March 19, 2006

• I'm sure Spielberg & Co. meant to publicly mock their Apache traditions, especially in light of how culturally insensitive his films (Amistad, The Color Purple, Schindler's List, et al) have been in the past. And I'm sure they hated cashing the acting paychecks.
• Fuck Spielberg.
• I figure it's akin to forcing a jewish kid to eat pork.
• Or perhaps to take communion.
• well altho I don't dismiss tennenho's point here at all, at the same time, if I were the child's parent, I would be pissed they didn't ask permission, tribal customs or no. As a woman with long hair I can tell you that one can have some weird ideas about the 'sanctity' of that stuff....
• Weren't there other Apaches (maybe one of the kid's parents?) around the set at the time? Or, didn't the girl herself know her hair wasn't supposed to be cut?
• Well, she's eight. It's pretty easy to boss eight-year-olds around. Sounds like the hair-dresser just didn't bother trying to get permission to do it. Just ignorant, and made a major misstep. It would be best if film companies made a point of researching cultural taboos before working with a population that has such a strong commitment to tradition.
• Apache is better than MS Server, IMHO.
• Sounds like the hair-dresser just didn't bother trying to get permission to do it. Just ignorant, and made a major misstep. How many times do you think they've encountered an actress who couldn't go through the full, usual hair and makeup routine for a TV show on religious grounds? Cutting hair is what they do for a living. They need a different haircut for a part, they cut the hair. Seriously, is there any indication that the parents or the girl told them not to do it? I really think it's their responsibility to do so, not the stylists to go looking for stuff like this. To extend the Jew/pork analogy, it's more like they didn't ask if she was Jewish, she didn't say anything, so at lunchtime craft services gave her a ham sandwich, not like they knew and force-fed her. It's her job to say, I'm Jewish, and we don't eat pork.
• Remember, kids aren't legally able to give consent for all kinds of things. There's a reason for that. Obviously if there'd been even a suggestion to the parents that the film makers might need to cut the kid's hair, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Hell, I'd be kind of pissed if someone cut my kid's hair without informing me, and I don't have any cultural or traditional values whatsoever. Her hair was cut by a stylist to "make her look more 'Indian' I love this part.
• True, but this only makes me wonder where the hell her parents were. Shouldn't at least one of them been there to look after her interests, given that she's a minor on the job? I sure as hell would have been there, and if I hadn't, I would have sent someone I trust. I wouldn't have just dropped her off at the shoot with a lunchbox and wished her luck. As to suggesting the possibility to the parents, again, I agree -- with a child, you should ask if it's okay -- but (hindsight being 20/20, natch), hair and makeup is a part of TV and film. Happens all the time, nobody on a film crew thinks twice about it, anymore than they think about the possible religious difficulties of changing her wardrobe.
• Dude, it was waist long hair cut to boys length. This isn't the "usual hair and make up routine". It's her entire lifetime worth of hair. Any parent would be royally pissed, these people are just "lucky" (irony quotes) they have religious grounds for being even more pissed. Kids aren't going to have that much hair on accident. It would've been obvious to anyone with half a brain that her hair was significantly important for both her and her family, regardless of culture. It be like be like your 8 year old daughter came home with her nose pierced, saying "Yeah, Speilberg did it. He wanted me to look the part more." Even if body mod wasn't against your religion, you'd still be damn pissed that it was done. Oh, and tennenho's argument is rather neat. Intent is the same as actualization. Since Speilberg didn't purposely set out to destroy her rites of passage, that that's the same as him not doing it. "I didn't mean to force you to violate your religious traditions, so that means it didn't happen." It happened, regardless of what he "meant" to do.
• Did she say no or didn't she? Or did a parent say no? If either said no and they went ahead and cut it despite this, then I predict the Werzog will stomp them all to squash with his Infallible Foot of Retribution. Otherwise, I suspect this suit will only garner an apology, at best.
• When I was seven years old, the school lunch lady told me I had to drink the whole milk she put on my tray. I knew I was allergic to whole milk. I told her so. She repeated that I had to drink it. I repeated that I knew I couldn't because it would make me sick. I told my parents.
• Wow, your lunch lady sounds like Elvis from Das Experiment.
• And if she had repeated that you had to drink it, and you being 8 went ahead and did it for whatever reason eight year olds do things, she still would have been responsible.
• Sorry, 7.
