside looking in , it feels like you ’ re reliving the worst day of your life when you go on these exercises .
Is that difficult for you , from a PTSD perspective ?
I mean , it is weird , and a lot of people say to me , “ Do you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
I mean , it was clearly the worst day ever , but I ’ m lucky that I can deal with it because I know there ’ s plenty [ of ] other guys that can ’ t deal with it .
There was a movie made about the incident , but a lot of the guys that were in the same platoon as Mark , who died , they can ’ t watch it .
They can not watch the film at all .
My best mate , he lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him the Blu-ray disc .
He can not watch it .
I ’ m just lucky that I ’ ve not been affected badly .
I feel that I can actually go and .
like you say , relive it again .
There actually isn ’ t a lot of military guys that work with us .
There ’ s only , I would say , within [ the ] Casualty Resources pool of amputees , I ’ d say there ’ s probably about three of us that have been injured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from mostly civilian incidents .
Lost limbs on motorbikes and stuff .
So yeah , I ’ m just lucky , I suppose , that it ’ s not affected me .
Is this your full-time job ?
No , I mean , my main income I get is a pension from the military .
And I ’ ve got a few houses that I rent out around here as well .
But I mean , I do pick up , I ’ d say , maybe about eight or nine days a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that .
It ’ s only a few days a month every couple of weeks .
Probably a couple hundred dollars a day .
What ’ s one piece of advice you ’ d give to anyone who ’ s in a situation where someone has just lost a limb ?
I think one of the [ things ] that a lot of people don ’ t think about is the elevation of the limb .
It ’ s a leg that ’ s been blown off , get that tourniquet on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
1 priority — but then try to get the limb elevated , and keep it elevated to reduce the bleeding .
And then , again , it ’ s the pain management of it as well .
It ’ s okay to give them painkillers or morphine or whatever , fentanyl .
Give them it because as soon as you [ do ] , that patient ’ s going to stop screaming , because they are in so much pain .
You can calm down a bit because you ’ ve given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screaming now .
Then you can think about what you need to do next for the casualty .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Warning: This story contains graphic imagery.
In 2006, Stu Pearson, a Scottish soldier in the British Army, stepped on a mine in Afghanistan. In the ensuing chaos, Pearson’s left leg was destroyed. He was on the battlefield for six hours before he was extracted to a military base, where doctors managed to clean the wound and save his life. The ordeal became a major part of the mythology surrounding the UK’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan, so much so that it was adapted into a feature film called Kajaki.
Pearson, now 44, remembers that day as both the worst of his life and as fundamental proof that even in the bleakest of disasters, it’s still possible to get out alive. That’s one of the many reasons he works as a casualty model today, leveraging his amputee status to train soldiers and medical workers about what to expect when things go horrifically wrong during a military operation.
Casualty Resources, the company Pearson works for, hires amputee actors like Pearson, who simulate traumatic injuries in the field of battle for training purposes. After Ollie Hancock, who founded the company in 2015, takes on a client — be it the UK’s Special Air Service or Germany’s Kommando Spezialkräfte — Pearson is flown out to the division’s training center, where he is drenched in grisly makeup to resemble what he looked like on that fateful day in Afghanistan. There, the medical trainees will get hands-on experience treating someone who’s lost a limb in a combat zone. Pearson’s job is to behave exactly how he did when he stepped on that mine. Though he knows he’ll never be able to fully prepare a battalion for the chaotic trauma of a military calamity, he gives them a far more realistic view than a one-legged mannequin could.
Pearson is unique in that he’s one of very few Casualty Resources employees who underwent amputation as a soldier. Most of the other actors, he says, found their way to the company after experiencing accidents or illnesses as civilians. He tells me he makes a few hundred dollars per gig, which is a nice bonus, but the bulk of his income is taken care of by his British government pension. Casualty modeling remains a niche industry (especially in the US), but Pearson hopes it catches on more — he believes that training with real-life amputees is invaluable in an era where terrorist attacks are becoming harder to predict in both their scope and location. We talked about that, as well as how he gets in character during a trauma simulation and what it’s like to make extra cash by reliving a truly awful afternoon, over and over again.
The following transcript of our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
First things first: Would you mind telling me what happened to you in Afghanistan that resulted in you losing your leg?
