Body Modification

A few years ago, my nephew made the choice to shave his head.  I was horrified.  To me, a shaved head meant Skinhead - racist, gay-bashing Neo-Nazi. Of course, he is of an entirely different generation and doesn't have those associations.  What's this got to do with the topic at hand, you ask? Bear with me.

Tattoos and piercings are the subject of much debate with more of the younger generation entering the job market.  To them, these things are a matter of choice and have no bearing on a person's job performance.  To an extent, I agree with them.  (I personally have no tattoos.  I wear one ear ring in each lobe.  I have considered ink, but the art I've decided on would be quite expensive, so it probably will never happen.)

The problem with body modification is one of perception, just like the shaved head.  Most employers belong to my generation, one taught that these things are unprofessional.  When I entered the work force, a visible tattoo or facial piercing made an applicant unemployable even as a janitor. The rules gradually relaxed - at one point I worked with a fellow who had (among other tattoos) an eyeball on his Adam's Apple.  Which brings me to my next point.

Eyeball Man worked hard and got along with co-workers.  He was the first to offer his jumper cables if your car wouldn't start.  But I couldn't stop staring at that eye.  It moved when he talked.  In short, it was distracting.  And he scared customers, usually the elderly and children, so he was on the overnight shift.  His ink limited his options.

The same can be said for piercings.  They don't stop you from working, from being a good person, or even from holding a PhD.  But to draw attention to your self-expression by constantly sticking your tongue out and manipulating the stud through it, to wiggle the ring on your lip with the tongue or sucking it in and out of the hole, is distracting and unprofessional.

When I worked, nearly every job I had required a uniform.  I used my ear rings to mark myself as an individual.  But what would it say about me if I toyed with my ear rings the entire work day?  Or if I insisted upon wearing life-sized human skulls?  The same applies to tattoos and piercings.  You have the right to individuality and others have the right to feel comfortable in your presence.  It is possible to express yourself without being an ass.

Inclusion Moving into Ridiculous

I recently postulated on a Facebook post that if Hollywood were to make a movie of Damnation Alley (not the bastardization they made in the 70s) they could ignore race and sex of the characters and cast Michelle Rodriguez as Hell Tanner.  Nothing in the book requires that he be a white male, after all.

I'm all for diversity.  Unless a character's sex, race, or religion is vital to the story, there is no reason for insisting that they have to be any particular one.  Recently, there was a lot of fuss because Hermione Granger isn't a white woman in the latest "Harry Potter" thing.  The books - and their author - never specify Hermione's race.  I saw her as a white gal because I saw the first movie before reading the books.

I can think of twice I saw a movie in which a character got race-swapped from the book.  In neither case was the race important to the story.  And one of them was James Earl Jones. If they made a movie of my "Ghosts" and James Earl Jones wanted to play Merlin...  OK, that's hyperbole, but JAMES EARL JONES!

Before Robotech.com killed the message boards, there were a lot of lively debates about the possible live-action movie.  One of the issues was, of course, casting.  Lynn Minmei is a Japanese/Chinese girl and her heritage is a part of her characterization - so she needs to remain that ethnicity.  A certain couple has to remain male/female for story line purposes.  Otherwise, I see no problem with James Earl Jones playing that white lady over there.

BUT... and you knew this was coming...  To cast an actor in a role that's historically inaccurate is wrong.  Yes, there were black slave owners in the antebellum Georgia, but if we remade Gone With The Wind, Scarlett's story is entirely different if we make her anything but a white female.  If you did toss a black slave owner in there, certainly take into account how society would interact with him.  Or her.

New Ghostbusters movie, in which they are all female and the eye-candy receptionist is male?  I certainly hope they're making fun of themselves with this, because anything seriously feminist about it is way off base.

When casting agents compromise characters and settings in order to be "inclusive", they're actually defeating the purpose.  Hell Tanner doesn't do anything a woman can't do.  Zelazny's physical description is vague - Tanner could be any ethnicity.  Making him a Hispanic female would be a good example of being inclusive.

But if the story calls for a certain race, a certain sex, and you ignore those realities, you have become the very thing you're working against.  Will Smith as Hamlet is as badly miscast as Orson Welles was when he played Othello.