• It be like be like your 8 year old daughter came home with her nose pierced, saying "Yeah, Speilberg did it. He wanted me to look the part more." Even if body mod wasn't against your religion, you'd still be damn pissed that it was done. Except that wouldn't happen, because I'd be on the set watching her. And if I couldn't be there, my wife would. And if she couldn't be there, her mother or father would. And if they couldn't be there...etc. Eight-year-old. On a job. No supervision, other than her boss? Sorry. And the fact that they didn't know about the haircut after the fact indicates to me that even if they were on set, they weren't doing a very good job of supervising their eight-year-old daughter. Who is only eight. And working on a TV shoot. An eight-year-old. Understand, I'm not saying the crew is entirely faultless. I'm just saying that when your eight-year-old is working, particularly if she has particular health- or faith-related needs that need attending to, showing up and keeping an eye on her might be a good idea. "I didn't mean to force you to violate your religious traditions, so that means it didn't happen." I think the point is more that it's their responsibility as parents to alert the crew of any needs. If you're coming to my house for dinner and don't bother alerting me that you're a vegetarian or a practicing Jew or Muslim and I serve, say, split-pea soup with bacon in it and you don't realize about the bacon until after you've eaten it, you can't really accuse me of "violating your religious traditions." I made soup. You ate it without checking into it or alerting me to your dietary needs. Now, if she did in fact inform them and they cut the hair anyway, then yes, they're entirely responsible. If not, do they have a right to be upset? Sure. Do they have a right to $375K? No.
• s/b "didn't know abou the haircut UNTIL after the fact"
• fuck. I'll stop typing now.
• ... it was waist long hair From the article: "Mr Ponce said that before it was cut, his daughter's hair fell midway down her back." This isn't the "usual hair and make up routine". The point at which the stylist gets the child actor is way after the permissions stage... I don't imagine this request being too out of the ordinary. The hairdresser was told to "make her look like a boy", and that's what the they did. It's her entire lifetime worth of hair. From the article: "Mescalero tradition forbids cutting a girl's hair as she approaches puberty" Any parent would be royally pissed Probably true, but it makes me wonder where the parents were at when the kid was working...
• Knickers: I never said it didn't happen because he didn't intend any ill. And I'd understand suing for a public apology, or to call attention to the Plight of the Apache. What I don't understand is the Native Americans jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of us now, and putting a pricetag of a third of a mil on "emotional distress". Although I guess it is the American Way. It seems to me that anyone who's not an idiot might be aware that, in taking an acting role, one might be asked to change her hairstyle. And since the point of the suit is that NOBODY except her parents were supposed to cut her hair AT ALL, the argument doesn't hold weight that they're pissed because it was cut from "mid back" to "boy length". They'd be pissed if a single lock had been cut, if her dad meant what he said. My point: since everyone knows actors often get their hair changed for roles, it was incumbent on the parents, when they approved their daughter's involvement in the project, to let the production company know a haircut would be a problem. They didn't, so they should have to continue working for money like the rest of us. Instead of suing Spielberg just because he "has enough to go around".
• Kids aren't going to have that much hair on accident. Really? You've never seen a white kid with long hair, just because their mom never takes them to get it cut? So, it's up to the TV folks to find out why her hair is long? Bullshit. They needed a child actor of Native American descent with short hair. They got one. Had she said something, they'd have likely found a different one. The responsibility lies with her parents to be aware that Jews in Hollywood probably don't have an intimate knowledge of Apache traditions. And to share the aspects of that knowledge that, if not known, will cause ire. Your argument is akin to saying that when a parent substitutes violent video games for parent-child bonding, and the kid shoots up a Wal-Mart, the folks at Rockstar Games are liable. Or the guy who sells them the gun. Or the Republicans who lobbied against the tighter gun regulations. Anyone but the parents, right?
• I've said enough.
• Oh, hell. Now I've gone and killed the thread.
• Which violates my religious freedoms. I consider threads to be sacred, as is taught at Our Lady of the Eternally Dependable Godwin, you useless Nazi fuckwad.
• I figure it's akin to forcing a jewish kid to eat pork. It's more like postponing a bar/batmitzvah until the age of majority, or a twelve year old briss. This isn't something that can happen more than once, coming of age is a one shot deal. In Australian tribes they practice ritual circumcision at a later age in life. In one instance in a video I can't remember the name of the kid being circumcised cried and generally reacted like a kid from the post industrial complex might without anaesthetic. Later on he was "lost" on a hunting expedition. That is a worst case scenario, but does anyone know what might happen to her if she can't carry on her coming of age ceremony? Childhood trauma. And tennenho that is such a blatant straw man: the girl was in the care of the show at the time. We don't know why her parents weren't there but I'd guess they were working. The show proceeded to do things without consulting the minor's parents. So they sued. I'm an atheist, but I'll even defend the rights of a cultist or a fundamentalist no matter how much I disagree with them. I find lawsuits to be mostly a waste of time, but this one involves real personal harm. Unlike how Steve Moore's parents are suing Todd Bertuzzi b/c they were "paralyzed" and "in shock" when they saw him get hit. In putting the minor to blame: "Had she said something, they'd have likely found a different one." Do you mean that their parents told her to say nothing if the subject of hair cutting came up? Is that occam's razor? The lawsuit has far more merit than half the shit I see out there.
