Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be an explosion of female redheads on TV and in the movies these days.
On many of the TV shows I watch regularly – including “Castle,” “Unforgettable,” “Body of Proof” and “Fringe” – at least one of the central characters has flaming red hair. In fact, on “Castle,” both the mother and daughter of the star (Richard Castle, played by brown-headed Nathan Fillion) are redheads. And in “Unforgettable,” Poppy Montgomery portrays star detective Carrie Wells. From 2002 to 2009, Montgomery starred in “Without a Trace”…as a blonde.
|Many works of art, classic and |
the red-haired female.
I’ve also noticed TV commercials embracing the trend. Spots ranging from fast-food restaurants to cell phone providers have female characters with “pelo rojo” (which I think is Spanish for red hair).
Some actresses have naturally red hair, including Amy Adams, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone, Isla Fisher and Marcia Cross. But since statistically only one to four percent of the world’s population is comprised of redheaded people, what in the name of Lucille Ball is going on?
I haven’t read anything definitive, but apparently the powers-that-be in entertainment have decreed that red is the new blonde.
Used to be, dating back to the days of Jean Harlow, Marilyn Monroe and Grace Kelly, it was reasoned that gentlemen prefer blondes. (Somebody really ought to make a movie with that title.) But perhaps blonde has become passé, demanding something more distinctive – such as bright red tresses that, as least on the digital screen, are no longer as uncommon as they once were.
Or maybe it’s just a reflection of the state of the U.S. government, which has made normative red tape and budgets drowning in red ink.
Years ago there was a popular business book called Dress for Success. Could be that casting centers in Hollywood have a similar book called Red Tresses for Successes.
All I know is regardless of how you change the packaging, what’s inside (the inner person) will always be what counts the most.
Thousands of years ago, Israel was searching for a king to replace Saul, who proved to be a royal failure. The prophet Samuel was directed to the family of Jesse, who had a collection of fine, rugged-looking sons. Several of them passed the “look test” as likely candidates to succeed Saul, but God rejected them all. Instead He chose the youngest of the brothers, a humble shepherd boy named David.
Why? As God explained to Samuel, “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).
And that, my friends, is how God looks at us as well.