"Are you referring," Julia mumbles, "to the light that travels through the three-story building directly behind me before it gets to my home?" Without that window, her unit is as dark as a cave. But the board takes no notice. They are on to the next slur.
"If Julia can go to Iraq two or three times," throws in board member C, "then she can't be disabled." Julia has tons of doctors' documentation regarding her knee injuries. What right does bm-C have to question doctors? Does SHE have a medical degree too? No. Bad screenwriting.
But board member D isn't finished hatin' on Julia's window quite yet. "That window has caused so much structural damage that it could cause the whole building to fall down." Say what? The only structural damage in Julia's unit was caused when her roof leaked because this do-nothing board hadn't made roof repairs and water was cascading down the inside of the wall.
Then board member A jumps back in. "Julia needs to get rid of that window right now." And not wait until Julia's fair housing appeal is adjudicated? Isn't that illegal? But board member A persists. "She needs to get rid of it now, before she is allowed to move. And her son and his family don't qualify to stay in the unit because they haven't been on the lease for a year either. And her son has a job. I see him leaving for work all the time." So. Her son DOES live there after all? Make up your mind! "And I want to know if her son is reporting his income to HUD!" That is none of board member A's freaking business. And not only that, but bm-A is clearly indicating that he would willingly -- no, gleefully -- throw a struggling young couple and a three-month-old baby out into the streets in order to wreck havoc on poor sweet Julia. That's just TOO villainous to be realistic. Bad screenwriting once again.
But Julia just shrugs. This is clearly the first time that she -- or probably anybody else -- has ever heard of a one-year rule, although she HAD heard of a rule allowing no bilateral transfers. But board member B has already broken that rule with impunity a few months before. But consistency was never this board's strong point when self-interest is involved. Julia just shrugs again and sighs. And plans what to say in her next newsletter. After 15 years, one would think that the board would wise up and realize that every time they attack Julia at the board meetings, she valiantly fights back and defends herself in the only way that she knows how. So. Does that make the Pen mightier than the Board? "Not." Bad screenwriting once again.
Then the clip ends with board member E pointing at Julia vindictively and gesticulating wildly: "Evict her! Evict her!" she screams.
As the screen fades, Robert continues his critique. "Give me a break here, folks. This script just seems too contrived. It just doesn't feel genuine. And remember that other board meeting scene where they told Julia that she was spending too much time in the site office and the board didn't want her going into the office any more? Who would believe that any board member in their right mind would actually say or do something like that? Or even spend their time spying on her? Or that the board would actually ask questions about her son's income or if she had been raiding the site manager's files? The person who wrote this movie blew it here, Tony. What board members in their right minds would risk that kind of behavior? In real life, they would have been slapped with a lawsuit years ago -- or been accused of over-acting at the very least."
Tony nods in agreement again. "And if I lived in a housing project run by a board that was so inefficient that they haven't even raised the rents to cover costs and inflation in almost a decade, can't even get a re-hab off the ground after seven long years and has taken a very viable housing co-op and run it into the ground? Those directors would have been out the door in a heartbeat. Bad screenwriting. For sure."
"But the part I really found unbelievable," said Robert, "was where those two board members who work for another organization which has a history of trying to build condos in the area are still allowed to stay on the board. What if they are secretly scheming to let Savo fall apart so that HUD will abandon ship and the property can be sold to developers? Can you say 'conflict of interest,' boys and girls?"
"I agree," nodded Tony. "This movie could have been exceptional and outstanding if it had been written right -- like perhaps having it be a story of brave low-income families struggling to make the world a better place or using their co-op as a base to set an example of how to build a green project or organize a community for social justice or...."
"Or maybe even a love story where boy meets girl in a clean, happy HUD housing project. But the screenwriters in this movie just didn't do their homework. 'Little Housing Co-op on the Prairie' just doesn't ring true. No one would believe this was happening. It's a good thing that this movie is a fictionalized version. I'd really hate to live in that project if all this was true. Two big thumbs down from me."
"Me too."
1 | 2
