Maori Identity Expression and Development in Once Were Warriors - Essay Example

? Maori Identity Expression and Development in Once Were Warriors (1994) 27 August Part i. Roadmap The topic isidentity expression and identity development of indigenous tribes, specifically the Maoris of New Zealand. I explored how Lee Tamahori’s Once Were Warriors reflects indigenous expression and decolonisation themes using textual analysis and semiotics. I used the concepts and arguments from the following major theorists: Murray and Conrich (2008), Barclay (1990), Pihama (1996), Alia and Bull (2005) and Mita (1996). Murray and Conrich (2008) explore the meaning of ‘indigenous self-expression,’ while Barclay (1990) describes the process and effects of ‘talking in’ for indigenous people. Pihama (1996) emphasises the importance of contextualising Maori violence in order to avoid ethnic stereotyping. Alia and Bull (2005, p.64) argue that as indigenous groups internalise outsider views and develop their own internal understanding of their societies, they are involved in the ‘invention of tradition.’ Mita (1996) asserts that films provide the opportunity of decolonising themes. For this essay, I ask: How does Once Were Warriors reflect the ideas of the ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008), ‘our own image’ and ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990), and ‘decolonising the screen’ (Mita 1996)? Once Were Warriors reflects ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008), ‘our own image’ and ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990) through emphasising the remaking and reclaiming of the warrior Maori culture in different ways and ‘decolonising the screen’ (Mita 1996) through reducing Western influences and focusing on the legitimacy of the hybrid Maori-modern culture. The paper concludes that Once Were Warriors signifies the remaking of Maori identity through the process of reclaiming their warriorhood status that simultaneously decolonises Maori identity development. ii. Reflexive Introduction I chose this film because it represents the breakdown of the indigenous social fabric, after colonisation has eroded the cultural fabric of the colonised. As a person who has a strong sense of colonisation history and who values family and clan ties, I can relate to the impacts of colonisation and urbanisation on the social ties and identity-making of the Maori. Colonisation and its subsequent urbanisation and commercialisation effects have eroded the Maoris’ sense of identity, affecting not only their ethnic group as a whole, but also their family roots and individual personalities. I am then interpreting the film, not only from the views and concepts of the aforementioned theorists, but also from my own family and social values and experiences, because I am someone who deeply respects and values collectivistic societies, of which I am also a proud part of. I continue to strongly ground my analysis on scholarly research, nonetheless, through using textual analysis and semiotics that can help me attain a balanced perspective. iii. Background Introduction Since the early 1970s, a significant cultural shift is changing Maori representation in films, a shift called the “Maori Renaissance” (Keown 2008, p.197). Lee Tamahori’s Once Were Warriors belongs to this shift, as it portrays the implications of one of the historical events in the Maoris’ lives, their migration from rural, coastal ancestral lands to Pakeha-dominated urban areas and the effects of this migration to their ethnic identity-making process and identities (Keown 2008, p.197). For this essay, I explore how the film reflects indigenous expression and decolonisation themes. My research question is: How does Once Were Warriors reflect the ideas of the ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008), ‘our own image’ and ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990), and ‘decolonising the screen’ (Mita 1996)? Once Were Warriors reflects ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008), ‘our own image’ and ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990) through emphasising the remaking and reclaiming of the warrior Maori culture in different ways and ‘decolonising the screen’ (Mita 1996) through reducing Western influences and focusing on the authenticity of the hybrid Maori-modern culture. iv. Literature Review Murray and Conrich (2008) explore the meaning of ‘indigenous self-expression,’ where it pertains to ‘self-representation of indigenous people’ (Murray and Conrich 2008, p.8). In filmmaking, indigenous self-expression is present in the visual and linguistic cultural aspects of the film that correspond to the Maori’s cultural and social beliefs, practices, and activities. Indigenous self-expression is political when it allows the invisible minority groups to be visible through mainstream media outlets. Their visibility empowers them because they can express who they