Lily Salter's Blog, page 216

Louis C.K. is buying back the rights to “I Love You, Daddy,” so you may get to see it after all

Louis C.K. in "I Love You, Daddy" (Credit: Screengrab)

Louis C.K.’s “I Love You, Daddy” may not be lost to the ages after all.

After the comedian and director’s pattern of sexual misconduct was revealed last month, the Orchard, the distribution company that owned the rights to his forthcoming film, “I Love You, Daddy,” pulled the title from release literally days before it was set to bow in theaters.

The movie, starring Louis C.K., Chloë Grace Moretz and John Malkovich centers on a director in his ’60s possibly having a relationship with a writer’s teen daughter. Many pointed to the ugly parallels between the film’s various narrative threads and its creator’s behavior.

Now, The Orchard has confirmed that they are finalizing a deal to sell the global rights to “I Love You, Daddy,” back to Louis C.K., according to Deadline.

The Orchard bought the rights to the film for $5 million in September after it debuted at the Toronto Film Festival. In this new deal, Louis C.K. will reimburse the distribution company for any financial losses they’ve incurred, including marketing costs, which Deadline estimates are between $500,000 and $1 million, in exchange for worldwide rights.

In this, the company has somewhat abdicated its moral responsibilities here. Yes, it did the right thing by quashing the film’s release, but now they’ve passed that buck onto the very man responsible for the entire mess. To be fair, this is the world of independent distribution where a failed movie release can be fatal financially. As well, perhaps the moral choice to hold or release “I Love You, Daddy” should belong to the man central in this entire affair. It is, after all, all his fault.

But it’s not clear if the sale means Louis C.K. will indeed release “I Love You, Daddy.” In response to the accusations last month, he seemed to claim he planned to step away from Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Louis C.K. concluded his apology statement by saying: “I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen.”

Still, Louis C.K. did release his 10-episode independent series “Horace and Pete” for purchase on his website, which may be what he has in mind for “I Love You, Daddy.”

Originally self-distribution was a back-up plan for “I Love You, Daddy” well before the allegations against its creator came to light. “This is a movie I want to see projected,” Louis C.K. told the Hollywood Reporter in September. “I want someone who can put this in theaters. That’s a big goal for me . . . Down the road, of course I want people to see it in their homes. Maybe that would be [on] my website, but I want it in theaters first.”

The black-and-white film was supposed to hit the market on November 17. On November 9, the New York Times published an article in which five women accused Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct. Each told individual stories of similar behavior, claiming he requested to or did masturbate in front of or while on the phone with them. Louis C.K. admitted to the allegations, writing bluntly, “These stories are true.”

In light of the news, The Orchard cancelled the premiere scheduled for the night of November 9, and the film was dropped by its international distributors. C.K. also lost his production deal with FX.

As noted, the subject matter of “I Love You, Daddy” was already controversial. Now, some see it as autobiographical in some respect.

Deadline explains, “In the movie, a character pretends to masturbate at length in front of other people (which is what C.K. was accused of by other female comediennes), and other characters appear to dismiss rumors of sexual predation.”

Such parallels should make it the film intriguing to those who want to delve into the comedian’s dysfunction or others who simply want to bathe in the available prurience. Those who still adore and respect the comedian may still desire to see it out of genuine, unironic interest. Should Louis C.K. decide he wants the world to see “I Love You, Daddy,” they will get their chance. It’s up to him now.

 

Steve King decries diversity, slams “mixing cultures”

Steve King (Credit: AP/Charlie Neibergall)

Iowa congressman Steve King has always been well-regarded by the Christian Right, but since Donald Trump took over the Republican party, King has been more open about expressing controversial views.

On Friday, King approvingly cited Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — an outspoken white nationalist who has argued for a ban of non-white immigration to his country.

“Diversity is not our strength,” King wrote in a Friday tweet. He then quoted from a summary of a December speech written by Voice of Europe, a white nationalist website linked to various “alt-right” activists within the United States.

“Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one,” King quoted Orbán as saying.

Diversity is not our strength. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.” https://t.co/ZlMXzcc87w

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) December 8, 2017

The speech King alluded to was not the first time that Orbán has explicitly urged his country to reject non-European immigrants. In a marquee speech delivered in March, the prime minister argued that Hungary was “naturally heterogeneous” because its citizens were from many different European countries.

“I find it very important that we should preserve our ethnic homogeneity,” Orbán said. “Nowadays one can say such a thing, though a few years ago one would have been executed for such a turn of phrase. But now one can say things like that, because life has confirmed that too much mixing causes trouble.”

Orbán continued: “We are from a single civilization. Preserving this is a key issue.”

The sentiments the Hungarian leader expressed in February were very similar to something that King said just a few days later when he took to Twitter to pronounce, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

After he was criticized for promoting white nationalism alongside his anti-immigrant views, King refused to back down, calling himself a “champion for Western civilization,” even after his remark was heartily endorsed by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. The Iowa Republican then promoted a racist novel called “The Camp of the Saints” and argued that American Hispanics and blacks would soon break out into open racial conflict against each other.