• What? For the love of all things pure, stop putting words in my mouth. Until it's the law for all of us to know one another's customs, there will always be lawsuits such as this one. I don't ever recall saying Spielberg shouldn't BE held liable. What I DID say is that it's arbitrary and ridiculous to posit that Mom and Dad are willing to OVERLOOK her childhood trauma for, oh, let's call it $325K. The girl was NOT in the care of the show, Chimp. She was 8. Unless her parents transferred custody, she's still their daughter, and they're her custodians, responsible ultimately for keeping her out of traumatic situations. Also, 325 grand is a squirt of piss for Spielberg and Turner. Not much of a deterrent, methinks. Anyone who's not of Apache descent needs to henceforth dismount their liberal high horse. Let's hear what the girl has to say, and stop with the vicarious suburban white guilt thing.
• I'm guessing the producers didn't come to her home and whisk her away in the night. I'd imagine her parents took her to a casting call. I'm glad we know now that you don't cut an Apache girl's hair; I didn't know that before. I'd never try and do it now that I know, but faulting me for not having known? Like middleclasstool said so well: If you're coming to my house for dinner and don't bother alerting me that you're a vegetarian or a practicing Jew or Muslim and I serve, say, split-pea soup with bacon in it and you don't realize about the bacon until after you've eaten it, you can't really accuse me of "violating your religious traditions." I made soup.
• Occam's Razor
• What I don't understand is the Native Americans jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of us now, and putting a pricetag of a third of a mil on "emotional distress Here's the thing, our legal system decides on a price tag high enough to provide a disincentive to the erring party. Right or wrong, that's how it works. Essentially, it's a sliding scale fine. The question is, who *should* recieve the money? The government? Or the harmed party? I don't have an answer for this, and find it a rather fascinating issue. Now, as far as "where were the parents?" is concerned: when I was eight, I was in a production of The Nutcracker that required a few hours of rehearsal every day. My mother would drop me off during that time, and then I was essentially at the mercy of the production company. This didn't seem unusual, there were lots of kids in the same boat. Our parents were making that choice based on the assumption that the company wouldn't use their stewardship to put me in situations that were inconsistent with my parents values, and that they would inform them if something radical were called for. I don't know how things work in the movie industry, but I'm coming from the standpoint that it's similar. My point: since everyone knows actors often get their hair changed for roles, it was incumbent on the parents, when they approved their daughter's involvement in the project, to let the production company know a haircut would be a problem. And The responsibility lies with her parents to be aware that Jews in Hollywood probably don't have an intimate knowledge of Apache traditions. I don't know that this is the case. We're talking about people from the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation in New Mexico. This is a culture that's just about as far away from L.A. movie industry street smarts as you can get in this country. Anyone who's not of Apache descent needs to henceforth dismount their liberal high horse. Let's hear what the girl has to say, and stop with the vicarious suburban white guilt thing. Hey now, we have enough information to have a discussion on the issue. I don't think this is a suburban white guilt thing at all, more of a question of culture clash. I think it's very interesting.
• My point with the milk story is, that by the time a kid is seven or eight, they've learned from their parents what they should and shouldn't do even if another adult asks them to. And if they haven't, then they're not mature enough to be sent away to work on a movie set without a parent being there.
• our legal system decides on a price tag high enough to provide a disincentive to the erring party. Nuts to that. First off, I already MADE the "disincentive" argument, and said that amount is a squirt of piss to the accused, meaning precisely that it ISN'T enough to provide a deterrent. For the parties being sued, a disincentivizing number would have to have a few more zeroes on the end. Thus, the number chosen is arbitrary, and is simply the number Dad decided it would take to make this "all go away". The Nutcracker... Your parents dropped you off. Fine. I'm sure hers had other things to do, too. But they're detached enough not to know that Hollywood cuts hair for roles? I'm not buying that. See my comment above; Spielberg didn't kidnap her. They knew about a casting call and took her, or had someone take her, so they knew enough. THEY NEEDED TO TELL SOMEONE ON THAT SET THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM, IF IT WAS. AND IF THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE THERE TO KEEP WATCH. I think it's very interesting. It is interesting. But when an argument gets personal, and when my words are misconstrued and rebroadcast as such, it behooves me to remind everyone involved that the girl didn't ask White America to take up her cause. There's a diff between a discussion and that. It's like the NCAA removing all Native American mascots from their sports teams, even though the leader of the Seminole tribe feels it's an honor to be associated with Florida State University. A white person was responsible for the initial public outcry.