are and what they want to be, and not how their colonisers see them and how they want the indigenous to be. Lee Tamahori is a Maori because his father is a Maori and his identity allows him to express indigenous issues from an indigenous viewpoint. He strives to express what a Maori feels and thinks and how they act, given their changing social, economic and political conditions in the characters, dialogue, plot, setting and symbolism in Once Were Warriors. The concept of self-expression for indigenous people is relevant to the project because it allows me to analyse the film from the Maori perspective, not from an outsider one or from a coloniser viewpoint. Its weakness is that in order to analyse like a Maori, I must further read on how the Maori analyse their own experiences and issues. This weakness can be resolved through reading more about Maori culture and society, so that I can understand their aspirations, beliefs and practices. While Murray and Conrich (2008) show the importance of indigenous expressions, Barclay (1990) describes the process and effects of ‘talking in’ for indigenous people. Talking out refers to the indigenous people talking to a dominant group, while talking in pertains to the indigenous people’s expressions within their group and with others that the dominant group no longer controls (Barclay 1990). ‘Talking in’ is a process of public conversation, so that indigenous people can represent their issues and emphasise their analyses and resolutions using their indigenous identities. This concept is relevant because it is connected to ‘self-representation of indigenous people’ (Murray and Conrich 2008, p.8). Its strengths lie in its empowerment of the indigenous people in the mainstream media and the opportunity it gives to their own continuous development of their ‘voice’ and identity. One of its weaknesses, however, is the lack of guidelines on what successful talking in means for different indigenous groups. Scholars should not impose on what talking in should be though, but rely on indigenous people’s own definition of talking in. Apart from discussing self-representation for indigenous people, Pihama (1996) underscores the role of determining the context of Maori violence, where Maori history can help explain their current urban issues and identities. She emphasises the importance of contextualising Maori violence in order to avoid ethnic stereotyping that may occur through viewing violent films such as Once Were Warriors. Indeed, Pihama (1996) is right because Maori violence in Once Were Warriors is not properly contextualised. She refers to the significance of both understanding the causes of Maori violence in urban areas and the need to differentiate warrior violence from contemporary forms of violence. Her concept of contextualisation is useful for the project because it avoids ethnic stereotyping and urges scholars and viewers to go beyond aesthetic analysis and apply semiotics on the historical conditions of the Maoris. The weakness of the concept is that writers/scriptwriters of Maori literature/movies do not always consider the proper discussion of history in their texts, and so instead, readers/viewers bear the burden of contextualising their work for them. Alia and Bull (2005, p.64) affirm that context is critical to identity making and further argue the concept of ‘invention of tradition’ that should not promote and reinforce harmful racial stereotypes. Invention of tradition can refer to the invention process from either the colonised or the coloniser. Alia and Bull (2005, p.64) explain invented traditions from Pakeha that seek to assimilate the Maori, which is differentiated from invented tradition of modern Maori people who seek for greater power and cultural distinction from other ethnic groups. The Maori are affected by these outsider conceptualisations of their own culture, but they can also produce their own identity despite these assimilation efforts (Alia and Bull 2005, p.64). These tradition contrasts are important to my project because films like Once Were Warriors contribute to either positive or negative (or a mixture of both) invented traditions. Caution must be taken, nevertheless, in assuming the issues and interests are at play when analysing invented traditions. The final theorist is the filmmaker Mita (1996) who argues for decolonisation in films. Decolonisation pertains to the active efforts of filmmakers in articulating indigenous issues away from coloniser’s lens of analysis and expression (Mita 1996). Mita (1996) is referring to the indigenisation of films, so that the Maori and other indigenous groups can relay their stories from their own perspectives, and not from the sanitised or romanticised versions of outsiders. Decolonisation is significant to my project because it connects to ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008), ‘our own image’ and ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990), as the