Regression vs. Liberation

                Medicine River displayed a different prospective on the modern Native American lifestyle compared to what we have studied in class. After reading some of Sherman Alexie’s work, Thomas King’s approach concerning Native American independence seemed to originate from the opposite side of the spectrum. Alexie always advocated release from tradition in order to become successful in modern Western society. In Medicine River, Will had already abandoned his tribe and family to become a successful photographer in Canada. Contrary to Alexie’s work, the transformation into the Western lifestyle already occurred. Medicine River focuses on the relapse back into the Native life rather than liberation from it. Aside from the questionable acting and dry humor, a self-sufficient Native American living comfortably outside of his tribe and later returning to his people is an interesting take on the relationship between Natives and Western society.  

                Thomas King’s unique portrayal of Native American independence in Medicine River leads me to believe the film was developed for the general audience. It seems like more Native Americans are in the position to relate with characters like Junior from The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian more than a character like Will. One difference in Thomas King’s film and novel, Green Grass, Running Water, compared to other authors such as Alexie, is the significant role of Native women. In Medicine River and Green Grass, Running Water, the Native women seem to have an issue with commitment. Alberta Frank in the novel is Lionel’s lover but doesn’t support marriage and wants to raise a child independently. The same exact situation occurs with Louise in Medicine River. This depiction of Native women is completely adverse of Western ethic. However, this belief seems desirable to Native men as seen in Will in the film and in Lionel and Charlie in the novel as if they find self-reliance in Native women attractive.