While King’s racist comments earned him (ultimately meaningless) criticism from fellow Republicans, he received glowing praise from far-right activists, including from neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin who called the congressman a “hero” and described him as “basically an open white nationalist at this point.”

This is the second time in recent weeks that a top Republican has promoted material from a white nationalist group on Twitter. Last month, Trump sparked worldwide controversy after he promoted three different videos posted by far-right British nationalist group Britain First, which has sought to use anti-Islamic bigotry to attain political power.

America first, or America not at all

(Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)

Donald Trump’s campaign slogan of “America First” has led us down a path of isolationism in the global economy on many fronts, from trade to environmental policies. Now we may be adding educational development to the list.

New filings by the Department of Education suggest that Secretary Betsy DeVos and team may want to pull out of international studies that rank teachers and students on everything from class size and teacher preparation to computer literacy.

One of the studies, the Teaching and Learning International Survey, is a large-scale international study that focuses on working conditions and learning environments in schools. It was first delivered in 2008, though the U.S. didn’t participate, and is administered every five years by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The 2013 survey involved 100,000 teachers in 34 countries, including the U.S.

Some of the key insights from that survey showed that U.S. teachers spend more time in the classroom teaching than any other country participating in the survey, despite teachers in some countries, such as Japan, clocking more working hours.

U.S. class sizes are also larger than the average class size in the study, 27 students per class vs. 24, respectively. And U.S. teachers are more likely to encounter economically disadvantaged students at 30%, compared to the study’s average, which was 20%.

Those findings are all important points that the Department of Education should address—not because of where we might stand internationally, but because of teacher efficacy and burnout. The international survey just brought these points into sharp focus when compared with the rest of the world.

The agency has already done the preliminary work to prepare for the survey, conducting school recruitment for the main study sample in September 2016, which was approved in June. In the U.S. survey is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics of the Institute of Education Sciences within the Department of Education.

In February, it ran field tests to evaluate the newly developed teacher and school questionnaire items and test the survey operations in February, so it is unclear how things will move forward now that it is asking the public for input on whether participation in this survey is worthwhile — a move signaling a likely pullout.

Another filing suggests the agency wants to drop out of another international study, one that tests eighth graders’ computer literacy. The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) was first administered in 2013 to 21 countries, testing 60,000 students and 35,000 teachers at more than 3,300 schools around the world. The U.S. did not participate.

The study is given by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an independent, international cooperative of national of research agencies that create the framework, assessment and background questionnaires on education systems and curricula.

This test is also administered every five years and will be given next year. The Department of Education has taken measures to prepare for this study in 2018, recruiting for the main study, conducting field tests from May through June to evaluate new assessment items and ensure practices promote a successful study.

The study tests participants’ abilities to collect, manage, evaluate and share digital information at school and home environments and ranks them across four skill levels. Again, important information to know about our students and arguably even more critical when put in a global context if we want future generations to be able to compete in the global economy.

Jerusalem pronouncement is classic American colonialism

President Donald Trump delivers a speech at the Israel Museum, Tuesday, May 23, 2017, in Jerusalem. (Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

After drastically shrinking the size of Bears Ears National Monument in southeast Utah on Monday, President Trump on Wednesday announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

“Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” Trump said, speaking at Utah’s State Capitol beneath a painting of Mormon pioneers. “And guess what? They’re wrong.”

“This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality,” Trump said on Wednesday of his decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. “It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.”

The two actions take effect 7,000 miles apart, but they share a common denominator: Trump is tearing up formal agreements accepted by the United States government and unilaterally imposing a new understanding on the other parties involved, namely the 7 million Palestinians who live in greater Israel/Palestine, and the Native American people who live in or around Bears Ears.

Compromise Jettisoned

On one level, Trump’s action on Jerusalem is commonsensical. The ancient city of Jerusalem is the political and cultural center of the land known as Israel/Palestine. Jews have lived in the city for thousands of years. But so have Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, who are now relegated to second-class citizenship and dispossession by Israel’s occupation and its apartheid wall. That’s why the U.S. government for the past 50 years has refused to recognize Israel’s unilateral claim to the city until the equally valid claims of Palestinians are honored too. That is no longer the U.S. government’s position.

The shrinking of Bears Ears National Monument in southeast Utah by 85 percent is no less one-sided. On Dec. 28, 2016, President Obama expanded the size of the park over the objections of elected officials in Utah.

Since 2009, Bears Ears has been managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in consultation with five of the local tribes (Navajo Nation, Hopi, Ute Mountain Ute, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and the Pueblo of Zuni), all of which have ancestral ties to the region. Obama’s December 2016 proclamation declared that federal agencies shall “carefully and fully consider integrating the traditional and historical knowledge” of the tribes into management decisions. The language, noted the High Country News, “gives tribes an unprecedented amount of say over their ancestral lands that lie in the public domain yet outside the boundaries of their reservations.”

But Obama engaged in extensive consultation with the local population and did not agree to all of the requests of the native people in the area. Obama’s proclamation omitted several areas from the final monument designation, a “significant” concession to those who opposed the designation.