indigenous people portray their ideologies and interests in their own language and symbols. Decolonisation is an important part of semiotic analysis for this film because symbols are analysed through the Maoris’ culture and history, and not through the coloniser’s viewpoints and interests. Part 2 Once Were Warriors reflects ‘indigenous self-expression’ (Murray and Conrich 2008) through the illustration of the production process of a hybrid culture, the narration of Maori struggles from a female perspective, and the revival of Maori warrior culture. In filmmaking, indigenous self-expression (Murray and Conrich 2008, p.8) is present in the visual and linguistic cultural aspects of the film that correspond to the Maoris’ cultural and social beliefs, practices, and activities. The film exhibits the development of a hybrid Maori-modern culture (Thornley 2011, p.117), where intra-racial diversity exists (Alia and Bull 2005, p.54). An example from the film is the combination of traditional Maori symbols and language and Western and Pakehan beliefs. In the scene where Grace Heke (Mamaengaroa Kerr-Bell) tells the story she made up about Reihi, a Taniwha who lived at the bottom of the lake, to her siblings, she merges Maori cultural stories and the setting of urban space. They no longer live in their traditional coastal homes, but in an urban community. Another example is Beth Heke (Rena Owen), who smokes and drinks beer, which signifies Western influences on indigenous habits. She also yields to Pakehan institutions, such as Social Welfare, which takes her son Boogie/Mark (Taungaroa Emile) from her because she cannot control her son’s illegal activities. Despite her submission to the law, she earnestly believes that her children should remain with her, which is a collectivist characteristic of the Maori. The film depicts the expression of the struggles of modern Maori identity-making, especially when estranged from one’s cultural roots. The hybridity of Maori identity impacts both film production and consumption. Production includes the process of making the film using indigenous talents. Martens (2012, p.11) describes the film’s significant use of Maori cast and crew. Tamahori shows to the media industry that the Maori, despite their lack of experience in mainstream media industries, have so much talent and potential. The Maori can effectively represent their culture and issues in films. Furthermore, viewers face the consumption of a hybrid Maori identity through Once Were Warriors. An example of the Maoris’ hybrid identity is the marriage of technology and Maori culture, where in the scene where Beth arrives at home with some groceries and listens to the radio, the radio announcer speaks in Maori and plays Maori songs. Media employs Maori language and music in expressing daily Maori existence in urban settings. Thornley (2011) describes the consumption process of the film: “When Maori (indigenous inhabitants of Aotearoa New Zealand) look at a Maori film, they bring their own specific indigenous worldviews to the process of watching” (p.107). His statement can be connected to how Maori viewers react to a Maori film that exposes negative and positive ethnic stereotypes (Peters 2007, p.104). The Maoris, as producers and consumers of their hybrid culture, contend with the ongoing process of indigenous identity development and expression. Apart from the hybrid nature of Maori identity, the film is told from a female Maori perspective, which enables her to demonstrate her struggles with class, gender and racial inequalities (Columpar 2007, p.464). Jake Heke (Temuera Morrison) symbolises the oppressor, the coloniser, while Beth can be argued as the colonised. Jake stifles indigenous expression through using violence when his wife communicates her own angered responses to her husband’s abuses. Beth’s life portrays the indigenous representation of intersection among class, gender and racial inequalities (Columpar 2007, p.464). She experiences her son being taken away from her because domestic troubles and social status prevent her from being a mother. Furthermore, class interacts with racial inequalities. When Beth’s son asks her if the police are the Taniwha (protectors of the people), Beth says no. It symbolises distrust in the police and even the entire government system. These institutions are not fully looking after the Maoris’ interests because of their failure to understand their underlying cultural, social and political issues. In addition, gender and class problems combine in the film. Beth and Grace are both victims of rape because as women, they are not respected in the modern urban setting. Mavis (Mere Boynton) says something that reflects sexism in their society: “You know the rules girl. Keep your mouth shut and your legs open” (Once Were Warriors 1994). Seeing women beaten up is natural for them, which indicates that domestic violence is a norm in their society. These women cannot do anything about it