Why I Hired the Homeless to Work on The Soloist
I am writing this in response to Linda Milazzo's post "Joe Wright's The Soloist Exploits the Skid Row Community," about the actions I took while making my film The Soloist.
I'm all for a debate about the ethics of employing the homeless to work on The Soloist -- a debate that caused much fierce correspondence between myself and the studio lawyers. And if Milazzo did not like my film then that's fine. But I do feel that to state, among other things, that my intention was a "perverse...and orgiastic assault on the poor and mentally ill" is an unwarranted personal attack. To have the love that I hold dear for the community of the Skid Row residents called into question is very hurtful.
Central to the film was an attempt to understand and reach out to those that are so often ignored. This was my reason for wanting to make a film not only about, but with the participation of, members of the Skid Row community.
The 10 days I spent on Skid Row that Milazzo refers to before agreeing to make the film were not intended to help me "absorb Skip Row's nuanced layers" or "understand mental illness and poverty," (mental illness is something I've had the privilege of understanding on my own). They were intended to help me come to a decision as to whether I wanted to go on that journey. I decided I did, but on the condition that the studio would allow me to employ members of the community to work with me as extras, actors, and consultants. The scenes set on Skid Row are as much their portrayal of their lives as mine. My job, as I saw it, was simply to give them an opportunity to be heard.
As such Linda Milazzo is attacking the very people she is claiming to protect.
Ideologically, I believe that the writer and I are on the same page and fighting for the same cause. I concur 100 percent with her summary of the issues facing the local community and the abuses of power enacted by the local government under the euphemistic banner of a "Safer Cities Initiative," (safer for who?). So why wage war on your own side if not to simply get attention?
It seems a lot of middle class people like to appropriate the homeless as their own.
The Soloist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, there are certainly a lot of people posting on here who worked on the movie! I guess if what one cares about are "intentions" then their testimonials are relevant, but I think the most important thing is actually the political/social effectiveness of the final product. Linda Milazzo makes an excellent point that showing Skid Row and even Nathaniel himself as unalterably deranged, savage, and unpredictable may encourage people to wash their hands of any feeling of social conscience, and, perhaps worse, give more ammunition to those who are just looking for excuses to marginalize the homeless yet further. I tend to believe the director and others on the filmmaking team probably had very good intentions, and that's just based on the movie, not their posts; the film does have many moments of humanity and sensitivity. But filmmakers are not necessarily good strategists about political messages; they're caught up in worrying about so many other factors. Milazzo's concern about the effect on an audience -- not emotionally, but in terms of their political decisions when they leave -- is very valid. I'm also afraid that the audience roots for Nathaniel to get out of that hellhole because he's "better than that", because he's gifted. But homeless people without musical gifts deserve shelter, food, safety, and dignity too, of course.
If you are still reading, director of The Soloist, this is the first film I've been able to attend (as a recently disabled person).
It was mesmerizing. Haunting in its honesty and humanity.
I can't thank you enough for giving us this unflinching portrait of life in every city in America (and even some small towns).
i loved the film but had no idea the poor were actually hired. kudos for that.
i hope the film continues to spark debate and conversation about poverty, and more importantly, action. maybe the drama here, too, is for a good end.
She probably just wishes she was more talented and compassionate enough to have done something like it herself.
I was one of the "homeless" who was an extra in that movie, and truth is, while most the people working had a residence however temporary, truly homeless cannot get it together to even be an extra. I also met quite a few "professional extras" who came from out of the area. I'm not mad at him.
I'd have to agree with you Jack. In my opinion, what a lot of people think are "homeless" people are really disenfranchised people, who may look like homeless people but they have some form of permanent shelter, whereas the truly homeless have only makeshift and temporary shelter. It may be the disenfranchised are where they are, through a combination of circumstance and choice, but the homeless really have no choice. It's sad when we expect these people to look after themselves and sadder when we expect them to improve their situation on their own.
Bravo,that means for those days they got 3 square meals from catering and craft services. A bit of money in their pocket and possibly a return of self respect they may have lost. I applaud you and though I haven't seen your film I want to. These homeless are us. None of us are immune from it happening. I have never ignored the homeless. I have watched people look down their nose at them. I realize they are human beings who got a bad break.
Well said.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Joe,
Ms. Milazzo knows nothing of your intentions. We (the cast, crew, and the homeless people and Lamp workers involved) who experienced the making of the film with you, do. And we are forever changed by the experience. Thank you again.
