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
A large majority of the homeless got there on their own. Billions have been spent trying to get them to seek treatment, to take their meds, to stop using alcohol or other drugs. In the US we've been working on the issue for as long as I can remember. The result? There are more homeless every year, and they stay homeless for the same reasons. Lots of people and organizations give them chances, sometimes dozens of chances. Reality is, so people don't want help, some will never take their meds, and some people can't kick addiction. Up until the fifties, we had institutions these people were forced into. They were not perfect, but they were safe, and the rest of us were safe as well. Today, the very idea of involuntary commitment of a drug addict, alcoholic, or mentally ill person is considered a despicable act, so they are left on the streets in large numbers. There's nothing more horrific than watching a loved one in a downward spiral, but there's really nothing you can do to stop it. People have to be willing to help themselves.
There are about a dozen incorrect assumptions fueling your opinions here, and that makes me very sad.
One of the things you can "do to stop it" is to stop blaming people for having a mental illness. Then, stop blaming people with mental illness for being "not willing to help themselves". Frankly, that's akin to saying a person with heart disease is not willing to perform by-pass surgery on themselves.
It's astonishing to me how few people have even a basic understanding of psychiatric diseases, much less comprehend that an illness CONTROLS the person's brain, and therefore controls the person's decisions and desires, not the other way around. You can't strong-will your way out of mental illness any more than you can will away diabetes or cancer.
Well said. It's not just mental illness. I know those who became homeless from chronic PHYSICAL illness who lost jobs and home . I also know of some individuals who had lost jobs their jobs and as a direct result became homeless.
Those with mental illness are not the only population who has met this awful fate.
HDC77494--you're not correct in your assumptions. Let's hope you don't loose YOUR HOME.
alaskan explained what I wanted to say quite well, and I couldn't agree more.
hdc77494...
Are you an unfeeling Republican?
If not, you could have fooled me.
IT DOESN'T MATTER A DARN BIT HOW THEY GOT THERE...THEY ARE FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. JUST THINK OF IT THIS WAY...IF SUDDENLY YOU HAD AN ACCIDENT OR POSSIBLY DIDNT' KNOW WHERE YOU WERE..WOULDN'T YOU HOPE THAT PEOPLE WOULD HELP YOU?
OF COURSE YOU DO..AS WOULD ANY OF US.
SO, PLEASE GET DOWN OFF YOUR ARROGANT HORSE THERE AND ASK QUESTIONS AND LEARN.
You might try ,and fail to help another human being (you may not be able to tell in just what way or how deeply that person was effected by your attempt -just because you want to see it all come out the way you expect), but if you not only do nothing but criticize others for being compassionate you can go to hell.
And using a drug company figure for drugs paid for at a 500% mark up with our tax dollars.. well you might think about just who the drug makers are really trying to help and then you will see that from their perspective it all came out very well indeed thank you very much and keep thinking state drugs a all "meds" and would help everyone that were forced to take them, thank you.
"Today, the very idea of involuntary commitment of a drug addict, alcoholic, or mentally ill person is considered a despicable act, so they are left on the streets in large numbers."
Wrong.
They are on the street in large numbers because the funding dried up. As directed under the misrule of St. Ronald. Funding continues to remain a serious problem, and clinics and other facilities do the most they can with the little they have. That little being the result of the callous, entitled mindset of people just like you.
By employing the "residents" of Skidd Row, Mr Wright gave them a moment. Maybe they were able to find a way out because of him, maybe they did not. But they had a moment and a chance.
I stepped out of the metro exit and was greeted by a very tall skinny AA who asked for money. I said, "When I was homeless and hungry, I got a job, doing what was available." At that time it was shoveling out stalls and hot walking horses.
The next person out turned out to be my next impending spouse. He came in telling me that a guy had asked to sweep, or shovel snow or something, for a buck or two. I hope he had success at some point.
I give a dollar to every homeless person I can.