• On a lighter note, I do think that cutting the girl's hair to "make her look more authentic" is hilarious, since she WAS authentic to begin with. Typical Hollywood.
• "The question is, who *should* recieve the money?" No, it's "who does receive the money?" and the answer is always "the lawyers."
• And before anyone calls me out on the NCAA thing, I present an excerpt from Fox news: Wetherell pointed out that the Seminole Tribe of Florida in June passed a unanimous resolution declaring its support for FSU's nickname and mascot. A spokesman for the Chippewa tribe in Michigan expressed similar sentiments, saying the NCAA should butt out of its relationship with Central Michigan University and its Chippewas. "The rich relationship that the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe has with CMU cannot be determined by an outside entity without contacting the institution and the government involved," a tribe spokesman said. "Any arbitrary decision made from an outside source regarding university-tribal relations is not acceptable.''
• Sorry, all. I'm clearly having a bad day. I apologize for having derailed this discussion horribly.
• NAZI!
• Typical Hollywood. I think you mean "Typical Jews in Hollywood"
• I don't think it's particulary derailed. I have to say that my mother would have never dropped us off anywhere but with a relative when we were eight, and that if I had an eight-year-old, I sure as hell wouldn't, either. Beyond the threat of her hair being cut, isn't there the worry that since nobody's watching her specifically (as opposed to, say, being all involved with making a movie) that she could be snatched, murdered, who knows what else? Of course, you can argue that her family is removed from the business of movie making. But taking care of your kids is universal, and I say they weren't doing such a great job of that.
• Ha ha! The first thing a producer does is get a child actor's parents as far away as possible from the set. There are a million reasons for this, but usually the excuse is union rules. If you wanna know why this is, perhaps you need to understand something about the psychology of showbiz moms.
• Of course, you can argue that her family is removed from the business of movie making. But taking care of your kids is universal, and I say they weren't doing such a great job of that. Now c'mon. Surely your parents dropped you off for after-school activities... Baseball? Girl scouts? Day care? Neighbor's house? Pizza party? Swim lessons? And undoubtedly it didn't cross their minds to remind you "Don't let anybody cut your hair, or give you a tattoo, or baptise you." And undoubtedly they would have been upset if any of those things had happened. Nuts to that. First off, I already MADE the "disincentive" argument, and said that amount is a squirt of piss to the accused, meaning precisely that it ISN'T enough to provide a deterrent. I said that's the idea. Although I'd be surprised if the next time Spielberg inc. needs to make an indian girl look more 'authentic', they didn't take note of that $325,000 price tag. That's a lot of teamster hours, after all. It is interesting. But when an argument gets personal, and when my words are misconstrued and rebroadcast as such, it behooves me to remind everyone involved that the girl didn't ask White America to take up her cause. Well, when it's taken to the courts, isn't she asking for a judge to take up her cause? And aren't we just having a discussion as to whether or not it's right? I mean, I'm not sending her any money, and it isn't as if it's up for a vote, we're just discussing the ideas. I'm assuming that you don't mean 'me' when you say that the argument is getting personal.
• On a lighter note, I do think that cutting the girl's hair to "make her look more authentic" is hilarious, since she WAS authentic to begin with. Typical Hollywood. She was an authentic, 150 year old Native American boy? Man, this story has EVERYTHING!!! PS - Bullshit lawsuit.
• Anyone who's not of Apache descent needs to henceforth dismount their liberal high horse. Let's hear what the girl has to say, and stop with the vicarious suburban white guilt thing. I hope you understand how fucking ridiculous that statement is, tenennho.
• Surely your parents dropped you off for after-school activities. Not the same thing as a job. Personally, if it's my eight-year-old, and she's doing paid work, I'm going to be as involved as I can be at every level to make sure she's treated properly and not exploited in anyway. A little league coach, unless s/he's a prick, understands that the point is for the kids to go have fun and get some exercise and learn about teamwork and sportsmanship. A film director does not view things similarly. S/he has a job to do and millions of dollars on the line and is going to do the job, whatever it takes.
