As with all contemporary films involving "minority groups" (I include myself in that category), arguments about how the "minority group" was portrayed rage most often BEFORE the film has been viewed. Everyone has an opinion, of course. This is America. You aren't American if you don't have an opinion--especially about issues you don't really understand completely. Given this, maybe I don't really understand every side in this debate. I've tried to educate myself about the issues, but in fairness, I don't know Mr. Depp.
However, it has been my lifelong observation (beginning in Brownie Scouts) that when a popular individual steps forward and tries to "speak for the group", things usually do not get much better for the group. The individual may prosper; his or her insights, desires, opinions may be stamped as valid--but it is rare that the group's insights, opinions or desires are met,as a result. Maybe it has something to do with us all being individuals, deep down, in our northern hemispheric bones--even as we fight to retain group status? Hmmmmm...(I feel it is most easily demonstrated by thinking of "elected" officials. )In any case, I believe this may have happened to Mr. Depp.
This history of the character "Tonto", in the series "The Lone Ranger",can be found in hundreds of sites, on-line, as well as articles and books available in any library. It is a checkered past, most often reflecting the status of American Indians at the precise time a new installment arose. Now, Mr. Depp has chosen to instill his own vision into the character. Chaos is about to descend.
Perhaps it is because he claims to have researched the role--speaking to Comanche elders about various costume points--including the chosen raven on his head...Perhaps it is because he chose to use the usual "movie Indian speak"...which isn't Native American in any way and most often offensive to Indians. (How much research did you really do, Johnny?) Perhaps it is because, as with other versions of the franchise, "Tonto" is a side-kick, once again. He is the funny man; the fall guy with the good heart--but not the "real hero"? (When will a "Tonto Solo" arrive?) Often, we are told that a minority has achieved mainstream status when the lead roles in "regular" movies are filled with members of that group--or a movie, featuring that group in most roles, is presented. (Even in the much lauded "Dances With Wolves", the "hero lead" was a white man; his "hero lady" was also white...)Perhaps it is because Johnny Depp claimed a good percentage of Indian blood, when he landed the role? Or perhaps it is because it is just Hollywood business as usual ?
From what I have learned about Indian people ( I am NOT speaking for this group; I am only sharing my own limited experience here...) there is as much contention in their ranks as anywhere else. This has always been true. Traditionalists don't want to sell their cultural beliefs and traditions to anybody; non-traditionalists want to know how it will help them--their families--right now; mixed people, unable to prove exactly how much Indian is in their genes, are also interested in what they can reap from this situation. Political Indians appreciate the exposure and look for a chance to speak, themselves, for their people. Hollywood looks to the controversy of making a buck.
There is a tradition in theatre that includes discrimination. Shakespeare's theatre wouldn't let women play--even themselves--onstage. Blackface entertainers, Irish Indians, Europeans with bad eye make-up playing "Orientals"--straight actors always getting the leading roles when the few casting calls dared someone to play gay--this is as it has always been. The majority mainstream entertaining itself with its own people--until it assimilates people "outside the group", to play themselves. A struggle to understand and to portray the many sides of ourselves has never been easy. Yet, we continue to do so...why?
Perhaps it is because we don't really understand ourselves? We don't really know ourselves? We seek to uncover ourselves, but with tiny steps. Then, we forget what we've learned, and fall back, once again. Because, when it comes down to it, WE are only portraying ourselves. No one will forget that it isn't a full-blood Comanche under that stuffed raven, speaking as if he is developmentally challenged. It is Johnny Depp, actor, making acting choices he is allowed to make because he is famous. While we can hope, discuss, dissect and hold him accountable for truly caring about the people he portrays--it still remains only Johnny Depp.
Who "made" Johnny Depp famous?
We did.
So, do your homework yourself. Check out more than You Tube or Wikipedia. And ask yourself why we have these issues, to begin with. Why does Johnny Depp feel, now, he needs to prove he has Indian Blood. What happened to Kevin Costner's big connection with native people, after his movie? What is the whole history of Indians in American cinema and radio, anyway? What are all factions, from the Indian Nations, saying about this latest flick? What has this country done to create the real Indian issues, of today? Why is this even important to discuss the day after the Fourth of July?