Joe Wright is right when takes Linda Milazzo to task for her negativity. Joe made a great film and it shows the plite of the people on skid row. Most people have no idea and this sheds light on a big problem in our city.....and I assume other cities as well.
Mr Wright, whom I know not, or even of, FEELS from this post that he has experience with both homelessness and mental illness, and how the can combine too.
UNTIL YOU KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW. Trust me, as a child of a mentally ill woman who was never treated, but finally trained into decent behavior, by me!, who was made homeless because of my own mother's inability to function normally. YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU KNOW TOO WELL.
Milazo FEELS as though she has walked over a few homeless sleeping on the street and thinks she know. Now I could be wrong, maybe she has some real experience, but my father thinks he knows, he was not there, he was secure and fine, just wondering what his crazy ex wife had done this time.
We survived. Much by my effort in the end. I hated the end, but the rest sucked too.
I am not a movie person, I will see the movie when it is on cable. But I know, and I get it. Do you?
Never assume you know everything about a person from a single article.
And never assume that you Kkak know until you've walked in our shoes:)
I think it was a great decision to employ actual homeless people. God knows they need the work, and who better to advise, consult, and act the part of homelessness than them?
That being said, I take offense to the idea that homelessness and mental illness and/or drug addiction are synonymous. Both the film itself and the comments posted here seem to imply that the two are inextricably linked--that all homeless people are either on drugs or mentally ill. While there are plenty of homeless people who are one or both of those things, there are MANY who are not, and are simply people who are going through economic hardship without any support system to help them through it. Likewise, there are plenty of people who are mentally ill and/or struggling with drug addiction who are NOT homeless.
All are serious issues, and all deserve the utmost depth of compassion, empathy, and support. But let's not assume that they always go together. Homelessness means one thing, and one thing only--it means a PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
In Los Angeles, a virtual mecca for homeless, all the studies that have been done over the years with the participation of community leaders and charities and social workers, have put the percentage of homeless people with either a mental illness or an addiction or both at 90%. Having spoken with the people who've done the studies, they've made as accurate a count as they can, though they're constantly improving their system. Chronic homelessness is generally the result of being too incapacitated by some form of mental illness or addiction to hold a job. Temporary homelessness is an entirely different scenario, populated by those who, like you've mentioned, are simply going through economic hardship. These people are much more likely to use and benefit from shelter programs, food programs, and job programs. They're also significantly less likely to spend time on Skid Row, where the film takes place, unless they've been in an LA hospital downtown (they're notorious for dumping homeless patients on Skid Row).
Thank you Laura.
Thanks for this post, Mr. Wright. I loved "Atonement" (book and film), and I look forward to seeing "The Soloist" when it's out on video/cable. I'm a fan of Robert Downey's, and if it were anyone but Jamie Foxx in the other lead, I'd see it in theaters. He and I crossed paths here in Vegas once, and he struck me as prototypical "kiss up/kick down" kind of guy, so I refuse to pay to see his films. Best wishes to you...
you absolutely have the right to "boycott" films for your own reasons, but it seems to me that if the homeless people who were employed in the film receive residuals (and i don't know if they will or not) that it would be beneficial to them for as many people to see this film as possible. i thought this was a very moving film, and having my suspicions that many of the actors were from the homeless community confirmed in the credits made me even more glad that i had seen it.
After reading your article and all of the comments, I am very excited to see your film.
And the truth is, it doesn't matter if homeless people are violent or saintly or rowdy or peaceful. They are still people, and that makes them worthy of respect and care and safety.
"It seems a lot of middle class people like to appropriate the homeless as their own."
Well, they'd better. Many so-called middle-class people are one or two paychecks or one serious illness away from homelessness.
No human being deserves to be marginalized. We're all in this together, whether we like it or not.
Thank you.