Basically, we were at Kajaki Dam, watching over the dam itself. [It’s] a hydroelectric dam that’s in charge of about, I think, 75 or 80 percent of the electricity within Helmand Province. So clearly that’s a strategic dam that they couldn’t let fall into the hands of the Taliban. We were based on the hilltops here, taking the high ground as such. The night before the incident, a UK sniper was on my hilltop. He’d noticed Taliban setting up an illegal roadblock south of our location. [We went to investigate.]
We thought about the chances of mines, because it’s the most heavily mined country in the world. So that’s always at the back of your mind. And we were thinking, “But there’s a goat herder that goes up and down there every day, and our guys have actually been down there setting up flares and stuff.” So I thought it must be okay, [it] must be safe, and then clearly it wasn’t.
So I stood on a mine, trying to rescue a friend that had also stood on a mine. It just escalated from there. A helicopter came in, and that set off a third mine beside me, which injured me further. And then one of the guys beside me got up and stood on another mine. He lost his left leg as well, and injured me and my friend, Mark Wright, further. Eventually Black Hawk helicopters were brought in for us from Kandahar, about an hour, hour-and-a-half away for us. And then once they came down, they extracted us out of there, and then they handed us over to the Chinook [helicopter] that had caused the incident earlier.
We got extracted back to Bastion [a British Army airbase in Afghanistan]. On the way there, my friend Mark Wright, he sadly passed away. For me, it was just straight into the operating theater for major surgery, where they then took my leg off above the knee and continued to do work on my right leg to save that, which thankfully they did.
Going back a bit, what made you want to join the military in the first place?
To be honest, I’m really not sure why I wanted to join. It was when I was 17 years old, [in] 1992. I mean, I had a rubbish job, I’d just got out of school the year previous, and I joined a Scottish regiment. I thought I’d wanted to transfer to the parachute regiment. I’d done the selection course, passed that, done the jumps course, had my parachute wings. I was taken into the parachute regiment in 1995 and stayed on there since.
I got medically discharged because of injuries in 2012, so I’d done just under 20 years.
How did you get linked up with work as a combat model after the amputation?
Well, basically, a company had started up called Amputees in Action, they started up [in] 2006 or 2007 or something like that, and that’s obviously when I became an amputee. Somebody gave me one of their business cards, so I got in touch with them and did some work with them. Mostly the same as what I do with Ollie [Hancock, director of Casualty Resources], playing an amputee in military exercises and stuff, and I just kind of [did] that for a couple of years, then somebody put me in touch with Ollie — he’d just set his company up — and it’s been really good. I’ve traveled all over the place with them. Mostly to the likes of Europe, Norway, and Germany. I’ve had a few jobs out in the States.
Combat simulation is a very niche job. How quickly did you discover the industry after you lost your leg? When did you find out that you could leverage your status as an amputee into an occupation?
I’m not too sure. I mean, my thoughts behind being an amputee straight away was, “Right, fucking get on with it.” You could say your “what-ifs” ‘til the cows come home, but it’s never coming back.
This image contains sensitive or violent content Tap to display
Then, once the job became available just a few years ago, I thought I might actually like it because it’s such great training for the troops and paramedics. The makeup girls, they make it look so real. It’s brilliant training. I mean, I never had this when I was serving, obviously, because that was before any of this was set up.
Soldiers will have to deal with an amputee, whether it be [in] Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria or wherever. They think back to the training they have done with us and say, “Right, what did I do here? With Stu?” I can use my experience to act like my incident just happened in front of them.
Run me through what this job is actually like. When you book an appointment with a military regiment or emergency services training program, what does that day look like for you?
Normally we’re treated really good. There’ll be a hired car waiting for us, to take us to the hotel or to the Army camp or whatever, and they’ll put us up there. The client will directly get involved and talk to the makeup girls. They’ll say, “Right, these are the injuries we want, how much time do you need?” For example, let’s say the exercise starts at 9 am and we are 10 minutes from the base, the makeup girls go, “Right, I need two hours.” Everything just falls into place. The makeup girls, they know what they are doing. We’ll put on the clothes they brought for us, so that everything’s ready for when the makeup girls want to start putting the makeup on us for the injuries, and then we can then just crack on from there.