because they are financially dependent on their husbands. The film expresses the class, gender and racial issues of Maori women in urban areas. After discussing the female perspective, the next point is that the film shows indigenous expression through different ways of developing and reclaiming Maori warriorhood. Nig Heke (Julian Arahanga) chooses the route of violence, while Boogie selects the path of a more peaceful way of being a Maori again. Bennett (George Henare) teaches Boogie that he does not have to use his fists or taiaha to demonstrate power: “You think your fist is your weapon? When I have taught you, your mind will be. You’ll carry your taiaha inside you” (Once Were Warriors 1994). The film shows different ways of being a Maori warrior, where violence is not always the right or only path. Aside from men, women also show their warriorhood. Beth is a survivor of domestic violence and she reminds Jake that being a Maori warrior is not about being violent and controlling: “Our people once were warriors. But unlike you, Jake, they were people with manner, pride; people with spirit. If my spirit can survive living with you for eighteen years, then I can survive anything” (Once Were Warriors 1994). She manifests the spirit of a warrior, not its physical manifestation. Indigenous expression includes continuously remaking Maori warriorhood status in the modern world. The film further shows Maoris’ ‘own image’ through demonstrating their identities from their real experiences, so that they can share their stories within and outside their indigenous communities and pass on their histories and identities. The Maoris’ collectivist culture shows that the individual is never separated from his/her family, group and society. Beth, for instance, despite the physical and emotional abuse she gets from her husband, seeks to keep her family together in various ways. She does not abandon anyone, even her abusive husband, because she believes in the sanctity of their family as a cohesive unit of the Maori society (Once Were Warriors 1994). Brislin (2003, p.104) cites Mira Mata who asserts that the collectivist culture of Pacific Islanders in general reflect their beliefs in what stories are for, which affects what storytelling is for in filmmaking. Collectivism demonstrates the holistic image of indigenous people that protect them from the individualistic aspirations of their colonisers. Another aspect of the real image of the Maori in the film is its demonstration of the urban-rural divide without necessary showing one as more superior to another (Keown 2008, p.206). Joyce (2007) describes the urban decay of the Heke’s community. It contrasts with the flourishing natural environment of the Marae. Despite these opposing images, the ability of Nig, Boogie and Beth to attain their Maori warrior spirits in different ways show hope in urban spaces. Their actions resolve the decay that colonisation brings to indigenous people. Related to indigenous expressions is the film’s expansion of the power of ‘talking in’ (Barclay 1990) for the Maori. Tamahori is talking in with his fellow Maori people, using the popular medium of film to connect to indigenous hopes, disillusionments, and dreams. Despite the family and economic problems of the Hekes, for example, Beth continues to dream for her children. In her mind, she nurtures hope for better circumstances, while never losing touch with her own Maori identity. Grace also initially has a dream of being a writer. She talks in through her Maori-culture-rich stories. Furthermore, the film refuses to adopt Pakeha narrative approach and focuses on how the Maori tell their own stories (“discussion and decision-making” Barclay 1990, p.9). Beth wants to resolve their family problems with Jake, but he refuses to take her seriously. In addition, Toa Aotearoa celebrates the Maori warrior identity through talking in with fellow Maoris and encouraging them to develop their Maori warrior identities (Keown 2008, p.205). Their path has a violent dimension, but the gang shows the essence of collective identity to individual identity. By talking in, these characters and groups are representing their voice and identity to each other and to the mainstream public. Finally, the film decolonises the screen through reducing Western influences and denouncing the alienation effect of colonisation. The film argues that colonisation is alienating and disempowering (Alia and Bull 2005, p.54; Lambert 2008, p.151; ‘fragmented experiences’ Martens 2012, p.9). Beth cannot attain her own dreams for her family because she is stuck in an abusive relationship. Grace feels alienated even more after being raped. When her father destroys her writing book, it rips her spiritually as well. The two rips in her life, physical through rape, and spiritual through the rejection of her dreams, prove to be too much for her, and drive her to suicide. Moreover, the film rejects European narratives and their underlying