On Hiring "Supermodels" for your Indie Film

Or another thing from 2016 I'm still upset about.

In May, while promoting his film Sing Street, John Carney criticized Keira Knightly, one of the leads of his film Begin Again.

What made headlines was his issue with the size of her entourage; he vowed never to work with supermodels again.

Which was an odd thing to say, because a casual glance at IMDB reveals that in the 10 years prior to working with Carney, Knightly worked steadily in the movie biz. A slightly deeper dive shows she was nominated for an Oscar for Pride & Prejudice, and for BAFTAs for both Pride & Prejudice and Atonement. Her day job is as an Actor¹, not a Supermodel.

But this is a digression. The meat of Carney's issue with Knightly was her lack of song-writing skills. He lamented the fact he couldn't collaborate with her during production.

Ummm Dude. How is it her fault you hired someone who didn't have the skills you wanted?

I have a theory.

The people holding the purse-strings had a list² of acceptable actors and actresses for the lead roles. If they're not on the list, you don't get the money, they may have said.

Which, if true, is a shame.

Not simply because the director was stifled in his options, unable to choose from a talent pool possessing the skills he desired,

But because such a list is an impediment to film diversity.

What if Knightly's role had been played by Sheryl Crow or Jewel or Ann Wilson (from the band Heart)³? By an Asian? By a man⁴?

The limitations of a mandated list meant that none of these options were available to Carney. This may have resulted in him choosing the wrong person for the role.

If my theory is correct⁵.

Still, it's hard to believe Carney didn't know Knightly's skill level prior to the start of filming. (I understand she learned to play the guitar specifically for the role.) For whatever reason, he didn't hire an actual guitar playing singer-songwriter for the role of a guitar playing singer-songwriter. Blaming her for his hiring decision was disingenuous at best.

1. or Actress, if you prefer.

2. Note that the ubiquity of Jennifer Lawrence is due to studio/purse-string holder short lists. Such lists should always include, at a minimum, Lupita Nyong'o, Gina Rodriguez, and Constance Wu. I doubt they do, but they should.

3. I have no idea if any of these women can act. But they are all guitar playing singer-songwriters, which seems to been the most important attribute to Carney for Begin Again.

4. Even if he was stuck on having a beautiful young woman, without a mandated short list, he could've easily held auditions in Nashville, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago and found several guitar playing singer-songwriters for the role.

5. Another theory is that the studio insisted she be in the role, a la Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula (allegedly the studio required Reeves to be in the film over the director's objections). However, given the size of the film, I doubt this is the case. Keep in mind I know nothing about the Business.

Do Blue Lives Matter Conditionally?

In November 2016, several law enforcement officers were ambushed in Des Moines, Iowa. I'm still angry about it.

For several months, every time a law enforcement officer was ambushed, some of my Facebook Folks would reinforce the notion of Blue Lives Matter with a post or a share.

Not this time. No Blue Lives Matter anything appeared in my Facebook feed after officers in Des Moines were killed.

Now, unlike the earlier cases, the suspect in the Des Moines shooting is a white person.

Blue Lives Matter Facebook Folk,

your silence tells me is that Blue Lives matter only when the suspect is not a white person,

that the officers in Des Moines did not deserve a meme or a post because of the ethnic background of the suspect who took their lives.

<icy angry stare>

That attitude, that belief, is disgusting, despicable, and dishonorable.

I hope your silence has a different meaning.

The Hard Work: Embracing Political Differences

Some of my Christian siblings revealed themselves to be vitriolic Republican partisan political conservatives on social media. Liberal thought is mock-worthy; Democrats are evil demons.

Because of what and how they post, I feel unsafe around them. They seem to exemplify a prejudicial preference that precludes acknowledging or listening to a different point of view. I have the impression they think those with dissimilar political views are of little value.

Because of what and how they post, I pause. Am I guilty of doing what they do? Do I present myself on social media as blind to the humanity of those who do not share my political leanings? Am I prejudicially preferential to the exclusion of others?

That is not who I want to be. I don't want to be a person who is automatically contemptuous towards someone with different political views. I don't want to be a person who sees labels as ideological monoliths. Political conservatives come in many stripes, as do political liberals. I want to welcome civil discourse, not contribute to rancorous polemics. I want to invite reasonable discussion, not participate in meaningless argument.