What do you think a combat medic or an emergency services professional is going to learn from working with a real amputee, rather than with a dummy?
It’s because it’s so realistic, and it’s an actual person you’re talking to. I mean, there’s no way anyone can actually say that dealing with an actual person is the same as dealing with a bloomin’ dummy. It’s totally different. They probably won’t see anything as realistic as that until an incident [happens] to them or their colleagues on tour.
I’ve got pictures of when I was brought straight into Bastion hospital, straight into the operating theater. The surgeon took pictures of me. And I got ahold of them a few years ago, and the makeup girls, they fucking love them. Because that’s their job, to make us look like that. So they love those fucking pictures.
So when you’re doing a training simulation, you’re laying there with all of your makeup on. Are you acting? Do you try to behave the way you did when you were at Kajaki?
There’s no way anyone can actually say that dealing with an actual person is the same as dealing with a bloomin’ dummy.
I’ll ask my director of staff, and I’ll say, “Right, how do you want me to play this? When do you want me to struggle breathing?” If they kick my foot twice, whatever, that’s the signal that I need to act unconscious, totally unresponsive, stuff like that. So it’s acting in that way, and [also] because when I actually got blown up, it genuinely did not hurt. I heard the bang, and I started screaming anyway because I just thought I was done for, but it didn’t hurt. But I got morphine out straight away and stabbed myself [with it] because I knew it would hurt.
That’s something that a lot of the soldiers, when they’re actually treating us, will actually forget about: painkillers. So if I know I’ve got lots of soldiers above me that are really nervous and they don’t really know what they’re doing, I’ll maybe give them a little bit of a hand by going, “Oh, fucking hell, give me some morphine, give me some.” So I’ll play it that way a lot of the time.
Is it ever weird in between simulations, when you have all of your makeup on and are just kinda hanging out with the guys?
I don’t notice, but they’ll look at me differently because it’s weird to see us walking about the place as if nothing has happened to us. Out in Germany, where we were with the KSK [a German special forces division], they’ll normally do a barbecue for us at the end of the training week, so they’re up for a good beer. We’ll have a good chat with them about how things are going.
From the outside looking in, it feels like you’re reliving the worst day of your life when you go on these exercises. Is that difficult for you, from a PTSD perspective?
I mean, it is weird, and a lot of people say to me, “Do you get flashbacks?” But I don’t. I mean, it was clearly the worst day ever, but I’m lucky that I can deal with it because I know there’s plenty [of] other guys that can’t deal with it. There was a movie made about the incident, but a lot of the guys that were in the same platoon as Mark, who died, they can’t watch it. They cannot watch the film at all. My best mate, he lives now in New Zealand, I sent him the Blu-ray disc. He cannot watch it. I’m just lucky that I’ve not been affected badly. I feel that I can actually go and. like you say, relive it again.
There actually isn’t a lot of military guys that work with us. There’s only, I would say, within [the] Casualty Resources pool of amputees, I’d say there’s probably about three of us that have been injured in Afghanistan. The rest [are] from mostly civilian incidents. Lost limbs on motorbikes and stuff. So yeah, I’m just lucky, I suppose, that it’s not affected me.
Is this your full-time job?
No, I mean, my main income I get is a pension from the military. And I’ve got a few houses that I rent out around here as well. But I mean, I do pick up, I’d say, maybe about eight or nine days a month doing it for Ollie, something like that. It’s only a few days a month every couple of weeks. Probably a couple hundred dollars a day.
What’s one piece of advice you’d give to anyone who’s in a situation where someone has just lost a limb?
I think one of the [things] that a lot of people don’t think about is the elevation of the limb. It’s a leg that’s been blown off, get that tourniquet on — obviously that’s the No. 1 priority — but then try to get the limb elevated, and keep it elevated to reduce the bleeding. And then, again, it’s the pain management of it as well. It’s okay to give them painkillers or morphine or whatever, fentanyl. Give them it because as soon as you [do], that patient’s going to stop screaming, because they are in so much pain. You can calm down a bit because you’ve given them painkillers, they’re not screaming now. Then you can think about what you need to do next for the casualty.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-24--The Trump administration’s new “birth tourism” policy, explained

Midori Nishida says she was forced to take a pregnancy test before boarding a plane in November to Saipan , the US territory where she lived for 18 years .