• Now c'mon. Surely your parents dropped you off for after-school activities... Baseball? Girl scouts? Day care? Neighbor's house? Pizza party? Swim lessons? Actually, no. Never. Not at eight years old. When I was older, yes. Even if they had, to mct's point, during an after-school activity there's someone there that's just there to watch the kids. Day care, same thing. On a movie set, they're not there to watch the kids.
• huh, I don't know where I got waist-long from, I was sure the article said that. I must've got mixed up with the ceremony requirements. I apologize. Midway down the back to boy's length is still drastic, and not routine. For it to be routine, the hair people would have to chop of that much hair every time they work. and they don't. It's like your pretending Natalie Portman's haircut was routine, they just walked up cut off with no discussion, then she was all like "Hey my hair, what didja do?" and they were all like "Sorry, this routine. We always shave people's head. That's what we do." A situtation where you cut off a foot of hair is not routine. It's abnormal. Really? You've never seen a white kid with long hair, just because their mom never takes them to get it cut? No, wtf are you talking about? I've never seen any kid with long hair without their parents wanting them to have long hair. I can't believe there is so many people in here making the argument that children must be pretty much attached to their parents. The exact same argument you make would also apply to having the sixteenyear old from across the street babysitting. Hell, it would apply to letting kids go to school. It even applies to leaving a kid in a different room while you use the restroom. It's pretty reasonable to say that if you can leave your kid in the hands of a sixteen year old, you can leave your kid in the hands of Speilberg. And if you guys are sincere and honest about your beliefs that movie sets should never have children on them unless the parents are there also, then shame on you for having done nothing about it until now. But saying that they are bad parents is a non sequitor argument anyways. The fact that the parents weren't there doesn't change the fact that her hair was cut off. Most of these arguments can be summed up to "If the parents aren't there to stop us, we can do anything we want to the girl." It's a good thing the world doesn't operate the way you want to pretend it does. ...it behooves me to remind everyone involved that the girl didn't ask White America to take up her cause. Noted. You should also be reminded that Spielberg didn't ask White America to take up his cause, either. You should quit trying to defend him, because he didn't ask you to. I apologize for having derailed this discussion horribly. You haven't derailed the thread. Why do you think you have?
• On a movie set, they're not there to watch the kids. If they're working with kids you can be that someone is there whose job it is to watch them. If nothing else, liability will take care of that. Case in point.
• When I was 8 I was acting at a children's theater. My parents always dropped me off there. I'd spend many hours a week downtown at the children's theater. They never cut off my 80's german supervillian mullet. fuckers. Why's the Native American get all the love?
• When I was 8 I could only dream of having my hair cut by Steven Spielberg.
• "Her hair was cut by a stylist to "make her look more 'Indian' and like a male Indian child because the movie casting call failed to produce sufficient young male extras of Indian heritage", the papers state." She was an child extra; not child actor. I imagine not a lot of close-ups or any speaking required if it doesn't matter much if you're a little girl rather than a little boy...just grab those scissors and start hacking away. I've worked as an extra and it is highly unusual to radically alter an extra's appearance in any permanent way. She was a bloody background prop, not a veteren child actor like Dakota Fanning who knows the biz. As someone else noted, you are whisked off to various rooms or tents pretty quick to be assessed, groomed and placed. You're in an assembly line and you can't just nip out and talk to your parents. A lot of native kids are quite shy around people they don't know; throw in a confusing new experience with unknown adults and it's pretty stacked against the kid. Cutting her hair from mid-back to ear length is a bullshit move to inflict on any little kid extra and I don't care what virtues Spielberg may usually demonstrate; his people fucked up and I'm glad they were nailed for it.
• Good points moneyjane. I noted that in the article, and since they were doing this to address a known casting problem, albeit altering extras' appearance, the production company knew they were doing something different. Methinks these changes were not communicated well. See, the whole "let's cut the hair of an 8-year-old girl like that of a boy and not think that might be upsetting" seems to be the primary gaffe. When you add a cultural taboo, it just seems like a true dunderheaded move. At the same time, I feel it's important to point out ala Dragnet, "Kids, it'll grow back!"
• It be like be like your 8 year old daughter came home with her nose pierced, saying "Yeah, Speilberg did it. He wanted me to look the part more." Wait a second - my parents told me that's how come I got circumcised.
• "quid, it'll grow ... oh, er. never mind."
• I was given to understand that quid's growths were strictly regulated, for the safety of people worldwide.
• Goddam Jewish media stole my Penis*. * also the title of my forthcoming country and western album.