On both issues, Trump reversed Obama’s positions with the insouciance of a colonial potentate. His Jerusalem decision says Israel will dictate to, not negotiate with the Palestinians. His Bears Ears decision says Washington and Utah will dictate to, not negotiate with the native tribes that also have a claim to the land. Compromise has been jettisoned in favor of privileging the interests of whites over non-whites.

Trump made no effort to consult with other stakeholders in his deliberations. They are simply not part of any “reality” that Trump recognizes. On Monday he barely acknowledged the native peoples who have lived in the area for thousands of years before the Mormon settlers. On Wednesday he made no mention of Palestinians who have regarded Jerusalem as their capital for thousands of years.

Wedge Created

And Trump created wedge issues to use against Democrats, at home and abroad.

In Utah, the native tribes and environmental groups have already filed suit to block Trump’s actions, while Republican elected officials and their constituents celebrate the opportunity to drill for oil and gas on previously protected lands.

On Israel, Trump has pandered to conservative Jews who yearn for a peace agreement on Zionist terms, which is Trump’s ostensible aim. He fractured liberal Democratic unity by getting Chuck Schumer to endorse his shortsighted move. And he delivered a victory for his base of Christians and alt-right anti-Semites alike.

The Christian right, which excuses Trump’s un-Christian lifestyle with a generosity they extend to few other sinners, welcomes the embrace of Israel and its domination of Muslims. The anti-Semitic alt-right, while oddly soft on right-wing Israeli Jews, is delighted by the snub of the liberal majority of American Jews who favor an equitable settlement with Palestinians, at least in theory.

When Slate’s Josh Keating says Trump’s actions in Jerusalem are “cynically pointless,” he underestimates the president’s cynicism and overlooks his unmistakable point: previous political agreements between the descendants of white settlers and non-white natives are null and void. Colonialism, American-style, has returned.

Jefferson Morley is AlterNet’s Washington correspondent. He is the author of the forthcoming biography The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton (St. Martin’s Press, October 2017) and Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835.

Psychiatrists should not be involved in presidential politics

(Credit: Getty/Thierry Charlier)

The media, politicians, celebrities, athletes and other groups have questioned the fitness and mental health of the president, but one group has largely refrained: mental health professionals.

This recently changed. One of the latest efforts is a book, a collection of assessments by 27 psychiatrists and mental health providers, called “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” Indeed, the book’s editor publicly renewed her concerns on Nov. 30, 2017 in a letter to The New York Times.

As an academic psychiatrist and advocate for those with mental illness, I want to discuss something important that has been missing in this debate: why bringing mental health, and mental health professionals, into politics in this way could end up causing substantial harm and be very dangerous.

Past perspectives, current concerns

When it comes to discussing the mental health of public figures, most psychiatrists and mental health professionals follow guidance – subsequently dubbed the “Goldwater Rule”– that the American Psychiatric Association issued in 1973.

In 1964 Fact Magazine had polled APA members about the “psychological fitness” of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican senator from Arizona.

The late Barry Goldwater’s conservative views led many Americans to question his mental health.

AP Photo/file

In the considerable fallout that followed Fact’s provocative cover story, the APA formally stated that is is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public.

On Oct. 17, 2017, the APA reaffirmed this stance.

Still, many mental health providers believe that commentaries about the current president fall within the realm of “duty to warn.” This principle basically says that if a patient is an imminent danger of harming another person, confidentiality should be broken, and the potential victim and legal authorities informed.

The APA, however, asserts that the duty to warn is a legal concept that does not apply if there is no “physician-patient relationship.”

A return of stigma?

Mental disorders are very common: Nearly one in five people experiences depression during their lives, one in four an anxiety disorder, nearly eight percent post-traumatic stress disorder, one percent schizophrenia and one percent bipolar disorder.

And yet, these patients have long been subject to different forms of discrimination, prosecution and dehumanization. Until recently, having a psychiatric illness or seeing a psychiatrist was something embarrassing to hide from others. That led to avoiding treatment, delays in seeking help and loss of potential for a prosperous life.

Stigma still affects political support and funding for mental health services and research. Our society has just begun to bring awareness to the public that, like any other medical condition, a psychiatric disorder is a disease that needs treatment and not to be embarrassed by. It has taken us centuries to gradually overcome the stigma, and we still have a long way to go.

When a politician calls a perceived enemy a paranoid schizophrenic, for example, as did former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, the public may see it as an uninformed and undignified insult. As a colleague and I recently wrote, however, the media and the medical professions should inform the public at such times that it is insensitive to use mental illness in this way.

Such insensitivity is harmful enough coming from a politician. A mental health professional should be even more cautious in using mental illness in the realm of politics. It could add to stigma. Psychiatrists need to keep in mind the first principle of medical practice: First, do not harm.

Understanding the medical nature of mental illness has been a very important public accomplishment for psychiatry and neuroscience. This should be valued and protected, as it lifts the social pressure off of the millions of people with mental illness.

