Angry in the Great White North

As many people now know, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla starred in a movie filmed in Hamilton in 2003, before she became an MP.  At the time, the movie was seen as the beginning of an economic boon for Hamilton.   Now, however, Ruby Dhalla is alleging that the movie includes faked images of her, and she wants the pending DVD release halted.

Her allegations seem to have become less certain in 24 hours, however.

I don't know think that Ruby Dhalla is changing her position, but rather that the reporting since yesterday has become more detailed.  That's just my opinion, of course, but you can decide. [Update: I've checked into it, and the statements all came from the same interview.]

Yesterday, Ruby Dhalla was reported as making some very serious allegations about film producer Chico Sihra of Hamilton:

The politician, who represents Brampton-Springdale, claims Kyon Kis Liye (Why? And for Whom?) plus posters and photos for the low-budget 2003 Hamilton-made film were "doctored." She does not deny appearing in the movie.

Admitting yesterday "we've never seen a copy of the film," Dhalla, 35, said "they are misrepresenting myself ... they put my face on someone else's body, in clothes I never wore."

Today, reports have Ruby Dhalla sounding less certain about possible editing of the images:

In an interview Wednesday, Dhalla called Sihra and the distributer "opportunists" who are trying to boost sales on her MP's reputation.

Claiming she has not seen the film since filming wrapped up in Hamilton six years ago, she suggested still pictures "may be doctored."

May be doctored?

I'll tell you that I've looked at the photos published in the media in detail (as best as I could, since they were low-res shots), and if they were doctored, it was a brilliant job.  Colouration and saturation is spot on, there are no obvious discontinuities, the position and type of the lighting must have identical in the original photo and whatever source photo was used to extract Ruby Dhalla's face, and ever detail apparent (such as her hair and the way it drapes in the different photos) in the three photos matches exactly.

And in each photo, Ruby Dhalla's face is different, that is to say, it does not appear that someone took the same image of Ruby Dhalla's face and reused it in each doctored image, but used a different face for each fabrication.  That's a true craftsman at work.

So which images were doctored?  Maybe not all of them.  The Ottawa Sun has printed the photos and provided captions.  It is suggested in the captions that only the motorcycle photos were fabrications:

• Dhalla In Line: Ruby Dhalla, here in the 2003 movie Kyon Kis Liye (Why? And for Whom?) promotional photo. The Liberal MP claims that her face was superimposed onto someone else's body in the promotional material.
• Dhalla on bike 1: Ruby Dhalla, here in the 2003 movie Kyon Kis Liye (Why? And for Whom?) with co-star Charanjit "Chico" Sihra, claims this handout photo is doctored. The Liberal MP claims that her face was superimposed onto someone else's body in the promotional material.
• Dhalla on bike 2: Ruby Dhalla, here in the 2003 movie Kyon Kis Liye (Why? And for Whom?) with co-star Charanjit "Chico" Sihra, claims this handout photo is doctored. The Liberal MP claims that her face was superimposed onto someone else's body in the promotional material.

Taking the caption text at face value, that would mean that Ruby Dhalla did pose for the "Dhalla in Line" shot in the same outfit as in the allegedly doctored motorcycle photos.

Frankly, I think Ruby Dhalla would be facing some difficulty in convincing casual observers that any of the photos were edited. 

But now she is being reported as essentially guessing that the photos were changed.

That is not helping her credibility.  Anything less than certainty could be interpreted by some people as the sort of thing a person fishing for excuses would say.  In other words, that she is tossing out allegations (doctored photos, no signed releases, no verifiable paycheque) in the hope that something sticks.

A strategy like that could work.  But if that is the game she is playing, and Chico Sihra is able to refute each allegation based on evidence or the testimony of reliable witnesses, Ruby Dhalla could end up inflicting far more damage on her political career than any silly movie.

Update: Sheila Copps pops up in the story, and Chico Sihra said she attended the opening:

Sihra said the two-hour, 10-minute movie "was financed by me," for about $200,000.

Not recalling the amount of government money provided, he said federal funds were granted for the premiere at a theatre which Sheila Copps, then heritage minister, attended.

Sheila Copps tells me that she has never heard of the Albion Cinema (I had wondered if the opening was at that theatre), and that she doesn't recall "attending any opening for the film".

An effort to be taken seriously? Why would DVD release seem to be so important to Ruby Dhalla?  In principle, of course, it matters that your words and images are reproduced faithfully.  But the photos are innocuous by most standards, and no one is denying that she appeared in the film.  Perhaps Ruby Dhalla is fed up with being perceived as a lightweight. I noticed this in the Ottawa Sun as well:

Ruby D - gossip

Liberal candidate Ruby Dhalla wasn't just a sexy MP with great hair. According to the Hill Times' 16th annual Best of the Hill list, Dhalla is one of Ottawa's biggest gossips. (HO)

That report came out in April of 2008, so it's been a while.  But perhaps the DVD release of Ruby Dhalla's sole dalliance with movies is coming at the wrong time, undermining whatever effort she might have expended since last April to be perceived as something more substantive than a gossip with great hair.