spiritual and ideological values (Hardy 2012, p.13). Decolonising is shown through the Maoris’ different paths to warriorhood identity. Despite these differences, they achieved the common goal of fixing family gaps and preserving their family and community. There is a need to contextualise the film though through its absence of historical background (Pihama 1996). Pihama (1996) stressed that the violence that the Maori showed in some films is not without its roots. This paper agrees because violence and drinking among the Maori reflects alcoholism among the Native Americans. Both groups have felt the loss of their cultural identities because of colonisation’s constant beleaguering of their values and social and cultural status. As a result, many men from these indigenous groups have become hopeless enough to feel utterly helpless, so helpless that they have given up on fighting for a more meaningful existence and have resorted to either violence or violence and alcohol to feel in control of their lives. Decolonisation should include contextualisation, of portraying histories that are not usually told in mainstream media and colonised institutions. Lastly, the film shows denunciation of colonisation. Beth leaves Jake in the end, her closure to her life of colonisation. Her warrior status lies in her ability to stand again despite her troubles and to reconnect with her family in the Marae. Decolonisation occurs through the portrayal of Maori warriorhood identity as a post-colonial response to colonisers. Indigenous self-representation involves talking in and decolonising the film through perpetuating the indigenous hybrid image. Once Were Warriors depicts these concepts that represent Maori identity formation from their own beliefs and values, thereby rejecting the colonisers’ ideology. The film includes both positive and negative representations of the Maoris, which does not mean to undermine them, but to depict the ongoing process of identity-making, where identities are forged through collective interactions and actions. The emphasis is not on merely dismissing the new urban Maori as inauthentic, but depicting, that, new Maori identities that are indigenous in expression and image are also legitimate Maori identities. The film shows that the Maori regains social and political power through their self-analysis and social analysis, which aid them in reproducing their indigenous identities without romanticism and colonialism. Bibliography Alia, V. and Bull, S., 2005, ‘Internalising ‘outsider’ representations: the Once Were Warriors syndrome,’ In: Media and Ethnic Minorities, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 52-72. Barclay, B., 1990, ‘A fitting companion,’ Our own image, Longman Paul, Auckland, NZ, pp. 9–18. Brislin, T., 2003. ‘Exotics, erotics, and coconuts: Stereotypes of Pacific Islanders,’ In: P.M. Lester and S.D. Rosee (eds), Images that injure: pictorial stereotypes in the media, Connecticut, Praeger Publishers, pp.103-112. Columpar, C., 2007, ‘‘Taking care of her green stone wall’: the experience of space in Once Were Warriors,’ Quarterly Review of Film & Video, 24(5), pp.463-474. Hardy, A., 2012, ‘Hidden gods – religion, spirituality and recent New Zealand cinema,’ Studies in Australasian Cinema, 6(1), pp.11-27. Joyce, H., 2007, ‘Once were warriors,’ In: G. Mayer (ed), The cinema of Australia and New Zealand, London, Wallflower Press, pp. 157-166. Keown, M., 2008, ‘‘He Iwi Kotahi Tatou’?: nationalism and cultural identity in Maori film,’ In: I. Conrich & S. Murray (eds), Contemporary New Zealand cinema from new wave to blockbuster, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 197–210. Martens, E., 2012, ‘Maori on the silver screen: the evolution of indigenous feature filmmaking in Aotearoa/New Zealand,’ International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 5(1), 1-30. Mita, M., 1996, ‘The soul and the image,’ In: J Dennis & J Bieringa (eds), Film in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2nd edn, Victoria University Press, Wellington, NZ, pp.36–54. Murray, S. and Conrich, I., 2008, Contemporary New Zealand Cinema: from new wave to blockbuster, London, I. B. Tauris. Peters, G., 2007, ‘Lives of their own: films by Merata Mita,’ In: I. Conrich & S. Murray (eds), New Zealand filmmakers, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 103–20. Pihama, L., 1996, ‘Repositioning Maori representation: contextualising Once Were Warriors’, In: J Dennis & J Beringer (eds), Film in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2nd edn, Victoria University Press, Wellington, NZ, pp. 191–4. Lambert, I.B.M., 2008, ‘Representing Maori speech in Alan Duff's Once Were Warriors,’ Language & Literature, 17(2), pp. 155-165. Once Were Warriors, 1994, Film, Directed by Lee Tamahori, NZ, Communicado Productions. Thornley, D., 2011, ‘From a Maori point of view to look at a Maori film,’ Journal of International Communication, 17(2), 107-120. Read More