This is part of the hard work.

Christian siblings, remember that in the family, we have different ideas about which means are best for achieving an end. Let us not be divided by our politics, but rather, let us listen to our siblings with different ideas, acknowledge their value as people and seekers of God's will, and work towards finding practical and meaningful solutions to the problems our communities face.

If all you have to offer are sound bites, platitudes and criticism, sit down. Hush. Stop making it difficult for those of us who are willing to do the hard work. 

Regarding a Certain Posture

When I think of the lyrics, …the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, I think of the men and women, known and unknown, who survived and fought for the right to be treated as equal citizens in the eyes of the law and in the hearts of their fellow Americans. Rev. Dr. King, of course, and Ida B. Wells and Cesar Chavez and so many others. The slaves who survived, the Chinese railroad workers who endured, the Jews who preserved, the Filipinos and Hmong and name a country, name an ethnicity, name a people who were once treated as less than and/or taken for granted and whose condition has now, (no matter how slightly), improved.

When I see the Stars & Stripes, I have no problem standing for these people. I have no problem standing to acknowledge where we are and how far we have come as a nation.

********************************

Many of us still kneel to pray, to humble ourselves before our God.

It is still, as far as I'm aware, the posture folks assume when proposing marriage to their beloved.

Reminiscent of what we imagine of medieval knights of old, the posture is not the issue.

There is nothing disrespectful about kneeling.

********************************

In the presence of my country's flag, it is also right to honor and remember of those who may not have survived the cruelties of the United States. For the Trail of Tears and other massacres. For those unknowingly subjected to government sterilization. For nationwide Jim Crow laws. For the soldiers who fought abroad for the freedom of others and came home to either derision, second class citizenship, or both. For law enforcement officers shot in the line of duty, or murdered because of their uniform. For civilians killed by law enforcement, civilians who were not instructed to drop a weapon or given enough time to comply, who were shot in the back, who died for not opening the car door quickly enough.

To honor these people, it would not bother me to kneel.

********************************

At this point, if you're still upset, you may have an issue with the audacity to use so public a forum to silently proclaim America's continuing imperfections. There's a proper way to protest, you may insist, forgetting that the nature of protest is never proper, that it is a disruption of the status quo. Or you may feel it's unpatriotic, forgetting that love of country is not simply embracing where it is but also but pushing it to be better.

At this point, if you're still upset, it's not about the posture. It's not about the kneeling. It would be disingenuous to claim so.

Help Me Understand: LGBT Discrimination

My fellow Christian Americans,

I understand there is biblical mandate against homosexuality.

What I don't understand is forcing people into desperate circumstances. What is the purpose of

--Reducing or removing a person's ability to earn a livelihood? or

--Denying health care to a child being raised by same-sex parents?¹ or

--Denying financial security to a long term couple when one of them dies? or

--Denying a member of such a long term couple from making medical decisions for the other person?

Is it an attempt to kill people through legislated marginalization? To force a hopelessness so deep some would consider suicide?

If so, do you believe you are greater than God, who has given life to all, including the people you loathe?

Is it an attempt to force people to live according The Law, despite many not being of the Faith? Let's not ignore the fact we don't even try to live according to The Law ourselves.² Are you holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Is it an attempt to try to change people? To use fear and misery to force others to behave as you want them to?

Help me understand.

Because here, in the United States, we don't live in a theocracy³. Our constitution expressly states that the government shall not establish a national religion. And while we may write or support laws which are biblically based, we cannot use government to force the Gospel or a "Christian lifestyle"⁴ on others. Mainly because

a) It ceases to become the Good News, instead morphing into Follow My Interpretation (Pharisee, anyone?), and most importantly,

b) That's not how the Gospel works. The Good News has never had to be forced upon or enforced among those who sincerely believe.

So why do some of you support, advocate for, and/or enforce of such discrimination?

Please. Help me understand.

1. Seriously. How many of you remember when you chose your parents? Then why punish the child for something over which they had no control?

2. Bacon, people. And ham. Some of us eat shrimp. Many of us would eat a bacon-wrapped shrimp appetizer in a heartbeat. All of which is contrary to The Law.