Diagnosis should bring empathy, not scorn

Brain diseases can cause aberrations in behavior, thinking or emotions. A person with mental illness should not be blamed for these anatomical and functional differences. Mental health professionals are helping people develop empathy for patients with mental illness.

Coming back to the American president, using psychiatric diagnoses to address what is perceived as wrong with his behavior could work against decades of advocacy efforts. And it defeats its own purpose because it means he is not responsible for his actions, that a disease is to blame. This strategy is basically exonerating.

Furthermore, the last thing we psychiatrists need to tell a large group of the U.S. public and many others in the world is that the person they dislike is not likable because he has a mental illness.

Perception of psychiatrists affected, too

What is more, diagnosing public figures from afar could influence how millions of people perceive psychiatrists.

A large percentage of Americans support the current president. If mental health providers try to diagnose the president, his fans may conclude that psychiatrists are a group of entitled liberals who use their profession to push their own political agenda.

A clinical encounter is already a very sensitive event and takes place in a complicated context. The last things we want to add to it are questions about the psychiatrist’s political views and genuineness of their intentions. How would a loyal supporter of the president see his or her psychiatrist as a result? Will he or she lose confidence in the psychiatrist’s judgment or recommendations? Would he or she follow through treatment?

And this will not remain limited to one side of the political spectrum. If this public psychological analysis becomes a precedent, three years from now, another group of psychiatrists may decide to diagnose another candidate of having a mental illness, which can affect the way the other half of the country feel about mental health providers.

If psychiatrists can consider diagnosing the highest official in the country, why wouldn’t they do it for a celebrity, an athlete, a CEO, a teacher or a bus driver? Who will then be immune to such approach? In this case, psychiatrists could either be seen as dangerous big brothers or, in a more likely scenario, substantially discredited.

No diagnosis needed to be unfit

Americans really do not need to give a person a mental health diagnosis to decide if he or she is unfit, irrelevant, inexperienced, unreliable or even stupid (indeed, there is no psychiatric diagnosis for stupidity). We did not need to diagnose Nixon to know that he was ethically compromised to serve as president.

When a voter assesses a person’s ability to serve in office, a better benchmark, arguably, is a person’s past behavior. If it seems unreasonable, chances are high it will be again and again. And knowing that does not require a medical degree or psychiatric training.

So in the end, to my psychiatrist colleagues: Please leave us out of this mess. And to our patients: You can still trust us psychiatrists to really care and advocate for you.

Arash Javanbakht, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University

Feeling guilty about drinking? Well, ask the saints

"Portinari Triptych" by Hugo van der Goes (Credit: Wikicommons)

Each year the holidays bring with them an increase in both the consumption of alcohol and concern about drinking’s harmful effects.

Alcohol abuse is no laughing matter, but is it sinful to drink and make merry, moderately and responsibly, during a holy season or at any other time?

As a historical theologian, I researched the role that pious Christians played in developing and producing alcohol. What I discovered was an astonishing history.

Religious orders and wine-making

Wine was invented 6,000 years before the birth of Christ, but it was monks who largely preserved viniculture in Europe. Religious orders such as the Benedictines and Jesuits became expert winemakers. They stopped only because their lands were confiscated in the 18th and 19th centuries by anti-Catholic governments such as the French Revolution’s Constituent Assembly and Germany’s Second Reich.

In order to celebrate the Eucharist, which requires the use of bread and wine, Catholic missionaries brought their knowledge of vine-growing with them to the New World. Wine grapes were first introduced to Alta California in 1779 by Saint Junipero Serra and his Franciscan brethren, laying the foundation for the California wine industry. A similar pattern emerged in Argentina, Chile and Australia.

Monks in a cellar.

Joseph Haier 1816-1891, via Wikimedia Commons

Godly men not only preserved and promulgated oenology, or the study of wines; they also advanced it. One of the pioneers in the “méthode champenoise,” or the “traditional method” of making sparkling wine, was a Benedictine monk whose name now adorns one of the world’s finest champagnes: Dom Pérignon. According to a later legend, when he sampled his first batch in 1715, Pérignon cried out to his fellow monks:

“Brothers, come quickly. I am drinking stars!”

Monks and priests also found new uses for the grape. The Jesuits are credited with improving the process for making grappa in Italy and pisco in South America, both of which are grape brandies.

Beer in the cloister

And although beer may have been invented by the ancient Babylonians, it was perfected by the medieval monasteries that gave us brewing as we know it today. The oldest drawings of a modern brewery are from the Monastery of Saint Gall in Switzerland. The plans, which date back to A.D. 820, show three breweries — one for guests of the monastery, one for pilgrims and the poor, and one for the monks themselves.

One saint, Arnold of Soissons, who lived in the 11th century, has even been credited with inventing the filtration process. To this day and despite the proliferation of many outstanding microbreweries, the world’s finest beer is arguably still made within the cloister — specifically, within the cloister of a Trappist monastery.

Liquors and liqueurs

Equally impressive is the religious contribution to distilled spirits. Whiskey was invented by medieval Irish monks, who probably shared their knowledge with the Scots during their missions.

Monk sneaking a drink.

