Speaking of which, did you hear that Lindsay Lohan made a documentary about child trafficking in India for BBC3?
This clip leaked online a few weeks ago, but journalists in the UK have apparently just gotten a look at the full-length documentary, and have wasted no time in tearing LiLo to ribbons. Here's Amelia Gentleman, in the Guardian:
"There are a lot of contenders for most uncomfortable moment in Lindsay Lohan's upcoming BBC documentary about child trafficking in India, but I think the bit that will have most viewers kicking their televisions is when Lohan is hugging a very young girl on her knee, listening to her describe a life spent begging on the streets of Calcutta.
The shaven-haired girl is explaining that her parents would beat her unless she went out every day to earn money, but it's hard to concentrate on what she's saying because what's happening behind her is so distracting. Lohan is rubbing her already-red eyes, spreading mascara around the place, twitching her eyebrows.
"Um. Um. Oh my God," the film star says, her lips wobbling uncontrollably. A disembodied hand pops into the screen to pass her a tissue. "Um. How did she feel? Um. How did they treat her?" she asks, beginning to sob.
The small girl turns to look at her in bemusement. The translator gives an embarrassed laugh and says to the girl: "She's crying for you. Why don't you comfort her?" So we watch as the puzzled child dutifully strokes Lohan's long mane of golden hair."
Xeni Jardin pronounced this a "celebrity advocacy fail," and BBC3 Controller Danny Mair was grilled on Britain's Radio 4 last week about his decision to use Lohan in the documentary.
But I have to say, I don't think it looks so bad. (Stop the presses: Wronging Rights is being less snarky than the rest of the internet about something!)
I only know what I've seen in the clip above, and read in Gentleman's article, but as far as I can tell, Lohan behaved as any interested, kind, and previously-uninformed person would have in that situation. Reading between the lines of Gentleman's eyebrow-wiggling and mascara-smearing prose, it sounds like Lohan, upon hearing the small child on her lap describe a life of exploitation and suffering, began to cry. And we're supposed to think this is a sign of what, exactly? Weakness of character? Crying when faced with tragedy is hardly a reaction limited to hard-partying starlets.
Likewise, I'm not inclined to pounce on Lohan for stumbling over her words a bit in the confrontation with the trafficker that's shown in the clip. Yes, it's hardly the case that only "the attractive ones" need to worry about being sexually abused, or forced into prostitution. But Lindsey Lohan isn't an expert in human trafficking, or women's rights. If she'd parroted the talking points perfectly, then we'd know that she'd been well coached. But as it was, she had an awkward, slightly weird, somewhat inaccurate conversation with a woman who admitted to selling children. At worst, that's an interesting thing to watch. And at best, it offers the similarly-uninformed viewer someone to identify with. (Hell, the informed viewer, too. There but for the grace of not being followed around by a video camera during my intern years go I.)
In other words, Lindsay Lohan is kind of a weirdo, and a layperson when it comes to trafficking in children, and acted accordingly. I fail to see the problem with that. It seems far, far preferable to the alternative mode of celebrity causemongering, in which stars opine on substantive policy matters, and are treated like the experts they are not.
Your thoughts?
Posts
19 comments:
Are you feeling alright?
Seriously, I get your point. But who at the BBC thought, "Hey, the best way to raise awareness about a serious issue is to take an actress who can barely be bothered to wear pants or talk in complete sentences out to talk to children?" Lindsay Lohan is not exactly a stellar role model. I'm not sure her personal failings make her a good candidate for the "humanitarian ambassador" role.
and even if she was a good role model, following someone around with a camera while they learn about an issue that others are dedicated to working to address infuriates me.
sadly, those of us in the field of combatting human trafficking see it far too often as it seems that trafficking is currently a 'sexy' issue, especially when it involves the poor women and children...
I'm with Amanda on this one. Crying would seem to be an appropriate response in such a situation.
And does it matter if she is a positive role model herself if she is drawing attention to the issue?
But as Lindsay says; at least it is only the 'attractive' girls who get raped and prostituted.