The reason , she wrote in an op-ed , was Saipan ’ s reputation for so-called “ birth tourism , ” in which parents travel to US soil to have a baby who ’ s a citizen .
The airline , Hong Kong Express Airways Limited , apologized earlier this month and suspended its pregnancy-testing practice , according to the New York Times .
But now the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth tourism , and some fear that the kind of targeting Nishida experienced could become more common .
The rule officially takes effect on Friday , but a draft was first reported by BuzzFeed News on Tuesday .
And on Wednesday , Vox obtained diplomatic cables indicating that the State Department was already directing embassies to deny visas to people they suspect are coming to the US to give birth .
Under the new policy , consular officers are being directed to assume that if someone is seeking a tourist visa and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are “ seeking a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for the child.
” Pregnant people applying for visas may have to submit extra documentation showing this isn ’ t the case .
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Thursday that the policy is “ necessary to enhance public safety , national security , and the integrity of our immigration system , ” asserting that the birth tourism industry strains hospital resources and invites criminal activity .
“ Closing this glaring immigration loophole will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States from the national security risks created by this practice , ” she said .
“ It will also defend American taxpayers from having their hard-earned dollars siphoned away to finance the direct and downstream costs associated with birth tourism.
” But reproductive health and human rights advocates say the new policy toward pregnant visitors will amount to discrimination against women .
“ Young women already have a difficult time securing visas for travel , ” Shannon Kowalski , director of advocacy and policy at the International Women ’ s Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines will make it harder for women , particularly young women , to travel to the United States for any purpose.
” The policy is supposed to have an exception for pregnant people who travel to the US to give birth because of concerns about infant and maternal mortality in their home countries .
But in practice , some fear that exception won ’ t be honored , and that pregnant people in serious need of medical care will be turned away , possibly to die .
Overall , reproductive health advocates say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger pattern by the Trump administration of compromising the reproductive rights and health of immigrants and people seeking to come to the US , many of them people of color .
With this proposal , the Trump administration is “ extending an agenda of white supremacy to US-bound travelers , ” Kowalski said .
A woman was given a pregnancy test before boarding a plane to Saipan In a November op-ed for the Saipan Tribune , Nishida said she returns to Saipan frequently for visits , but “ none of my previous experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during my most recent flight.
” At the check-in counter for her November 9 flight , she wrote , she was told she had been randomly selected for a “ fit to fly ” assessment .
But she was then handed a form reading , “ In our routine initial safety assessment by our ground handling staff , we have reasonable suspicion on the health condition of the passenger above .
The passenger has been observed to have a body size/shape resembling to a pregnant lady.
” A woman saying she was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bathroom and directed her to take a pregnancy test , Nishida wrote .
When it was negative , she was allowed to board .
The practice of testing passengers “ is discriminatory in that it targets passengers based on their outward appearance by pinpointing those that ‘ appear ’ pregnant , ” she wrote .
“ After this incident , I can only think of how I will be suspected , investigated , and humiliated before I can return to a place I consider home.
” Nishida ’ s story got more attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong Express ultimately issued an apology for pregnancy-testing travelers .
“ Under our new management , we recognize the significant concerns this practice has caused , ” the airline said in a statement to the Times last week .
“ We have immediately suspended the practice while we review it .
We ’ d like to apologize for the distress caused.
” It wasn ’ t immediately clear if authorities in the US had asked airlines to give pregnancy tests to passengers , or otherwise pressured travel carriers to keep pregnant people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Department did not answer Vox ’ s question about the issue .
But it ’ s clear that stopping non-US-born pregnant people from giving birth on American soil is a priority for the Trump administration .
How the policy takes aim at pregnant people The president and other administration officials have been open in the past about their desire to end birthright citizenship , under which anyone born in the US becomes a citizen , as Hamed Aleaziz notes at BuzzFeed .
And now , the new rule will create additional barriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , offered to short-term visitors , including tourists , business travelers , and people seeking urgent medical care .
The new rule will not apply equally around the globe .
Citizens of 39 mostly Western countries — most of Europe , as well as Australia , New Zealand , Chile , Brunei , Japan , Singapore , and South Korea — generally don ’ t need a B visa to travel to the US for 90 days or less , and won ’ t be affected .