Scanned from Den medeltida kokboken, Swedish translation of The Medieval Cookbook by Maggie Black, via Wikimedia Commons.

Chartreuse is widely considered the world’s best liqueur because of its extraordinary spectrum of distinct flavors and even medicinal benefits. Perfected by the Carthusian order almost 300 years ago, the recipe is known by only two monks at a time. The herbal liqueur Bénédictine D.O.M. is reputed to have been invented in 1510 by an Italian Benedictine named Dom Bernardo Vincelli to fortify and restore weary monks. And the cherry brandy known as Maraska liqueur was invented by Dominican apothecaries in the early 16th century.

Nor was ingenuity in alcohol a male-only domain. Carmelite sisters once produced an extract called “Carmelite water” that was used as a herbal tonic. The nuns no longer make this elixir, but another concoction of the convent survived and went on to become one of Mexico’s most popular holiday liqueurs — Rompope.

Made from vanilla, milk and eggs, Rompope was invented by Clarist nuns from the Spanish colonial city of Puebla, located southeast of Mexico City. According to one account, the nuns used egg whites to give the sacred art in their chapel a protective coating. Not wishing the leftover yolks to go to waste, they developed the recipe for this festive refreshment.

Health and community

So why such an impressive record of alcoholic creativity among the religious? I believe there are two underlying reasons.

First, the conditions were right for it. Monastic communities and similar religious orders possessed all of the qualities necessary for producing fine alcoholic beverages. They had vast tracts of land for planting grapes or barley, a long institutional memory through which special knowledge could be handed down and perfected, a facility for teamwork and a commitment to excellence in even the smallest of chores as a means of glorifying God.

Historically, alcohol was seen to be promoting health.

Fritz Wagner (1896-1939) (Dorotheum) , via Wikimedia Commons

Second, it is easy to forget in our current age that for much of human history, alcohol was instrumental in promoting health. Water sources often carried dangerous pathogens, and so small amounts of alcohol would be mixed with water to kill the germs therein.

Roman soldiers, for example, were given a daily allowance of wine, not in order to get drunk but to purify whatever water they found on campaign. And two bishops, Saint Arnulf of Metz and Saint Arnold of Soissons, are credited with saving hundreds from a plague because they admonished their flock to drink beer instead of water. Whiskey, herbal liqueurs and even bitters were likewise invented for medicinal reasons.

And if beer can save souls from pestilence, no wonder the Church has a special blessing for it that begins:

“O Lord, bless this creature beer, which by Your kindness and power has been produced from kernels of grain, and may it be a health-giving drink for mankind.”

 

Michael Foley, Associate Professor of Patristics, Baylor University

Time exposes what’s been missing in the #MeToo discussion

Terry Crews (Credit: Getty/Frederick M. Brown)

Time Magazine’s selection of the #MeToo Movement as its Person of the Year for 2017 is a powerful, vindicating statement for a movement that has spread worldwide. Some may call it an obvious choice, surely, given the movement’s initial sweep and effectiveness in bringing some of the most public faces of sexual abuse and harassment to justice.

The fact that its reveal under the headline of “The Silence Breakers” brought a sigh of relief and surprise, though, is indicative that the movement’s boosters have long learned to take nothing for granted. Nobody can in these disheartening days, and especially given the president’s self-serving and obviously false misdirect as to who the publication had selected.

But an important aspect of Time’s coverage stood out to me right away, and it’s something that’s been missing from the majority of headlines making the broadest impact. Out of the five women featured on Time’s cover, two are women of color: Isabel Pascual, an agricultural worker, and state government lobbyist Adama Iwu. The other three are former Uber engineer Susan Fowler, actress Ashley Judd and pop star Taylor Swift.

With that image Time addresses what’s been nagging at me for weeks now — ever since the dam broke, washing away the careers of an assortment of showbusiness heavyweights. Few of the headlines have featured the stories of black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or other actors of color. And very few people seemed to be asking why that’s the case, until Terry Crews escalated his public battle to bring his perpetrator to justice.

Time features Crews as one of its “Silence Breakers,” and his visibility in the #MeToo tsunami is essential. What’s extraordinary is his willingness to speak out as a male ally and a fellow victim of harassment and assault. Months after the first reports about Harvey Weinstein’s decades-long record of predatory behavior first emerged, the ranks of famous men publicly and passionately supporting the movement or coming out as victims remains thin. Survivors demanded to be heard and were met with the social equivalent of “Yes, but” when #MeToo was replied to by the male insecurity hashtag known as #NotAllMen.

Even so, allies are coming forth. John Oliver received passionate praise for holding Dustin Hoffman’s feet to the coals this week as he hosted a panel discussion for anniversary screening of “Wag the Dog.”

“I can’t leave certain things unaddressed,” Oliver said at the end of a sparring match that grew increasingly tense. “The easy way is not to bring anything up. Unfortunately that leaves me at home later at night hating myself. ‘Why the . . . didn’t I say something? No one stands up to powerful men.’”