I couldn't disagree more. I think you guys have really missed the point with this one.
1) "And at best, it offers the similarly-uninformed viewer someone to identify with. (Hell, the informed viewer, too. There but for the grace of not being followed around by a video camera during my intern years go I."
Celebrity-advocacy (re Jolie, Pitt, Bono et al) speaking at length on issues they know only the subjective/surface details about (that includes Bono) is wrong, pointless and does more harm than good - but, equally to put the lohan example as the opposite of that and therefore ok, is missing the point. How can Anyone who is uninformed speak about a complex issue and it be 'OK' ? (not unlike the many youtube PR/Humanity videos that do the rounds - i.e the congo-popsicle video) It's not. Uninformed is uninformed. Simple as that.
Yes - you guys (like us all) at one point were more uninformed that you are now - as, obviously, we all always will be to some degree...there is no one point when you know 'it all'. But, like you say, you didn't have a video camera following you around - and you were not being used to push a set of ideas, of which you knew little about, to an equally uninformed audience. Taking your argument why not have 5th graders teach advanced physics to 3rd graders - heck, at least they will all feel 'uninformed' (and therefore feel better about that?) together.
2) I did most of my doctoral research in India, and used to live there - and there is no way a fly-in visit from a young (not currently working, hence the sudden global interest) actress, is going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone. The indian middle class are slowly making inroads re awareness against child poverty/trafficking (education goes some way to break down the caste barriers) - and such a campaign Has to come from Indians to Indians (via their own prolific bollywood actors if needs be). So who exactly is Lohan talking TO? What exactly (apart from diplaying huanity - as she should have) is she achieving?
I work (in the UK) with child trafficking issues in some African countries, and to say this is a complex subject is - I'm sure - pretty damn obvious. Championing a US actress (for what reason?) is a bit pointless. It doesn't benefit the kids being trafficked. It doesn't heighten awareness - it just further dumbs down complex issues to make it all into nicely packaged bite-sized for the 'People' reading crowd..who, to my knowledge have not, thus far, been "the change" in society. "uninformed" Preaching to the "uninformed" converted seems apt here.
And what's with her covering her hair? and not her arms. Indian woman who are muslim would be covering both - and hindu women, the majority - do not cover their hair (or their arms) anymore than we do.
C'mon wronging rights - a whole post on something so irrelevant?
How about your thoughts on the UK/Burma update? - That Britain supports referring Burma to the International Criminal Court? It has been said that "this is the first step before the Security
Council could refer Burma to the International Criminal Court." Any thoughts from two human rights lawyers on how plausible this will be?
ps - texas in africa...unfortunately the BBC has been heading downwards for some time. It's a shame, as apart from paying out Millions of UK tv licence fees to overpayed and overhyped radio presenters and TV hosts - the one thing the BBC could always be counted on in the past was for making well-made/thought-out documentaries.
Avam, we'll take the request for a Burma/ICC post under advisement. Quick answer, though: Not very likely, given a Security Council referral would have to get by Russia and China, both of whom have substantial relationships with the regime.
And on the topics of flying pigs and LiLo, I didn't understand Amanda to be defending the project. I think at this point she/we have a pretty clear record of firmly (shrilly) objecting to oversimplifications of the trafficking phenomenon and exploitation of victims for awareness raising purposes.
I thought she was making the point (which I agree with) that it seems awful mean-spirited to attack a young woman who, listening to firsthand testimony of an incredibly tragic situation, began to cry. And similarly, I don't think Lohan can really be faulted for (1) wanting to get involved, or (2) having difficulties wrapping her mind around the complexities of the problem.
The BBC however, is a different story.
What avam said.
No, she can't be faulted for her empathy, but she can be faulted for 'wanting to get involved' - precisely because she does have difficulties wrapping her head around the complexities of the subject.
Good intentions are not enough (credit to Saundra).
Just once, instead of seeing shots of what an 'impoverished' country looks like from the viewpoint of a rich, White person in their Land Rover, I would like to see it from the perspective of the woman/girl/boy/man on the street who can see the absurdity of a Land Rover with a camera driving by trying to capture 'life' in their city.