• I assume the parents signed a contract/release to get their daughter this job. If the contract says the production company can cut hair, then there's no case. If it doesn't mention haircuts at all, then the case has merit and future contracts of this sort will no doubt spell it out more clearly.
• quid, yeah but Spielberg asked your parents first.
• What rocket88 just said. Also, could they not have put it in a pony tail, pinned it or used a wig? If she's just an extra, the camera won't be on her long enough for anyone to notice she's really a girl. They fucked up, and there'll be a settlement. Spielberg won't risk his ultra-PC image.
• Contract, schmontract. One party is naive to the industry, the other is pretty big and sophistimicated. Between equal parties, such a contract would mean something, but here, it's pretty likely that the parents didn't give, or couldn't give, the necessary informed consent. Cutting hair is a pretty permanent thing, made even more significant by the cultural tradition. Like Koko said, it could have been handled in a far less-intrusive manner, with a hat or wig or whatever. Spielberg would need to prove that cutting away was the least intrusive way of addressing the movie's needs, which is a long and stupid fight. Way more than $325K. The parents will get a settlement, if only as 'go-away' money. And the industry will be more careful.
• Contract, schmontract. I believe the legal precedent for that strategy was first set in the 1923 Liars vs. Pants On Fire case.
• Fuck Spielberg. posted by Chyren at 07:23PM UTC on March 19, 2006 Muy bueno. Snakes on a Plane, baby.
• Cutting hair is a pretty permanent thing ???
• Well, not permanent permanent, but you know. Shaddap.
• Well you can't uncut hair, unlike quid's foreskin.
• Oh sure, drag quid's foreskin into it, why don'tcha.
• Talking about my foreskin turns lurkers off MoFi and makes tracicle cry.
• SEE MOMMY I'M A GOOD QUIDNUNC BUT THEY ARE NAUGHTY
• I assume the parents signed a contract/release to get their daughter this job. If the contract says the production company can cut hair, then there's no case. If it doesn't mention haircuts at all, then the case has merit and future contracts of this sort will no doubt spell it out more clearly. Yep. If they were informed, then there's no case. If they weren't, then it's over. Regardless, I think that the law suit has a positive consequence, namely that movie companies will be damn sure to learn about the cultures of the people they're working with before they do any open-casting calls for an atypical population.
• See, I guess I'm a freak, because I wouldn't leave an 8 year old with a 16 year old babysitter, either.
• Just a different background, I guess, Lara. Lord knows my parents let me run over all creation usupervised. But it was a small town.
• Also, in Prague it was not uncommon in the least to see six- to eight-year-olds riding the metro home from school or walking through the crowded streets all by themselves.
• When I was 8, I was left alone every afternoon with my 12-year-old brother. And look how I turned out!
• ...that movie companies will be damn sure to learn about the cultures of the people they're working with... Alas, I think it likely fewer people from non-mainstream/impoverished/indigenous cultures will be hired if this suit amounts to anything. Not enough facts to know all the ins and outs of this, but if this little girl was specifically hired to play the role of a little boy in a film set in a certain historical period/context, I think the suit is on shaky ground. For a devil's advocate would maintain the parents should have reasonably have anticipated her being made to look like a little boy of the period. I think it entirely possible that the parents were not aware of or far-sighted enough to consider all the costuming/makeup issues that would arise here. But those things don't mean they have much of a legal case. Just to save time/money/fuss, I daresay this case will be settled out of court -- regardless of whether it's frivolous or justified -- for that's what usually happens. And a devious and cynical mind, such as the one I seem to possess today, might even go so far as to wonder whether the bringers of this suit are unaware of this tendency of the bigger movie studios.
• Alas, I think it likely fewer people from non-mainstream/impoverished/indigenous cultures will be hired if this suit amounts to anything. YES! Then they can sue for discrimination, and pick an even BIGGER arbitrary settlement amount!
• No, I suppose it means that Spielberg et al will have to keep using the same 25 indians we see in every movie, or perhaps go back to painting white people red. That'll sell tickets.
• perhaps go back to painting white people red. Humph. Yes. Heap big ticket sales.