Late night hosts embraced #MeToo as fodder in the same way any explosive current event feeds their monologues. Stephen Colbert took the questionable step of allowing “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” to be a stop on former “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush’s Image Rehab Traveling Jamboree. When Bush weakly attempted to make the excuse of saying that NBC encouraged everyone, including him, to “kiss the ring” when it came to Donald Trump, Colbert countered with, “And where was he wearing the ring?”

Righteous punchlines and off-the-cuff comebacks are easy. Men assuring women they believe them has become somewhat easier except, it seems, among Republicans in Congress. Crews, a widely-known television personality currently starring in the Fox sitcom “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” is speaking out as a male sexual assault survivor — and a black man — who had remained silent until #MeToo exploded.

Crews shared his experience early on in a Twitter thread on October 10, just days after the New York Times story on Harvey Weinstein broke.

Actor Terry Crews recalls being sexually assaulted by Hollywood exec

He chose not to name his assailant at that time, but went on to name Adam Venit an interview conducted with Michael Strahan on an episode of “Good Morning America” that aired on November 15. At the time of the accusation, Venit was head of the motion picture department at William Morris Endeavor (he has since lost that title). According to trade reports his client list has included Adam Sandler, Casey Affleck and Dustin Hoffman. Crews says Venit walked up to him and grabbed his genitals, in front of his wife, multiple times during a Hollywood party hosted by Sandler.

Venit is one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. He’s also someone who operates behind the scenes.

This is part of the reason WME chose to suspend Venit rather than dismiss him, assuring ABC it was conducting an internal investigation into the matter. Perhaps WME assumed the accusations would blow over because as a black performer, Crews has less power than his white peers and the fire he started would be quashed, or he could be easily discredited.

But Crews is not satisfied to keep his battle in the court of public opinion. He filed a police report, and TMZ captured him walking out of the precinct afterward. After the news broke that Venit had returned to work, Crews filed an assault and battery lawsuit against Venit and his employer. (Crews used to be represented by WME but fired the agency after taking his story public.)

Unlike his white cohorts, the risk Crews is taking in speaking out was not immediately greeted by loud affirmation, support or, as events have proven, swift justice. Shamefully worse, talk show host Wendy Williams went so far as to say that Crews’ interview with “Good Morning America” was not brave. But what she said after that is telling and, sadly, answers the question of why we haven’t heard many specific #MeToo stories from other famous people of color.

“It may have a really negative effect on his career, do you know what I mean?” Williams said, “Being all Black and being all chatty and this agent . . . . He named names y’all.”

There you have it. The difference between being heard as a victim comes down to influence, and melanin. Of course, Crews’ story is just the latest and most public example of that.

In October New York Times readers bore witness to Lupita Nyong’o account of being harassed by Weinstein, and she could do that because by then dozens of other A-list celebrities had given their public account of his obscene, abusive and even illegal behavior. And yet, it’s Nyong’o’s account that Weinstein chose to specifically and officially deny. Not Cara Delevingne. Not Angelina Jolie or Gwyneth Paltrow. Only Nyong’o, an Oscar winner and the only black woman to accuse him on wrongdoing at that time.

And as #MeToo washes through the news industry we’re finally hearing accounts from black women who sustained harassment and abuse from their male cohorts stemming from their race as well as their gender. Adaora Udoji describes her experience working with accused NPR host John Hockenberry as “excruciating” in an op-ed for The Guardian. Udoji once co-hosted “The Takeaway” with Hockenberry, one of a line of black or multiracial female hosts who came and went that includes Celeste Headlee and Farai Chideya. In Esquire, Rebecca Carroll shared her experience of working with Charlie Rose in 1997.

“If I pushed back on anything race-related, I was silenced or punished,” she writes. She goes on to add:

“In America, the most desirable woman in the room — the most sacred, coveted, enshrined woman — has always been the white woman. As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know that we women of color are victims as much, if not more, than white women; we are also less likely to come forward with our stories of abuse because there’s so much more at stake.”

And this succinctly speaks to the difficulty of what Crews is facing from this point forward, and it very much underscores his bravery.

We continues reel from the sheer horror of how quickly the list of public-facing predators is growing — Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, NBC host Matt Lauer, Rose, Garrison Keillor, Hockenberry and only recently Danny Masterson. The Silence is being broken, and as Time specifies, for once the default is to believe the accusers and place the weight on the accused who are more often than not people of greater means and in more powerful positions.

To the credit of the reporters who put the piece together, Time also depicts the fact that #MeToo is taking longer to change life for working class women whose ability to feed their families can be endangered by speaking up — domestics, farm workers and others.

But this is also a movement that activist Tanya Burke, a black woman, began in 2006 to encourage solidarity among survivors of sexual violence, mainly women.

Alyssa Milano initially received credit for its viral spread this fall, but social media quickly brought the attention back to Burke. The movement continues to evolve, and Time’s honor will doubtless help it along. One hopes that the visibility of its multiracial component can shatter the silence and bring resolution to the people who still risk much by speaking out.