I can see Amanda's argument re: Lohan's tears but like others have already pointed out, there was so many things wrong with her being the focus of this doc before the tears even began.
Kate's right. My defense of LiLo isn't necessarily a defense of the BBC. I haven't seen the documentary, so can't comment on its overall quality. If it's misleading or exploitative, then I expect I'll have my usual hissy fit about media portrayals of human rights issues, especially those involving sexualy exploited children.
But I hope that I haven't given readers the impression that I believe only experts have the right to discuss human rights issues publicly. And I certainly don't want this blog to be a place where we criticize the naivete of people who care about causes but don't know much about them yet. In my opinion, that kind of curiosity and involvement is something to be encouraged. To the extent that it leads to badvocacy and dumbed-down messages, that's on the advocates, not the people who they've misled. If experts have a problem with laypeople who aren't unable to understand the nuances of problems and policies, then those experts should do a better job of explaining them. Which is why I spend so much time criticizing the misleading, confusing, and oversimplified narratives put out by experts, and why Kate and I always try to explain things in layman's terms, without jargon or acronyms. I am much, much more interested in holding professionals and experts to high standards than I am in lambasting 20-something starlets who cry when they come face-to-face (or lap-to-lap) with tragedy.
Lu and Avam, I understand that you care about this issue, and that it must be frustrating for you to have such a powerful platform given to someone from outside the field, instead of an expert. (And I certainly understand the frustrations of working on "sexy" issues, though in my opinion, Lindsay Lohan is really the least of the problems that sexiness has caused for anti-trafficking work.) But I absolutely disagree that only experts or good role models should be allowed to opine publicly on "complex issues." I can think of an awful lot of very well informed people who consistently say spectacularly dumb things, especially about "sexy" issues like trafficking. But keeping the "uninformed" masses out of the conversation just leaves more airtime for the dumb stuff, and fewer common-sense voices challenging it.
I do agree that a lot of celebrity advocacy is dumb. That popsicle thing was ridiculous. But again, I think that the blame for that falls largely on the organizations that give their celebrity spokesbuddies a dumbed-down version of the story, or fail to correct them when they put out an incorrect version of events.
re Kate - thanks for your thoughts re Burma. The china/russia 'special relationship' had occured to me, but was not sure.
Re: L Lohan - Andrea made the point pretty clearly.
Also, re lohan, it's one thing to get ivolved with an issue, another to speak as the voice for it (as she is doing). I read all the pieces criticising Lohan when they came out in the UK media - and I don't think they were particularly mean-spirited, they just didn't agree with it. Surely that is ok, or are celebrities above censure? I also think that the point about her crying is that it seems too easy. Yes, cry. Yes, it's awful - but it does nothing for the children in question - surely the point here?
The issue, from where I stand, is not that people have an issue with her showing emotion at a - clearly - horrific subject, but the insincerity of it all. I also think you guys are pulling a bit of a double-stanard here. So it's Not OK for (e.g.) those actors to pull the congo/popsicle stunt, but this - because Why? Sorry, you've lost me there. I don't like insincerity, I don't like celebrity-advocacy - ESP on beahlf of the most vulnerable...like trafficked children. You show me where an actor has made a bit of difference (to anyone but the actors PR teams).
In some cases, when there is actual and substantial long term involvment and behind the scenes education I think a few 'celebrities' can actually do some good (natalie portman and finca come to mind)..but Ms. lohan visiting India out of the blue, and speaking on behalf of trafficked children - not someone actually working with these kids mind, but an actress who knew nothing about it even AS she filmed such a very sensitive/complex subject beggars belief.
I'm sorry, but my compassion doesn't extend to how a pampered young starlet feels about being criticised in papers she probably knows nothing about (let alone reads) - my compassion is for the children/families affected by trafficking and those working to stop it.
Amanda - think my reply was posted before I read your last one. Think we all agree on the basics - this is awful.