• As someone else noted, you are whisked off to various rooms or tents pretty quick to be assessed, groomed and placed. You're in an assembly line and you can't just nip out and talk to your parents. A lot of native kids are quite shy around people they don't know; throw in a confusing new experience with unknown adults and it's pretty stacked against the kid. MoneyJane speaks heap big sense. First of all, none of you know if the parents were around on the set at all anyway. For all we know, they could have been right outside the door to the stylist's room. A couple of you make it sound like the girl was just dumped out the car door in the morning without supervision. I can assure you, on a movie set, liability is a BIG issue, and supervision/security is REAL TIGHT for kids. Second of all, many of you seem to think the girl should have been mature enough to have spoken up to stop the haircut, yet you don't think she was mature enough to be on the set without parents. Indian children of most tribes are, as a rule, very soft spoken and quiet, and tend not to contradict adults. I doubt if my white Idaho-smalltown-raised eight-year-olds would have been able to stop a stylist who just picked up a pair of sissors and started to wack. I'll bet the stylist even discussed the haircut with the girl. At any rate, all this is speculation. As usual, media gives us half the story, and we fill in the blanks according to our personal world view. Our opinions count for BS. The judge will have the facts and the final say. Ya gotta love it. I guess being an Indian isn't good enough for Brollywood--unless you look like a *real* cinema Indian.
• MonkeyFilter: Our opinions count for BS
• Dammit! ...the stylist NEVER even discussed the hair cut.
• Thank you, Chimp.
• many of you seem to think the girl should have been mature enough to have spoken up to stop the haircut, yet you don't think she was mature enough to be on the set without parents. Actually, I combined those into an if/then statement. If she isn't A, then she's not B. At any rate, all this is speculation. As usual, media gives us half the story, and we fill in the blanks Well...EXACTLY. What else would we be doing, hardhitting investigative journalism? By your logic, we shouldn't be discussing it at all unless we have all the facts - and that includes you.
• ...if this little girl was specifically hired to play the role of a little boy... Ah...see, that's the thing; if you check out the wording here; According to legal papers filed by Mr Ponce, Christina responded through her parents last March to an open casting call for work on Into the West. She attended a three-day shoot near Carrizozo, New Mexico. Her hair was cut by a stylist to "make her look more 'Indian' and like a male Indian child because the movie casting call failed to produce sufficient young male extras of Indian heritage", the papers state. The casting call was open, meaning they didn't specify boys or girls, and from the sounds of it, even native over white because they didn't know they didn't have "sufficient young male extras of Indian heritage" until they were ready to shoot, and so made with the shears. They fucked up.
• ? I don't follow your logic. They should be sued because Indian boys didn't show up?
• No. The production people should have; A. known what kind of extras they would need, and; B. made sure they had 'sufficient young male extras of Indian heritage' before they started hacking off hair because it was time to shoot. Should the family *not* sue because the shoot was badly organized? The production had a problem and they 'solved' it it a disrespectful and high-handed way. They earned themselves a smack in the chops. They need to settle it, learn from it, and move on quickly so they can promote the film without this creating a problem.
• The production had a problem and they 'solved' it it a disrespectful and high-handed way. Maybe yes, maybe no. No one here knows all the details. I still submit that cutting hair, even that much hair, means nothing to a stylist on a TV or movie shoot, nothing more than a radical costume change. Hair, after all, grows back. The only possible legally actionable objection is a religious one, and I'd now like to ask for a show of hands for those who prior to this thread had the slightest inkling that there was an Apache prohibition against hair-cutting before puberty. Should they have asked permission of the parents anyway, regardless of religious beliefs? Depends on what the parents signed, both legally and ethically. If they signed a permission beforehand that granted the crew the right to do things like cut her hair, then sorry, but them's the breaks. Read the fine print next time. If not, then they have a valid right to be pissed. But I'm still not convinced that they have a right to nearly four hundred thou. As to what the crew "should have" known and prepared for, well, sometimes you don't get all the resources you want, you can't predict just who will show up for a casting call, and when time is a key issue, then a good plan today is better than the perfect plan tomorrow.
• I never noticed that every person in every movie was shaved bald and transgendered. Because that would be the end result if this sort goof-up was routine.
• I'd now like to ask for a show of hands for those who prior to this thread had the slightest inkling that there was an Apache prohibition against hair-cutting Mine's up, and I'm not even Apache. My background is way-back-there Chocktaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee, and I know you don't fuck with Indian hair. Cutting long hair short has negative connotations in many cultures, particularily native, and particularily without permission. Residential schools cut off "Indian" hair to make it more acceptable to whites. Even today, tribal chiefs will often have long hair as a signifier of their native identity. Hair also has serious significance for women. In most places and times, long hair is seen as being more feminine than masculine. The French despised French women accused of being the mistresses of the occupying Germans; it's not accidental that they chose to shave their heads to mark them publicly as alien. ...you can't predict just who will show up for a casting call... You can if you say, specify who you need rather than some idiotic open call. Were they so fucking clueless they didn't think the scenes would need a certain quota of young male extras of Indian heritage? What were they doing? Writing last minute critical scene changes while hiding out in craft services? You'd almost think there should have been the slightest inkling that there was an Apache prohibition against hair-cutting before puberty among those hoping to make some dough off a film that; ...explores the expansion of the American West through the eyes of two families - one white, the other native American. Guess not. I think they got into a time crunch - downtime is money - so they thought they'd save their asses by *not* holding another call specifying male Indian kids and instead turn a little native girl into a boy with the goddamn scissors. Guess they'll have to give some of that money they saved in *not* having a second specified casting call to the kid. I am strangely unmoved. Them's the breaks.
