Did you guys see this article?

This little Apache girl was in a scene for the miniseries "Into the West" and without getting permission, Spielberg's team cut this little girl's hair off to make her look like a little boy because they didn't have enough boys for the scene.

The family is upset because in their culture, a girl must not cut her hair until her "Coming of Age" Ceremony. It must grow to her waist and then only her parents may cut her hair.

Before her hair was cut, it was midway down her back. They cut her hair above her hair to "make her look more Indian" and like a boy.

Here's the entire article:

Apache Girl

By Sandysmom on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 04:37 pm:

If I were her parent's I probably would have laid an egg. They had no right & should be sued. JMO
I'm turning red just thinking about what important custom this little girl is going to miss out on just because of someone's carelessness.

By Alberobello on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 04:48 pm:

Fair enough, but why does everything have to end in the court room?

Just a thought.

By Trina~moderator on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:01 pm:

I certainly understand why the parents are upset. Just goes to show how high and mighty Hollywood thinks it is. However, I have to wonder if the parents truly understood what they were getting their DD into. The movie business often involves haircuts, shaved heads, makeup, period costumes, etc.. That's part of what the actors get paid for. I wonder if there was a contract, and if so, what did the fine print say? Did the parents sign something that stated the movie crew had free play concerning hair, makeup, etc.? Did the parents assume their DD's hair would be kept as is?? You know what they say about the word ASSUME. If this custom is so important why didn't the parents make that very clear from the beginning? An unfortunate situation. How is $ going to remedy it? My heart aches for the little girl.

By Sandysmom on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:16 pm:

You're right Trina, money won't remedy this. Hopefully the Hollywood people will be more careful in the future.

By Sandysmom on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:19 pm:

Apparently she was only an extra so a contract may not have been involved. (?)

By Emily7 on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:21 pm:

deleted

By Vicki on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 06:24 pm:

I also find it hard to believe there wasn't some kind of contract. Even though she was an "extra", she was still under age and I would think that alone would require some kind of contract.

By Vicki on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 06:31 pm:

Come to think of it, we had to sign a paper when the show Three Wishes filmed at dd's school. If we had to do that for the slim chance dd would show up in the show, I can't believe there isn't a contract for a movie!!

By Crystal915 on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 06:38 pm:

It's not even part of my culture and I'd be FURIOUS if someone cut my child's hair without permission. However, I agree that it's kind of unlikely that the parents had no clue, and if the girl knows that cutting her hair is forbidden, she should have spoken up. The stylist could have easily clipped or otherwise shortened her hair without cutting it. The amount they are asking for in damages is insane, I'm wondering how this will play out.

By Annie2 on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 06:43 pm:

It sounds fishy to me, too. Besides that, this child is only 8 years old. One of her parents should have been with her at all times.

Did we not learn anything from the Michael Jackson case???

By Mrsheidi on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 08:53 pm:

Uuuummmm..........

Can't Spielberg afford a wig?

By Ginny~moderator on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 05:02 am:

I find it really hard to believe that there wasn't a contract. I can understand that maybe an adult the parents knew, like a teacher, was on the set to watch the children, so if that was the case, I can understand why the parents weren't there.

And, according to the article, the girl's hair was cut by a stylist. I am fairly sure Spielberg himself knew absolutely nothing about it, and quite possibly was nowhere near the set when this happened.

Yes, they should have asked the parents' permission first, but maybe the person who was supposed to be watching the girl on the set gave permission. Whoever made the decision and/or gave permission should have had some sensitivity to tribal customs, because it does seem to be something of a big deal to the tribal group.

I do think the lawsuit is going to go nowhere real fast, but if it actually produced some money, I suspect the parents don't realize that any resulting money would almost certainly be put into a trust for the girl and she wouldn't be able to access it until she was 18 except for things like medical emergencies or school tuition.

By Joy~bundles on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 01:05 pm:

I watched this mini-series last summer, and in the film, there was a scene that addressed the importance of Indian hair and not cutting it, whether a boy or girl. This tradition obviously continues into modern day.

In the paper this morning, I read that her hair has now grown out to collar-length from previously waist-length. Ugh, poor little girl.

By Nanaoie on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 06:23 pm:

K , Here is my question..Why wasn't a parent with her? I cannot belive you would let your child be totally alone while making this movie.
I agree with Annie, did they not learn with Michael Jackson???????