Lyn
Thank you Lyn, that was so well said.
I can vouch that from the first day of production up at Elysian Park to the last day under the bridge in Cleveland, every day on the set was an incredible experience and my life will never be the same again.
The movie did a service to the homeless citizens on Skid Row by bringing attention to their plight, and by humanizing them and telling the story of one particularly appealing man who will certainly elicit sympathy and approval from just about everybody who sees the movie.
Even if the street scenes were overdone—and I thought so when I saw the movie—it was done for dramatic effect: the movie, after all, is not a documentary but a *dramatization* of Steve Lopez’s story of his friendship with Nathaniel Ayers. There was an artistic purpose, whether or not every viewer approves of the decision. I was delighted to have the book made into a Hollywood movie which will be seen by thousands of people who may otherwise have no exposure to, or concern for, the subject matter.
I believe The Soloist did much good and no harm; let’s watch and see if it results in money and attention on behalf of the homeless and those worthy organizations working on their behalf. Let’s *not* go over the top in criticizing somebody’s artistic choices, especially since this filmmaker produced an otherwise sensitive and moving depiction.
I read Linda Milazzo's piece and didn't come away thinking she was accusing Wright of being exploitative because he hired the homeless to work in the film.
At issue, in her piece, was Wright's sensationalism. What appeared to cause Linda's outrage was the use of fictional scenes of "unabated lawlessness and out of control crowds". These fictional scenes would undoubtedly create shocking impressions and spark interest in the film but they do little in the way of promoting understanding of the plight of the homeless. It's possible these inaccurate portrayals could result in further marginalization (if that's possible) of a group that already endures more suffering than most know.
The only problem with that is that she actually used the word "exploiting" when accusing him of exploiting them.
Perhaps Linda Milazzo would have preferred that Actor’s Guild members be employed and dressed up to look homeless. I didn’t want to comment without knowing the story, so I Googled her article. She’s pretty vicious and sounds bent on opposing the filmmaker:
“Instead of showing the hearts of the inhabitants and telling a few of their tales, the film portrayed them as a Fellini-esque monolith -- a tainted Gomorrah teeming with decadence and dereliction.
“I drove straight downtown from the West San Fernando Valley [to]… the corner of 6th and Broadway,… parked and walked the length and breadth of the community in search of the legions of lawless portrayed in the film.”
What she doesn’t say is that she picked up dinner at Whole Foods on her way back to the Valley because there wasn’t time to cook after all her hours of investigation.
Well of course you didn’t, you dummy! This article was written about the time when Steve Lopez’ articles were being written, which were FOLLOWED by the Safer City Initiative.
Her kind of sociological expertise reminds me of foreign policy experts who can see Russia from their porch.
“It’s easier to be critical than correct.”
"Ideologically, I believe that the writer and I are on the same page and fighting for the same cause. I concur 100 percent with her summary of the issues facing the local community and the abuses of power enacted by the local government under the euphemistic banner of a "Safer Cities Initiative," (safer for who?)."
Seems like a lot of common ground to me. Having spent time with the homeless In New Orleans, I totally get Milazzo's argument that poverty cannot and should not be criminalized. Let's focus on that.
Seems like you both have a lot in common and as far as feelings getting hurt, "Buck up"!
Interesting commentary all around, and that is good.
Georgianne,
Sorry but don't you have any empathy or at least know what you are talking about?
Seems that you don't...
The term "Buck Up" is used by people who have no clue when it comes to Depression or any other mental illness or the mentally ill.
I suggest that you "Listen" more than you type.
You might learn something.
The Aspen Free Press just had a story in its street edition about Nathaniel Ayers and when he spent time in Aspen and who his friends are here. Sterling Greenwood/Aspen Free Press
Joe,
Milazzo is a non entity. It is a great film. Loved it. You are absolutely right. The film exposes homelessness and sensitizes viewers to their plight. It is to their advantage. But I'm glad there's a controversy brewing to debate the issue.
Ok, I confess, I waited in line for make-up only to have the lady tell me I didn't need it.
I had the privilege of working background on THE SOLOIST. Prior to being booked as a "homeless person" I had very mixed emotions about the message on a casting hotine. It was a necessary explanation regarding the fact that in submitting for the job you should consider that you would be working with authentic homeless individuals... their way of 'weeding out' the smug, the frightened or the disgusted, I suppose. I found it a thoroughly great experience. Other than recognizing a couple people I had worked with, I had no idea who was who. We all worked hard, ate well, were paid and shared fascinating conversations.