B visas are the biggest visa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , numbering about 6 million .
The government does not track how many pregnant travelers come to the US on B visas , but the new rule says that US embassies and consulates have reported trends showing higher levels of birth tourism .
Separate 2017 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests the rule would likely affect roughly 10,000 people annually .
Consular officers can already deny B visas to people they believe are birth tourists under existing law .
It all depends on the “ primary purpose ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
If the primary purpose of their visit is business , tourism , or to receive urgent medical treatment , that ’ s legitimate ; giving birth so that their child can obtain US citizenship is not .
In other words , under the current system , a consular officer can ’ t just deny a visa to anyone who looks close to their due date , nor are they allowed to ask a visa applicant whether they are pregnant or to require pregnancy tests or other evidence that they are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affirmatively state that they ’ re coming to the US for the primary purpose of birth tourism , but it ’ s unlikely that they would be so transparent .
Pregnant people can come to the US on a B visa to seek medical treatment related to their pregnancy — and that remains true under the new rule .
But the burden is on them to prove that the treatment is necessary , that they can pay for the treatment , and that it ’ s the primary purpose of their visit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had to deny visas to women who wanted to give birth in the US because of high mortality rates for mothers and children in their home countries but couldn ’ t prove that they could pay the full cost of their treatment .
“ They would break down in tears , ” the former officer said .
“ Of course , the consular officer has no reasoning in how much this costs or how to determine what is reasonable .
A lot of officers think because they or their sister or some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is the real cost.
” The State Department ’ s new rule and guidance would subject pregnant people to even more scrutiny when applying for a B visa .
If a consular officer has “ reason to believe the applicant will give birth during their stay in the United States , [ they ] are required to presume that giving birth for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship is the applicant ’ s primary purpose of travel , ” the new guidance reads .
But the administration hasn ’ t clarified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reason to believe ” that an applicant will imminently give birth .
Since they can ’ t ask outright , they might infer based on looks alone , which has no basis in immigration law , said Ur Jaddou , former chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the director of the watchdog group DHS Watch .
“ I don ’ t even understand how they ’ re going to apply this in a way that is fair , that isn ’ t regulating women ’ s bodies , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy could impose new hurdles on anyone of childbearing age .
Since some B visas are valid for up to 10 years , a consular officer could theoretically weigh whether someone is likely to give birth over the course of the next decade .
A 30-year-old , married applicant could therefore suddenly face more scrutiny , without any means of recourse or appeal , Jaddou said .
There are some exceptions to the rule — for example , travelers could show that they are not able to access adequate prenatal care in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would still have to prove that they could pay for it in the US , said Philip Wolgin , the managing director of immigration at the Center for American Progress , a liberal think tank .
The Trump administration rationalizes the new rule by claiming that foreign governments or groups could “ recruit or groom ” individuals who were granted American citizenship at birth as a result of birth tourism to act against the US .
It ’ s unclear whether there is any evidence that foreign entities are engaging in such long-game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth tourism often draws criminal actors seeking to profit from the industry .
But the policy comes at great cost to people who are or could become pregnant .
Doug Rand , a former Obama administration official who worked on immigration issues , said it ’ s a policy “ designed to cast basically all women of childbearing age as presumptive lawbreakers , which is typical of this administration.
” Imposing these kinds of disproportionate burdens runs afoul of the US Constitution , which protects against sex discrimination .
But since these consular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on foreign soil , the US Constitution doesn ’ t protect them .
There could be legal challenges to the policy , however , based on US immigration law .
“ There is no statutory basis to deny entry to a woman because of the state of her reproductive cycle , ” Jaddou said .
Advocates are also concerned that the new policy will lead to racial profiling of Asian women attempting to visit the US .
Much media coverage of “ birth tourism ” has focused on people from China who travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Wall Street Journal calling Saipan the “ latest hot spot ” for the practice in 2017 .
According to Nishida , Saipan ’ s reputation led airline workers to presume she was a birth tourist simply because she appeared pregnant to them .
Under the new policy , such presumption could become more widespread .
“ The Trump administration will go to any lengths to demean immigrant women , ” Sung Yeon Choimorrow , executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women ’ s Forum , told Vox .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US to visit their families , and targeting them because of their race or country of origin is discriminatory and wrong.