“32 Pills: My Sister’s Suicide,” creator Hope Litoff on the personal costs of art and suicide

Hope Litoff in "32 Pills: My Sister’s Suicide" (Credit: HBO)

Long-time film editor Hope Litoff is turning the camera very much on herself and her personal life in her directorial debut, “32 Pills: My Sister’s Suicide,” by framing the suicide of her depressive, artist sister. The documentary, which is showing in select theaters and premieres on HBO December 7th, is primarily a tale of surviving a loved one’s suicide but it is also a poignant story of two sisters, a subtle portrait of the connection between mental illness and art and also a revealing look at the perils of personal filmmaking.

In fact, while making the film, Litoff, a recovering alcoholic, begins to drink again and we, the audience are there to observe her first drink and her spiral downward as she is consumed by her project and her sadness over losing her sibling. But, thankfully, there’s a final film to document her gradual climb out of her morass.  

According to Litoff, for every suicide, there are six survivors, people who are “desperately struggling to answer the unanswerable.” For them, as for herself, she hopes to “lift the stigma of mental illness and suicide.”

Salon spoke with Litoff about her devastatingly sad but ultimately redeeming film.

You worked for many years as a film editor; had you ever thought of making a film about Ruth and her work when she was alive?


Yes, after freshman year of college I took a summer filmmaking class at Tisch School of the Arts in New York City. Our first assignment was to make a short film about someone we admired and naturally I chose Ruth as my subject. I remember the results well; it was quite awful. The interview of Ruth had a very obvious compact Fresnel light stand to left of the frame and rarely was a shot in focus. I edited it on 1/2 inch VHS tape and the finished product had glitches throughout. I often speak of Ruth’s impossibly high standards and I guess a bit of that is in me because I threw all the tapes away when the class was over. I would give anything to have that rare footage of 21-year old Ruth back talking about her photography.

You slipped back into alcoholism during the making of the film. From the beginning, were you wary that that could happen?

I was not at all wary that I might slip back into drinking during the making of the film. I was quite clueless. I think I had a false sense of confidence about my fragile sobriety because I had made it through my Mother’s death from cancer in 2007, Ruth’s suicide in 2008 and father’s passing from a sudden heart attack barely 2 years after that. During those trying times it never occurred to me to drink. Looking back, I believe I was blocking off my feelings and that when I started opening up I couldn’t handle the flood of emotions I felt in a healthy way. Although I physically took the first drink during the making of the film my relapse can be traced back to years earlier when I should have pursued support and help for the hard emotions I was desperate to avoid. I by no means had to relapse but it is only in hindsight that I can see this. I never would have started the film if I knew that losing my sobriety would be part of the outcome. I put my family and loved ones through hell.

You film that first drink. It could be perceived that you wanted it to happen for the sake of the film. Please parse that perception!

No, I did not take the drink for the sake of the film. I went into the project knowing I would make personal video diaries with my iPhone. I have many hours of private footage and made a promise to myself that I would be as honest as I could be — just as Ruth was raw and honest as an artist. At the time, I was obsessed in every way, reading every page of her journals, every email on her computer, and every note in her volumes of datebooks. I did the same with the footage, filming everything including some of my darkest moments. Knowing the challenges of addiction full well, I would never throw away almost 17 years of sobriety as a gimmick for a film. It was a painful time for me, and this was an honest response.

I heard your producer mention the “perils of personal filmmaking.” There are also more subtle, creative perils, such as narcissism or too much attachment to personal elements that won’t resonate with audiences; how did you navigate those?


I did my best to make a film that would resonate with audiences and hopefully lift the stigma around talking about mental illness, suicide and addiction. I made myself vulnerable in the hopes of creating something larger than myself. The great thing about films is that there are many out there — if one isn’t right for you, you can always watch another. I don’t believe any attempt at art can begin with trying to please everyone. I say, “attempt” — beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can only hope that my opening myself up could help the people like me who have also lost a loved one to suicide. The risk is worth the reward.

Did you turn to other personal filmmakers for advice?

Yes, I was lucky enough to get advice from brave personal filmmakers such as Judith Helfand [“Blue Vinyl”l], Kathy Leichter [“A Day’s Work, a Day’s Pay”] and Dempsey Rice [“Daughter of Suicide”]. Without their trailblazing and encouragement I don’t believe I would have been able to make my film.

NYC has implemented a campaign to tackle mental health issues. What are your thoughts on the city’s initiative and has your film been a part of it?

I am honored that the First Lady of New York Chirlane McCray introduced a screening of “32 Pills: My Sister’s Suicide” at a recent screening at Bellevue and look forward to working with her very important THRIVE NYC initiative.

What do you think Ruth would have thought of the film?

I think she would be happy that more people would be able to enjoy her art. She was always bold and honest about her struggles with depression and would be pleased to help anyone she could.

Knowing that no one can achieve “closure” with such things, where has the film put you emotionally when you think of your sister’s life and death?

I am still working through my grief. I know I will never find true closure but am optimistic about moving forward in a healthy fashion.

Why girls lose interest in STEM — and how to get them back

Suz Somersall and the KiraKira team

Suz Somersall has always been a maker and a self-described nerd who defied what others thought a girl was capable of. As a kid, she would repurpose the tops of her dollhouses into starship control panels. So it’s no surprise that she wanted to go to college for engineering.

