Sunday, March 27, 2011

What do I know?

The above clip is a group of New Zealanders who have completed (or are in the process of completing) a six week course in the Limited Service Volunteer Program.  Why did I post this clip?  Well...in a word (actually two)...Alan Duff.

Alan Duff strikes a nerve with me.  It is not just the Faulkner meets Harriet Breacher Stowe writing style he employees in his novel Once Were Warriors, or his pompous "Maori must pull themselves up by the bootstraps" attitude toward self determination, or even the frightening thought that someone might mistake him for the voice the Maori.  No...what really irks me (and please remember...this is subjective) is the simplistic, unrealistic manner in which he interprets both the problem and designs the solution.

In her article In Whose Face?  An Essay on the Work of Alan Duff, Christina Thompson questions Duff's position in regard to Maori values which "he consistently renders...in negative terms, recasting Maori virtues as Pakeha vices.  Generosity becomes an inability to practice self-restraint, family loyalty becomes a bar to self-improvement, modesty becomes poor self-esteem, casualness becomes sloth, and pride becomes arrogance. Pakeha values are never critically examined.  Competition does not involve oppression, individualism cannot be read as selfishness, upward mobility never translates as greed." Duff admits to having little traditional Maori cultural training until late in life, and then only begrudgingly.  I suggest that his prejudice and, perhaps even self hate, cloud his vision.

When interviewed by Vilsoni Hereniko for a chapter in Inside Out, Duff stated that he has always considered himself a Maori (for those who don't know, Duff is half-caste) and claimed to be a strong supporter of Maori culture. However the opinions he expressed in Maori: The Crisis and the Challenge which suggest that only Pakeha culture is complex, alive, and vibrant, while Maori culture is "simple" and "stone age" would seem to counter this statement.  Duff criticizes Maori oral culture/knowledge, stating that it was privileged.  I suggest that written knowledge was/is equally privileged, as it is all contingent on who is doing the writing.  He states that Maori did not/do not think...do not question.  This is ludicrous.  What then was/is the purpose of the marae?  The wharenui?  He speaks of Maori as being undisciplined yet, in the next breath, extols their virtue as warriors.  How do warriors fight a battle (as a unit) without discipline? In fact, how does one learn marae protocol, dance a haka, chant a prayer if he/she lacks discipline?  And, is it not in that pride of knowing where one comes from, that one gains confidence about where he/she will go and how to get there?

Duff claims to have come from the element he writes about.  I do not dispute that. In fact, that element is one of the few things Duff and I have in common. This having been said, what never fails to set my teeth on edge is his idea that books and a desire for change will magically lift one out of the system. Will pacify the violence and dispel the darkness, revealing a shinny, yellow brick road to "success." It's just not that easy!  Wanting out, does not equal knowing how to get out. Also, what Duff fails to mention is that for every family fitting the stereotype, there is one that does not.  Desire and books are not enough, and the Pakeha dream is not universal.  Not only do I see nothing wrong with "walking backwards into the future while facing the past," I feel it is essential.  If we do not know where we came from, how will we know where we are going.  Change is inevitable as culture and language are not stagnant.  Granted, in his interview with Hereniko, Duff does admit that culture has its place.  I'm not sure exactly what he means by this but, I do think the above clip is a small example of moving toward the future with and eye on the past.  Though the Limited Service Volunteer Program http://www.msd.govt.nz/what-we-can-do/children-young-people/lsv/index.html is based on military discipline, it is a haka - a challenge to, not only Maori, but all the disenfranchised youth of New Zealand.  Now...I don't know how Mr. Duff would respond to this program, as it is financed by the government, so in a sense, it's still the dole.  However, it is a start.  But, then again...what do I know?

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Re-type or Stereotype?

 
In his article Film As a Colonizing Medium, Vilsoni Herenko addresses the issue of feature films (such as the above clip from South Pacific) depicting "anywhere Oceania" as attempt to appeal to a broader audience base, thereby increasing revenue.  He states (and I paraphrase) that these films present the Pacific Islander as a one dimensional caricature which leaves the viewer with a lasting impression of a representation of Oceania and its people which is as generic as the film.  Jolly (in Point Venus to Bali Hai) states that the film combines "a melange of images from Fiji" to "the Hanalei coast of Kauai in Hawaii." This, coupled with the Asian girl "happy talking" with would-be-hula-hands, is almost laughable. I say "almost" because there is a very real danger that viewers will believe this to be a true representation of Pacific Islanders. Though this may be a stretch, I believe most people do construct their paradigms around what they see/view/read and hear, and not everyone investigates any further.  As with any medium, film can be tweaked to present or represent.  Having lived most of my life in Hawaii, as well as being married to a Samoan family for over thirty years, I am deeply troubled by representations such as this.  This may account for my "writers block" around the subject.  It hits too close to home.

I recall the television shows and commercials of my youth. Hawaii 5-0 was big when I was in my teens.  We used to laugh at how Jack Lord would say he was in Kalihi when we could clearly see he was in Kahala, or that he was "driving mauka on Kalanianiole Hwy (which only goes Diamond Head and ewa). The way the pidgin never really sounded like pidgin. There was C&H Sugar, which depicted brown skinned Asian children sucking/chewing "pure cane sugar from Hawaii." I remember the Hawaiian Tan (a brand name tanning oil) girl, again with brown skin, almond eyes, long straight black hair, the "perfect" figure (according to Western standards) and a Hawaiian print bikini bathing suit.  I can recall commercials selling "Aloha."  Selling Hawaii.  I remember when tour guides clad in bright "aloha" attire carrying leis and breathing "aloha"  greeted visitors on the tarmac. I remember the brown skinned boys diving for quarters to the delight of tourists who tossed the coins off the side of their cruise ships at Aloha Tower. There were "hula girls" swaying their hips gracefully to hula auana...a watered down, haolefied hula. In my lifetime, I have seen the landscape change and my landmarks disappear.  Fields that once yielded crops now grow houses.  That is what we grow in Hawaii...houses, hotels and tourist attractions.  And...how many "locals" can actually afford to buy one of these houses?  How many cars can this island support?  How many more "visitors" and "visitor" attractions? And...what would happen if ships and planes stopped importing our food from the continent?


Elsewhere in Oceania, natives have experienced/are experiencing the same type of exploitation.  Many factors of colonization, decolonization, reconstruction, and migration have contributed to gross generalizations and stereotyping which have been countered by both scholars and artists.  Film is a fairly new medium for Pacific Islanders.  It is a perfect medium for people who come from oral traditions. It offers the opportunity to retype the stereotype by using sight and sound.
 
Juxtapose the above clip of Taua ( see http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/filmcatalogue/Films/Taua---War-Party.aspx) a "short" film based on the Maori proverb Mate atu he tete kura, ara mai ano he tetekura (in war, leaders fall and leaders rise) with South Seas. Though a "short" film (as opposed to "feature" or full length) director Tearepa Kahi, manages to portray multidimensional characters, each one unique to himself.  With body language, facial expressions, and only one line of dialogue, Kahi presents believable/credible characters.  The camera angles and the tempo of the film leave the viewer feeling as if he/she were actually there, experiencing a slice of time past, brought to the present.

Using film as a medium, Pacific Island film makers are bringing their own brand of movie to the theatre.  They show the diversity of Oceania. They tell old tales in new ways.  Using sight and sound, they are representing themselves in ways in which they can recognize themselves, thus retyping the stereotype.

For more information on Pacific Island Film, please visit www.nzonscreen.com