Most often, a person could walk through Los Angeles's Skid Row and not come across a violent crowd or crack pipes. Most of the people that live there are living, not carrying on in violent carousal, as the movie displays. However, some of the movie The Soloist is told through the eyes of Nathaniel, a schizophrenic, so it's quite possible that the over-the-top portrayals of Skid Row are part of Nathaniel's musings.
What's more over-the-top, however, is Linda Milazzo's portrayal of Joe Wright as opportunistic and uncaring. There is a tendency among writers in social activist circles to continually find someone to bash, to show that they alone, possess the purest view of what's genuine and what's fake. Quite often, these writers take down allies, and spit hairs in order to show the keenness of their judgments. Bah, go pick on Dick Cheney. He's a real boogie man.
Ha ha! Love it! Great comment.
Good for you Joe,
I'm glad you spoke up.
Her indignation is bogus.
There's no such thing
as bad publicity...
--
True. See the movie and make your own judgements.
Jeebus!! I cannot finish reading this article before weighing in. The Soloist was the best film we've ever seen that sheds loving light on the plight of mentally ill/homeless people. Our son has schizophrenia. The Soloist captured perfectly the tenderness of many homeless (marginalized people who have no skills to gain and maintain homes). These people DO care for one another and they DO have a saintly glow at times. We both commented after the film that genuine homeless must have been employed to play themselves. No actor could. Nothing but praise for The Soloist. It gives hope to friends and families who love and despair for their ill relatives.
Shame on anyone who would snark about such a loving portrayal of God's best loved children.
At the end of the movie I turned to my partner and said It was hard to imagine that those were actors portraying the homeless and mentally ill characters. She then clued me in. Bravo! I have bee working with the homeless and mentally ill for the past 25 years and thought your portrayal was spot on. I'm not sure what a more "balanced "view would have looked like, as Ms. Milazzo suggested. We have relegated these individuals to the most frightening parts of our towns and cities and regularly cut funding for much needed services. Many of the individuals I work with would rather sleep on the street than take their chances at a homeless shelter where there is often violence and theft of their already meager belongings. This is not to say that all shelters are are bad; many hard working individuals dedicate their lives to making the shelters and the individuals who have beds there feel as safe and human as possible. As a final note--I really appreciated the scene in Nathaniel's apartment where he set up his 'bed' on the opposite side of the room--It can take months for an individual who has been chronically homeless to absorb their legitimacy and right to have their own roof over their head. Not many people would understand that it's not about being ungrateful or uninformed. Thank you for a beautiful movie.
Ich711,
Thank you for your work with the homeless and mentally ill and thank you for your comments.
Ditto.
The Soloist is a beautiful and deeply moving film. And Jamie Fox deserves the Oscar for best actor.
He definitely does; Jamie Foxx did an absolutely amazing job portraying Nathaniel. Robert Downey Jr. was no slouch either.
Lovely, beautifully made, compassionate film. Bravo, Mr. Wright.
Sir, I commend you for hiring the homeless for the film. A ladyfriend and I saw it a week ago. It was powerful, I liked it a great deal. But if you're open for some constructive criticism, the musical light show was a mistake; it was distracting and interrupted the story. It would have been better to combine shots and to switch back and forth shots of Foxx, Downey, the conductor and the orchestra in its place. Best wishes to you on your next project.
I thought Wright was trying to give some idea of the inner workings of mental illness with that musical light show. Just how does one capture the odd world that a "mentally ill" person steps into from time to time (I am diagnosed with schizophrenia and refer to myself as the "ambulatory insane" because I can walk amost the "normal" without usually being spotted as different.) Mental illness can and does cause just this sort of abrupt movement away from "normal" consciousness. There is no way to portray it accurately on screen. Wright's attempt was okay. Not dazzlingly perceptive, but okay.
The music was crucial to the development of the film, but four minutes of musicians bowing and blowing bores most viewers; it was the music itself, not the faces of listeners, that moved us forward. The light show was a valid and comfortable way to allow the audience simply to listen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