But that’s when she made the first of many pivots in her life.

In my conversation with her for my podcast “Inflection Point,” Somersall recalled her first encounter with the engineering curriculum at Brown. “I just remember looking through the course catalog and being so uninspired by the content,” she said. “And also intimidated, if I’m totally honest. I was like, ‘oh that doesn’t sound like approachable’ or you know ‘I think I’m interested in engineering but that doesn’t sound exciting to me.’”

Instead of taking up engineering as she had planned, Somersall got her undergraduate degree in art and architecture. It took her several years — and several pivots in her educational track — to rediscover her love of engineering at Rhode Island School of Design.

“My first experience with using 3D printers and CNC milling machines and mechanical engineering software [was at RISD]. I used all these tools to make crazy pieces of artwork,” Somersall said.

Listen to my conversation with engineer-turned-artist-turned-entrepreneur Suz Somersall here:

Her introduction to a new way of approaching design made all the difference in terms of connecting the practical application of engineering to her creative sensibilities.

If it hadn’t been for RISD faculty encouraging Somersall to take an artistic approach to implementing engineering concepts, she might never have returned to what she believes is her true maker self.

Unfortunately, most girls don’t get a chance to revisit engineering from a new, creative angle. Despite a big push in schools to get more girls involved in STEM, a huge drop off in interest happens around 8th grade. And this lack of interest translates to a gender gap in the world of tech and the sciences, which contributes to an often hostile working environment for the few women seeking success in STEM fields.

Somersall observed the interest drop-off phenomenon first-hand when, as a startup founder and University of Virginia business incubator participant, some female students expressed interest to her in learning more about 3D printing.

“I had a lot of female undergrad students that had never taken engineering classes before who kept coming to me, and they knew that I knew how to use a 3D printer on campus and I was creating these interesting objects — interesting to them — and they wanted to make them, too,” Somersall told me.

But after she encouraged the students to take some intro classes in UVA’s prototyping lab, she was dismayed to discover that the girls quickly lost interest after taking the course. When she looked into the reason behind their disinterest, Somersall discovered “the way that engineering is being taught in many universities is very different from the way I learned how to use engineering tools and software at the Rhode Island School of Design.”

Somersall’s many career pivots following this discovery led her to founding KiraKira, an online learning program and design app geared to teaching girls how to make 3D designs and turn their interests in design and engineering into lifelong passions.

Is it necessary for women to make as many pivots as Suz Somersall has to find their own place in the world of STEM?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders attacks John Lewis, knows nothing about the civil rights movement

Martin Luther King Jr., his wife Coretta (right) and John Lewis (far right), lead a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, March 1965 (Credit: AP)

President Donald Trump’s attendance at the opening of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum has understandably resulted in an outcry from would-be attendees — some of whom have backed out of appearing at the opening in protest against presidential policies that they believe undermine the ongoing struggle for civil rights. In a joint statement, Democratic Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi said:

“President Trump’s attendance and his hurtful policies are an insult to the people portrayed in this civil rights museum. The struggles represented in this museum exemplify the truth of what really happened in Mississippi. President Trump’s disparaging comments about women, the disabled, immigrants, and National Football League players disrespect the efforts of Fannie Lou Hamer, Aaron Henry, Medgar Evers, Robert Clark, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and countless others who have given their all for Mississippi to be a better place. After President Trump departs, we encourage all Mississippians and Americans to visit this historic civil rights museum.”

The White House responded, calling their protest “unfortunate” in a statement issued by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “We think it’s unfortunate that these members of Congress wouldn’t join the President in honoring the incredible sacrifice civil rights leaders made to right the injustices in our history. The President hopes others will join him in recognizing that the movement was about removing barriers and unifying Americans of all backgrounds,” Sanders said in a press pool report.

Read that again. Sanders was upset that “these members of Congress” weren’t going to honor the “incredible sacrifice” of “civil rights leaders.” Does she know that one of “these members of Congress” was one of her aforementioned “civil rights leaders?” Rep. John Lewis is — along with Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins and A. Philip Randolph — one of the momentous “Big Six” civil rights leaders who organized the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, considered a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. As the chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Lewis organized sit-ins in the 1960s to protest segregation. He was also one of the Freedom Riders, a group of of black and white civil rights activists who rode on segregated buses through the South to challenge Jim Crow laws. Many were beaten, attacked by mobs, or sent to prison.

This isn’t a good look for Sarah Huckabee Sanders, nor the Trump administration. Though Huckabee Sanders seems to revel in issuing Orwellian, hypocritical statements that belie basic facts or history.

Likewise, there have been numerous instances where Trump has made public statements that were either openly racist or used white nationalist dog whistles. Moreover, it’s no secret that the president is disinterested in social justice (the travel ban and the wall are just a couple of examples).

Rather than supporting a civil rights leader’s right to protest, Sanders condemned him. Thus, an event that was meant to be celebration of civil rights gains has turned into another episode of the Trump Show.