I agree absolutely in your comment that "I am much, much more interested in holding professionals and experts to high standards than I am in lambasting 20-something starlets who cry when they come face-to-face (or lap-to-lap) with tragedy." My issue is still that this 20-something (lohan) is like a bug in front of a tv set (useless metaphor I know!) - in that, as far as I can see she is taking Away from any relevent discussion. 1) because she is so uninformed she is speaking to the completely uninformed (who would be better off hearing from someone who knows what they are talking about) otherwise it's just the blind leading the blind, and 2) as she is a starlet, people seem to be generally more interested in her rather than the kids she is talking about.
I'm also curious about your commnt that "I absolutely disagree that only experts or good role models should be allowed to opine publicly on "complex issues." I can think of an awful lot of very well informed people who consistently say spectacularly dumb things, especially about "sexy" issues like trafficking. But keeping the "uninformed" masses out of the conversation just leaves more airtime for the dumb stuff, and fewer common-sense voices challenging it."
I hear you on this (a poster made a good point along these lines on Aid watch) - the idea that the masses (e.g. everyone/us etc) is a complete dolt is a non-starter, but I don't thik the answer is to go the complete other way and have uninformed actors fronting congo OR child trafficking awareness campaigns. How about a middle ground - say a 'Question time' (the Uk show) on these kinds of issues. Actually, come to think if it - they have them already - Big think and intelligence squared debates..and any uni debate...maybe the key is to make THESE more 'sexy' and visible.
Avam says it perfectly "Championing a US actress (for what reason?) is a bit pointless. It doesn't benefit the kids being trafficked. It doesn't heighten awareness - it just further dumbs down complex issues to make it all into nicely packaged bite-sized for the 'People' reading crowd..who, to my knowledge have not, thus far, been "the change" in society. "uninformed" Preaching to the "uninformed" converted seems apt here."
THAT'S what I expected Wronging Rights to say about this. Basically this post is now contradicting all those times that
'naive celebrities wanting to "raise awareness" for a cause because "some help is better than no help"' was wrong, is all of a sudden ok? Of COURSE it would be emotionally difficult to be hearing the stories she is being exposed to, but how did the discourse shift to how hard the documentary was for Lindsey Lohan to make, as opposed to say... oh I don't know, the PEOPLE.
If I understand several of the comments correctly, the best thing to do if you don't have a doctorate is to simply ignore the problem.
I think you're right on this one.
As for the dissenters:
All of the 13 yr olds who might actually watch this are YOU in 10 yrs. LiLo may not be "making a difference" but those that come after her absolutely will.
-R
my last comment on this...
re anonymous: "All of the 13 yr olds who might actually watch this are YOU in 10 yrs. LiLo may not be "making a difference" but those that come after her absolutely will."
You sure about that are you?
Why can't they all just stay in Hollywood where we have them quarantined?
It's a question of what the intentions of this documentary were. If, as some defend it to be, it is purely an attempt to raise awareness on child trafficking, then it accomplished its purpose - kind of.
Rather than a documentary on the complexity of the topic, it was more an hour of reality tv gone wrong - i.e. Lindsay Lohan finds out that bad stuff happens.
I just don't see what their point was. They spend about 5 minutes at the end of the documentary with an interview between lindsay and a staff member from Save the children UK, which is the closest the viewers get to finding out what they can do should they feel like they want to be involved or 'change something.' Also, given some of the reports (though from questionable sources), of how she behaved with the production staff, it just seemed like a massive waste of resources, when they could have had the documentary showing someone who could explain the situation better and not distract from the actual issue. Just, what was the point?
You are a very kind defender. I was watching it without sound and laughing my head off. but it's true. what are the nay sayers doing that is so much better? I know some people get fed up with the curl-twirling valley girls who 'wanna heeeeeeeeelp. i just wanna heeeeeeeeeelp so badly.' BUT what kind sickos take issue with people just because they want to do good? Sure, they may start out a little haphazardly and need to get on the right track, but that desire is coming from a real, live place, not the heart-of-stone-person who has a beef with a demographic, all be it white upper-class America....
Post a Comment