” “ As an immigrant woman who has experienced harassment at an airport when I was pregnant , ” Choimorrow added , Nishida ’ s experience and the Trump administration ’ s rule “ are disturbing , invasive , and reveal the coercive and invasive methods that our government will use to enforce the new rule.
” The Trump administration has already been criticized for denying women visas to visit the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visas to attend the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women conference in New York last year , according to the International Service for Human Rights .
Women from African and Middle Eastern countries affected by the Trump administration ’ s travel ban appeared to be disproportionately affected , and a petition protesting the denials said the women had been asked for documents like marriage certificates and even proof that they have children , BuzzFeed News reported at the time .
It ’ s not clear whether these women faced concerns over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether they were pregnant .
However , according to Kowalski , the new State Department rule would only exacerbate the difficulties women face coming to the US .
“ The guidelines are discriminatory on their face , ” she said .
Advocates say the new policy fits into a larger pattern by the Trump administration of infringing on the reproductive rights of people who come to the United States .
Under previous Office of Refugee Resettlement Director E. Scott Lloyd , the administration pursued a policy of attempting to block unaccompanied immigrant minors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting abortions , leading to multiple minors suing for the right to terminate their pregnancies .
The Trump administration has also been accused of failing to provide adequate prenatal care to pregnant people in immigration detention .
One asylum seeker , Rubia Morales , says in a lawsuit filed earlier this year that her treatment in ICE custody led her to have a miscarriage , KPBS reports .
She says a doctor at the facility told her that her bleeding was “ normal , ” and that she could deal with it by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The administration has also tried to make it harder for survivors of domestic abuse to get asylum in the United States , and has changed rules around visas for victims of crimes in ways that advocates say could harm survivors .
“ This administration has a track record of detaining pregnant people and has made it impossible for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to seek asylum , ” Choimorrow said .
“ There is no justification for the harm they have done to immigrant women or for their xenophobic agenda @ @

Midori Nishida says she was forced to take a pregnancy test before boarding a plane in November to Saipan, the US territory where she lived for 18 years. The reason, she wrote in an op-ed, was Saipan’s reputation for so-called “birth tourism,” in which parents travel to US soil to have a baby who’s a citizen.
The airline, Hong Kong Express Airways Limited, apologized earlier this month and suspended its pregnancy-testing practice, according to the New York Times. But now the Trump administration has issued a new rule aimed at stopping birth tourism, and some fear that the kind of targeting Nishida experienced could become more common.
The rule officially takes effect on Friday, but a draft was first reported by BuzzFeed News on Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Vox obtained diplomatic cables indicating that the State Department was already directing embassies to deny visas to people they suspect are coming to the US to give birth.
Under the new policy, consular officers are being directed to assume that if someone is seeking a tourist visa and is likely to give birth in the US, they are “seeking a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for the child.” Pregnant people applying for visas may have to submit extra documentation showing this isn’t the case.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Thursday that the policy is “necessary to enhance public safety, national security, and the integrity of our immigration system,” asserting that the birth tourism industry strains hospital resources and invites criminal activity.
“Closing this glaring immigration loophole will combat these endemic abuses and ultimately protect the United States from the national security risks created by this practice,” she said. “It will also defend American taxpayers from having their hard-earned dollars siphoned away to finance the direct and downstream costs associated with birth tourism.”
But reproductive health and human rights advocates say the new policy toward pregnant visitors will amount to discrimination against women.
“Young women already have a difficult time securing visas for travel,” Shannon Kowalski, director of advocacy and policy at the International Women’s Health Coalition, told Vox. “These guidelines will make it harder for women, particularly young women, to travel to the United States for any purpose.”
The policy is supposed to have an exception for pregnant people who travel to the US to give birth because of concerns about infant and maternal mortality in their home countries. But in practice, some fear that exception won’t be honored, and that pregnant people in serious need of medical care will be turned away, possibly to die.
Overall, reproductive health advocates say the new policy is part of a larger pattern by the Trump administration of compromising the reproductive rights and health of immigrants and people seeking to come to the US, many of them people of color. With this proposal, the Trump administration is “extending an agenda of white supremacy to US-bound travelers,” Kowalski said.