• Show of hands if you know of one culture that doesn't have a prohobition against this. In every culture I can think of, parents would be pissed off at the suprise of finding a foot of hair chopped of their child's head. Hell, I've seen my mom get pissed that her own mother, my grandma, for cutting my hair without consulting her, and that was like an inch of hair. This wasn't just a violation of only Apache standards, but a violation of the standards of every culture I'm aware of, living or dead.
• pah! the real into the west. reviewed here.
• I guess it's the American way: Being on the receiving end of somebody's simple and ultimately harmless mistake is like winning the lottery. The production company will settle out of court. The family will make a lot of money. But they don't really deserve it. It's just hair.
• Quid doesn't think the same about his foreskin. But he still probably won't win agains the GrindCo Pencil Sharpener Company.
• The only possible legally actionable objection is a religious one, and I'd now like to ask for a show of hands for those who prior to this thread had the slightest inkling that there was an Apache prohibition against hair-cutting before puberty. Oooh! OOh! me! me! But I'm from NM, and tend to pay attention to that stuff.
• Being on the receiving end of somebody's simple and ultimately harmless mistake is like winning the lottery. Imagine if your weird uncle had forced you to show up to middle school one day wearing a pink tutu and lipstick smeared across your face, rocket88. Can you imagine that the kids at school might single you out? Can you imagine that you'd be justifiably upset because of the incident? And can you imagine that your parents might seek some sort of action against your uncle? But hey, it's just clothes you can take off. It's just makeup that washes away.
• and it is NOT 'just hair'...its hair, go'damnit!
• And a few hundred grand would make it all OK? Or even make it a little bit better? Besides, the example you give is a deliberate act with intent to harm. The case of the haircut is an honest mistake at worst.
• An honest mistake, but one with significant impact. And one that needs to not happen again. The question is, what is a fitting recompense? The company needs to be given some disincentive from making such mistakes in the future, and the girl needs to be given some compensation for the mistake that was made. Our system combines the two into a dollar amount that the harmed party recieves, as opposed to say a fine that gets paid directly to the government or something. Maybe that needs to change, but I somehow don't think that those who cry "frivolous lawsuit!" will be any happier if a similar amount were to go straight to the gov instead of the individual.
• And we've come full circle back to the original defense of "He didn't mean harm, therefore no harm happened".
• Yeah. And the "dollar amount based on disincentive" thing. Okay. I retire. I'll just send a few more harrassing personal e-mails to those I disagree with, make a few prank-calls, and then finish up with an honest-to-god death threat and call it a day.
• Is there a Bea O'Problem here? C'mon guys, do I have a Bea O'Problem here?
• Wait a minute, what am I thinking? There's a much more efficient way to finish this thing off! Ahem. (wait for it).
• You don't think she has a case? You don't?! You know who else didn't think somebody had a case? Hitler. Hitler didn't think the jews had a case. Therefore, you=Hitler.
• Alright people, let's go home.
• The jews should have sued.
• Thank you, Chimp. It was hard to pick just one, GramMa.
• I tried to get a haircut today. A cheap one. There was a queue. I got bored, and got drunk instead. I had a nice day today. But I still need to get my hair cut.
• I had several hairs cut today. Way too short, I'm afraid. Mr. Horse was rather insulting about this cut. I may have to hurt him later.
• I did, finally, get my haircut today. And I got drunk afterwards. Another very nice day.
• Family of Afghan child actor want rape scene cut from film
• Once again, it's all about the industries bottom line and screw the little guy. Why the heck didnt' they research this a bit and use an American child actor? Oh, wait, maybe there's some LAW here about it? Could be, I don't know. I do know that I believe the family vs the company when the parents say that they didn't know what the company had in mind for filming. Mahmidzada said the company has promised to take care of his family if anything happens to them as a result of the film. Yeah, like I believe THAT. Prepare to be really raped now, kid.