3. Nor do I want to live in a theocracy. Imagine all of the petty church arguments writ large. Imagine the group in power mandating how one praises, what one wears, what type of music is allowed. No thank you. It's hard for me to see man-made theocracy as anything other than authoritarianism attempting to disguise itself as religious purity.

4. That's right, I used quotes. Because when we say and think "Christian Lifestyle", we often go straight to one's behavior and ignore the heart. We sometimes get caught up in the appearance of propriety and spirituality, and condemn those who actually exhibit the heart of Christ. We forget that a Christian Lifestyle, a heart guided by Christ, is not always packaged as the smiling face you see in the church vestibule.

Help Me Understand: Transgender Bathroom Issues

So, in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city council passed an ordinance that, among other things, allows a transgender person to use the public restroom of the gender they identify with.

Aghast, the state legislature overrode this portion of the ordinance with a law forbidding municipalities to enact anti-LGBT discrimination laws. Some state legislators claimed Charlotte's ordinance would allow sexual predators to use the law as a means to assault their victims.

Never mind that men who've assaulted women in public restrooms never needed a guise before. If there is to be a ruse, the color of authority is much more effective, as a recent case has shown.

Just to be clear,

The North Carolina state legislature wants all biological males to use the men's restroom, and all biological females to use the women's restroom (that is, restrooms maintained by a municipality or government entity).

Even if some of those biological males dress and look like women, and some of those biological females dress and look like men.

The legislature wants a biological male who dresses and looks like a woman to go to the bathroom with men. A woman-looking person in the men's restroom. Making the men in the restroom uncomfortable.¹

The legislature also wants a biological female who dresses and looks like a man to go to the bathroom with women. A man-looking person in the women's restroom. Making the women in the restroom uncomfortable.²

Again, just to be clear,

Basically, the North Carolina Legislature wants everyone to be uncomfortable in a public restroom.

Why?

1. Not to mention possibly putting said woman in danger. You know how some men will aggressively try to hit on any woman within a 5 inch radius of where they are standing? Could you imagine? A publicly owned sport facility or concert arena? A lot of alcohol? A woman in the men's bathroom? It would be a wonder if said woman (biologically female or not) didn't get assaulted.

Re: All Lives Matter

I posted a little something on Facebook at roughly 5 am, with the thought, Right. I'll fix it in Post. And so, after more than 12 hours of percolation, I present a less rough cut of the idea that Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter are not mutually exclusive sentiments. Please enjoy.

In a Facebook post about the recent murders of law enforcement officers, Frank Somerville, a Bay Area news anchor, noted

Not all police are bad.

And not all young black men a criminals.

And I think we all need to realize that.

I would modify his statement to say not all black people are criminals, but in essence, his point is what I've tried to make in previous blog posts.

See, if you post an item to social media with language like but cops shoot black criminals and people are up in arms,

I get the impression you don't understand the second line of Mr. Somerville's statement. It would seem you believe that when law enforcement chooses to interact with a black person, that black person is automatically, and perhaps inherently, a criminal.

That belief is a lie.

Some of the negative assumptions about who black people are (and what black people deserve) are at the root of the incidents which spurred the term Black Lives Matter. To refute with All Lives Matter ignores both our history AND our present. All Lives is something to aspire to, not something that is.

Because if all lives truly mattered, we wouldn't tolerate the racism, sexism and classism which exist in our society. If we truly believed all lives mattered, we would act accordingly. To insist All Lives Matter is the current state of affairs is an exercise in delusion.

But

If by stating All Lives Matter you are expressing a desire or determination to turn a dream into reality, you are echoing the sentiment of Black Lives Matter. For in a small way, that is what the movement seeks to do.

One more thing.

It's easy to fall into the mutual exclusivity trap. It may seem the friend who posts tons of pro-Black Lives Matter stuff doesn't care about Blue Lives,

and the friend who posts tons of pro-Blue Lives Matter stuff doesn't care about Black Lives.

But unless they've told you as much – either directly or via the comments they've posted – you have no basis for such an assumption. The two sentiments are not mutually exclusive.

Instead, consider such friends as being on one of the many fronts of a battle to protect innocent lives.