A woman was given a pregnancy test before boarding a plane to Saipan
In a November op-ed for the Saipan Tribune, Nishida said she returns to Saipan frequently for visits, but “none of my previous experience would have prepared me for what happened during my most recent flight.”
At the check-in counter for her November 9 flight, she wrote, she was told she had been randomly selected for a “fit to fly” assessment. But she was then handed a form reading, “In our routine initial safety assessment by our ground handling staff, we have reasonable suspicion on the health condition of the passenger above. The passenger has been observed to have a body size/shape resembling to a pregnant lady.”
A woman saying she was a medical professional then escorted her to a bathroom and directed her to take a pregnancy test, Nishida wrote. When it was negative, she was allowed to board.
The practice of testing passengers “is discriminatory in that it targets passengers based on their outward appearance by pinpointing those that ‘appear’ pregnant,” she wrote. “After this incident, I can only think of how I will be suspected, investigated, and humiliated before I can return to a place I consider home.”
Nishida’s story got more attention in US media in January, and Hong Kong Express ultimately issued an apology for pregnancy-testing travelers.
“Under our new management, we recognize the significant concerns this practice has caused,” the airline said in a statement to the Times last week. “We have immediately suspended the practice while we review it. We’d like to apologize for the distress caused.”
It wasn’t immediately clear if authorities in the US had asked airlines to give pregnancy tests to passengers, or otherwise pressured travel carriers to keep pregnant people out of the US. The Homeland Security Department did not answer Vox’s question about the issue.
But it’s clear that stopping non-US-born pregnant people from giving birth on American soil is a priority for the Trump administration.
How the policy takes aim at pregnant people
The president and other administration officials have been open in the past about their desire to end birthright citizenship, under which anyone born in the US becomes a citizen, as Hamed Aleaziz notes at BuzzFeed. And now, the new rule will create additional barriers for pregnant people applying for B visas, offered to short-term visitors, including tourists, business travelers, and people seeking urgent medical care.
The new rule will not apply equally around the globe. Citizens of 39 mostly Western countries — most of Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea — generally don’t need a B visa to travel to the US for 90 days or less, and won’t be affected.
B visas are the biggest visa category that the State Department processes annually, numbering about 6 million. The government does not track how many pregnant travelers come to the US on B visas, but the new rule says that US embassies and consulates have reported trends showing higher levels of birth tourism. Separate 2017 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests the rule would likely affect roughly 10,000 people annually.
Consular officers can already deny B visas to people they believe are birth tourists under existing law. It all depends on the “primary purpose” of an applicant’s visit to the US. If the primary purpose of their visit is business, tourism, or to receive urgent medical treatment, that’s legitimate; giving birth so that their child can obtain US citizenship is not.
In other words, under the current system, a consular officer can’t just deny a visa to anyone who looks close to their due date, nor are they allowed to ask a visa applicant whether they are pregnant or to require pregnancy tests or other evidence that they are not pregnant. An applicant would have to affirmatively state that they’re coming to the US for the primary purpose of birth tourism, but it’s unlikely that they would be so transparent.
Pregnant people can come to the US on a B visa to seek medical treatment related to their pregnancy — and that remains true under the new rule. But the burden is on them to prove that the treatment is necessary, that they can pay for the treatment, and that it’s the primary purpose of their visit.
A former consular officer told Vox that they had to deny visas to women who wanted to give birth in the US because of high mortality rates for mothers and children in their home countries but couldn’t prove that they could pay the full cost of their treatment.
“They would break down in tears,” the former officer said. “Of course, the consular officer has no reasoning in how much this costs or how to determine what is reasonable. A lot of officers think because they or their sister or some friend’s insurance paid $19,000, that is the real cost.”
The State Department’s new rule and guidance would subject pregnant people to even more scrutiny when applying for a B visa. If a consular officer has “reason to believe the applicant will give birth during their stay in the United States, [they] are required to presume that giving birth for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship is the applicant’s primary purpose of travel,” the new guidance reads.
But the administration hasn’t clarified how a consular officer would have any “reason to believe” that an applicant will imminently give birth. Since they can’t ask outright, they might infer based on looks alone, which has no basis in immigration law, said Ur Jaddou, former chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the director of the watchdog group DHS Watch.