Most importantly: Don't take my word for it.
However, it has been my lifelong observation (beginning in Brownie Scouts) that when a popular individual steps forward and tries to "speak for the group", things usually do not get much better for the group. The individual may prosper; his or her insights, desires, opinions may be stamped as valid--but it is rare that the group's insights, opinions or desires are met,as a result. Maybe it has something to do with us all being individuals, deep down, in our northern hemispheric bones--even as we fight to retain group status? Hmmmmm...(I feel it is most easily demonstrated by thinking of "elected" officials. )In any case, I believe this may have happened to Mr. Depp.
This history of the character "Tonto", in the series "The Lone Ranger",can be found in hundreds of sites, on-line, as well as articles and books available in any library. It is a checkered past, most often reflecting the status of American Indians at the precise time a new installment arose. Now, Mr. Depp has chosen to instill his own vision into the character. Chaos is about to descend.
Perhaps it is because he claims to have researched the role--speaking to Comanche elders about various costume points--including the chosen raven on his head...Perhaps it is because he chose to use the usual "movie Indian speak"...which isn't Native American in any way and most often offensive to Indians. (How much research did you really do, Johnny?) Perhaps it is because, as with other versions of the franchise, "Tonto" is a side-kick, once again. He is the funny man; the fall guy with the good heart--but not the "real hero"? (When will a "Tonto Solo" arrive?) Often, we are told that a minority has achieved mainstream status when the lead roles in "regular" movies are filled with members of that group--or a movie, featuring that group in most roles, is presented. (Even in the much lauded "Dances With Wolves", the "hero lead" was a white man; his "hero lady" was also white...)Perhaps it is because Johnny Depp claimed a good percentage of Indian blood, when he landed the role? Or perhaps it is because it is just Hollywood business as usual ?
From what I have learned about Indian people ( I am NOT speaking for this group; I am only sharing my own limited experience here...) there is as much contention in their ranks as anywhere else. This has always been true. Traditionalists don't want to sell their cultural beliefs and traditions to anybody; non-traditionalists want to know how it will help them--their families--right now; mixed people, unable to prove exactly how much Indian is in their genes, are also interested in what they can reap from this situation. Political Indians appreciate the exposure and look for a chance to speak, themselves, for their people. Hollywood looks to the controversy of making a buck.
There is a tradition in theatre that includes discrimination. Shakespeare's theatre wouldn't let women play--even themselves--onstage. Blackface entertainers, Irish Indians, Europeans with bad eye make-up playing "Orientals"--straight actors always getting the leading roles when the few casting calls dared someone to play gay--this is as it has always been. The majority mainstream entertaining itself with its own people--until it assimilates people "outside the group", to play themselves. A struggle to understand and to portray the many sides of ourselves has never been easy. Yet, we continue to do so...why?
Perhaps it is because we don't really understand ourselves? We don't really know ourselves? We seek to uncover ourselves, but with tiny steps. Then, we forget what we've learned, and fall back, once again. Because, when it comes down to it, WE are only portraying ourselves. No one will forget that it isn't a full-blood Comanche under that stuffed raven, speaking as if he is developmentally challenged. It is Johnny Depp, actor, making acting choices he is allowed to make because he is famous. While we can hope, discuss, dissect and hold him accountable for truly caring about the people he portrays--it still remains only Johnny Depp.
Who "made" Johnny Depp famous?
We did.
So, do your homework yourself. Check out more than You Tube or Wikipedia. And ask yourself why we have these issues, to begin with. Why does Johnny Depp feel, now, he needs to prove he has Indian Blood. What happened to Kevin Costner's big connection with native people, after his movie? What is the whole history of Indians in American cinema and radio, anyway? What are all factions, from the Indian Nations, saying about this latest flick? What has this country done to create the real Indian issues, of today? Why is this even important to discuss the day after the Fourth of July?
Most importantly: Don't take my word for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment