Tenet Release Date Set for August–September in Over 70 Countries
A new staggered release plan for Tenet — Christopher Nolan's time-bending espionage epic movie — has been set, as promised. A week after Warner Bros. said it would announce a new release date “imminently” and days after a report hinted at a late August debut, the studio has unveiled Tenet release dates for 70 countries between August 26 and September 18. That includes the likes of the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and Japan. India is not on the list, which makes sense given the government has yet to even discuss the reopening of cinemas, with the coronavirus continuing to sweep through the country.
Tenet will release on Wednesday, August 26 in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The Nolan film will open Thursday, August 27 in Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Middle East, New Zealand, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. And on Friday, August 28, Tenet will roll out in East Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and Vietnam.
The following week on Thursday, September 3, Tenet arrives in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United States. The week after that on Thursday, September 10, Tenet premieres in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States. Tenet debuts Thursday, September 17 in Cyprus and Friday, September 18 in Japan. India is not the only country without a Tenet release date as yet. That list also includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Most of those countries are also suffering from the coronavirus, except China, where Warner Bros. has yet to receive the greenlight from the government.
Of course, even the countries that have a Tenet release date, there's no guarantee that the Nolan movie will open in all cities on the same day. The pandemic situation can change drastically within a few weeks and the new release dates are still a month away or more. That's exactly why Tenet has been delayed thrice in the past, as Warner Bros.' most important home market — the US — has seen new spikes in coronavirus cases over recent weeks, in part due to lockdowns being eased earlier than advised. Allowing audiences into movie theatres fits squarely into that bracket. It also remains to be seen whether audiences feel comfortable enough to visit cinemas, especially at the level a $200-million (Rs. 1,500-crore) film like Tenet needs to turn a profit.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Excise policy case: HC gives more time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge remarks
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
"I don't know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written."
"By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing," the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate's counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency's petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge's observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED's case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
"Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read," the judge observed.
Raju also urged the court to direct that the observations of the trial court would not be relied upon by the accused in related proceedings. "It is a short date. Let them reply," the court responded.
On March 10, the court had asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED's plea.
In the petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It said the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard.
"If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand ... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," the ED plea said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...," it added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, it said.
In its order, the trial court highlighted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
It said the issue assumed heightened significance where an accused was arrested for the offence of money laundering and thereafter required to surmount the stringent twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration even at the pre-trial stage.
It further said that despite the settled legal position that the offence of money laundering cannot independently subsist and requires the foundational edifice of a legally sustainable predicate offence, the prevailing practice revealed a disturbing inversion.
Underlining that the objective of PMLA was undoubtedly legitimate and compelling, the trial judge mentioned that statutory power, however wide, could not eclipse constitutional safeguards.