“I don’t even understand how they’re going to apply this in a way that is fair, that isn’t regulating women’s bodies,” she said.
More broadly, the policy could impose new hurdles on anyone of childbearing age. Since some B visas are valid for up to 10 years, a consular officer could theoretically weigh whether someone is likely to give birth over the course of the next decade. A 30-year-old, married applicant could therefore suddenly face more scrutiny, without any means of recourse or appeal, Jaddou said.
There are some exceptions to the rule — for example, travelers could show that they are not able to access adequate prenatal care in their home country. But it seems they would still have to prove that they could pay for it in the US, said Philip Wolgin, the managing director of immigration at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
The Trump administration rationalizes the new rule by claiming that foreign governments or groups could “recruit or groom” individuals who were granted American citizenship at birth as a result of birth tourism to act against the US. It’s unclear whether there is any evidence that foreign entities are engaging in such long-game schemes.
The administration also asserts that birth tourism often draws criminal actors seeking to profit from the industry.
But the policy comes at great cost to people who are or could become pregnant. Doug Rand, a former Obama administration official who worked on immigration issues, said it’s a policy “designed to cast basically all women of childbearing age as presumptive lawbreakers, which is typical of this administration.”
Imposing these kinds of disproportionate burdens runs afoul of the US Constitution, which protects against sex discrimination. But since these consular interviews involve noncitizens and are taking place on foreign soil, the US Constitution doesn’t protect them.
There could be legal challenges to the policy, however, based on US immigration law.
“There is no statutory basis to deny entry to a woman because of the state of her reproductive cycle,” Jaddou said.
Trump’s pattern of targeting immigrants and reproductive rights
Advocates are also concerned that the new policy will lead to racial profiling of Asian women attempting to visit the US. Much media coverage of “birth tourism” has focused on people from China who travel to US soil to give birth, with the Wall Street Journal calling Saipan the “latest hot spot” for the practice in 2017.
According to Nishida, Saipan’s reputation led airline workers to presume she was a birth tourist simply because she appeared pregnant to them. Under the new policy, such presumption could become more widespread.
“The Trump administration will go to any lengths to demean immigrant women,” Sung Yeon Choimorrow, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, told Vox. “Millions of Asian people come to the US to visit their families, and targeting them because of their race or country of origin is discriminatory and wrong.”
“As an immigrant woman who has experienced harassment at an airport when I was pregnant,” Choimorrow added, Nishida’s experience and the Trump administration’s rule “are disturbing, invasive, and reveal the coercive and invasive methods that our government will use to enforce the new rule.”
The Trump administration has already been criticized for denying women visas to visit the US. More than 40 women were denied visas to attend the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women conference in New York last year, according to the International Service for Human Rights. Women from African and Middle Eastern countries affected by the Trump administration’s travel ban appeared to be disproportionately affected, and a petition protesting the denials said the women had been asked for documents like marriage certificates and even proof that they have children, BuzzFeed News reported at the time.
It’s not clear whether these women faced concerns over “birth tourism” or questions about whether they were pregnant. However, according to Kowalski, the new State Department rule would only exacerbate the difficulties women face coming to the US. “The guidelines are discriminatory on their face,” she said.
Advocates say the new policy fits into a larger pattern by the Trump administration of infringing on the reproductive rights of people who come to the United States. Under previous Office of Refugee Resettlement Director E. Scott Lloyd, the administration pursued a policy of attempting to block unaccompanied immigrant minors in the government’s care from getting abortions, leading to multiple minors suing for the right to terminate their pregnancies.
The Trump administration has also been accused of failing to provide adequate prenatal care to pregnant people in immigration detention. One asylum seeker, Rubia Morales, says in a lawsuit filed earlier this year that her treatment in ICE custody led her to have a miscarriage, KPBS reports. She says a doctor at the facility told her that her bleeding was “normal,” and that she could deal with it by buying sanitary pads for $1 each.
The administration has also tried to make it harder for survivors of domestic abuse to get asylum in the United States, and has changed rules around visas for victims of crimes in ways that advocates say could harm survivors.
“This administration has a track record of detaining pregnant people and has made it impossible for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to seek asylum,” Choimorrow said. “There is no justification for the harm they have done to immigrant women or for their xenophobic agenda.”