Playing homeless people I've learned how surface appearance translates in the world. Ironically, I've been yelled at, warned to stay away from catering trucks, and given a wide berth. Odd experience when a PA waves his hands frantically during a take and say "Ma'am, Ma'am...move please, we're trying to shoot a movie!" when I'm doing a 'cross'. Or a security guard telling me not to reach into a cooler to grab a soda because, "Those are for the cast and crew! Put it back." I've never been afraid to talk to street people and these jobs have afforded me the tiniest bit more insight about how tough, resilient and good-natured homeless people are and what they endure. I have a lot of respect for the people I worked with and the rugged people who live it day in day out.
I see reference here to 'homeless person' and 'homeless people' - at last someone who knows the importance of language when refering to homelessness. Having worked in 'homelessness since 1990, one of the many things which irritate me is the use of language which demeans people who are homeless. However well-meaning people might be who refer to 'the homeless', by making such a reference there is instantly a sense of not understanding who these people are. They are seen only in the light of their housing situation, without acknowledging that they are multi-dimensional people who have a history, who have likes, dislikes, hopes etc. They should not be defined solely by their homelessness, just as we shoudn't refer to 'the disabled' or 'the elderly'!
You could not have said it any better:)
Cocteau8 provides a starting point, a "pivot" if you will, that allows us to deal with homelessness more creatively and more compassionately. What we call people is what they become, and if we continue to use language that separates i.e., "the homeless" we will harness the collective energy that solving this complicated problem requires. In my work, I describe people with conditions - homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, etc. Conditions change, conditions can be treated and managed, people who suffer from the condition of homelessness can have that condition addressed and arrested. I thought the artistic license taken by the production was over the top in the depictions of skid row. Had I not been so intimate with production and had I not shared conversation with the director prior to shooting, I may have been even more critical of some of the scenes. The director's affection for the chorus and the philosophies that underpin their foundation may have caused some of the confusion. Skid Row had that feel through much of the early 90's, although less so in 2005 (storyline). At that time (2005) I was a consumer of services directed at those suffering from the condition of homelessness, and it wasn't like that. The old Industrial Street or Winston Street had that feel (sans the shelled out cars ala South Bronx). If fact the San Julian Street depicted in the movie could have been a combination of experiences and was never to be taken literally.
I was in it and the fear, emotion and humanity was palatable. SCI wasn't in effect; people didn't generally get arrested for having milk carts. This could have been the director's attempt to make a statement about the policy (it didn't fit) that was shared with him. "Criminalizing" poverty is a tough one for me because poverty doesn’t make one break the law, personal choice or ignorance does. At the same time racial, age and economic profiling happens. So I tend to stay away from absolutes here. I find that most of the conversations surrounding homelessness, SCI, gentrification and criminalization oversimplify a complicated socio-economic issue. Our answer does not lie on the edges, with the paternalistic thought process that personal responsibility is always and absolutely subordinate to societal wrongs, nor does it exist with those that prefer to believe that personal choice contributes solely to the condition of homelessness. People are talking which is good, but what are we talking about, directorial expressions, individual righteousness, and conspiracies small and large. What about the stigma surrounding mental illness that prevents diagnosis and treatment, particularly in minority communities? What about access to attractive and effective treatment options (does it take a Steve Lopez to get people the help they need)? Should we be able to force treatment for those that are sick and what does that treatment look like? How do our individual and collective pride and prejudice prevent us from acting in a cohesive, broad and decisive manner regarding homelessness?
I am glad I discovered this blog and will continue reading the comments. But I will say this movie was fine, I thought Downey's performance was very good. I didn't get the color thing while the Nathaniel character was listening to the orchestra...he is not blind, Joe. Maybe the busts of the great composers floating in and out of consciousness and or sheet music flying about would have worked for me. But then again I don't suffer from a diagnosed mental illness, so maybe I don't know what I would be seeing, if I were in Nathaniel's chair.
I also worked on the Soloist and know even if you work as background and are dressed in formal wear working at the Ritz...you might still be asked to take your hand out of the crew coolers and to stay away from the catering truck...that is just how it is. They have separate areas set up for background artists because of the sheer numbers of people, usually hundreds....the catering truck would be empty in 10 minutes if everyone were allowed in. As far as the homeless, we all had a great time, we all related to each other on a human level and maybe someone should ask them how they feel about the experience. I saw a lot of smiles when I was there.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
