Trickster

Medicine River presented many similarities to the book Green Grass Running Water, but unlike the book it identified with a larger audience. I think that the movie was more universal because it was easier to follow and it made the characters easier to relate to. The idea of a trickster was in both stories through coyote in the book and Harlen in the movie.  I found the importance of their deception in the plot very interesting because of the fact that western culture generally looks down on deception and lying.  In these films the trickster characters almost seem to be more important than anyone else because they are the ones who set all of the big events into motion.  The similarity between the female characters who want children but not husbands was also interesting. I think that this is a commentary not only on women being equals but on woman being sick of the problems the men they are surrounded with cause in their life. In Medicine River this it seemed to me that this conflict was resolved more clearly because she seemed to have a steady committed man in her life.  Both Medicine River and Green Grass Running Water contained interesting commentary on Native culture and ideals.

Medicine River: Questions for Thought/Discussion

Medicine River:

This made-for-television film was adapted from a novel of the same title written by Thomas King (the author of Green Grass, Running Water). 

Below are some questions for you to consider as you watch and study the film:

• Does it seem as though this film is made for a Native or a general audience (or both)?
• How does it address stereotypes of Natives?  How is it different from or similar to Harold of Orange?
• What themes does Medicine River deal with?  How are they different from or similar to other films and texts we've studied this semester?
• Is there/are there trickster figures in the film?  Who?  What are their purposes?
• Though this film is based on a different text from the one we are studying, what connections do you identify between it and Green Grass, Running Water?
• What vision of Native American women does the film portray?
• Who or what is the hero of the film?
• Thomas King is often quoted with saying, "The truth about stories is, that's all we are."  How does this film represent this idea (or not)?

a different perspective

This movie was a very different take on the relationship between Anglos and Indians. It took the perspective that white people don’t really know who Indians are. It makes fun of the fact that the well-educated business men and women still think of Indians as a primitive group of hunters rather than just a group of people. There is also an interesting relationship between the givers and the receivers. It shows that white people feel the need to give to Indians even though the reasons for giving are sometimes illegitimate.

                Even though the movie was aimed at an Indian audience I found it funny, and I think that the biggest difference between this movie and all the others we have seen. It made fun of stereotypes and misconceptions in society which I enjoyed. I do feel like I probably missed out on some of the humor because I have not been part of the misconceptions or stereotypes and I do not fully understand them. Today the ‘Family Guy’ type humor would have gone over better than it did when it was released because today it is more socially acceptable to make humor out of a bad scenario.

_Harold of Orange_: Audiences and Tricksters

In Celluloid Indians,  Kilpatrick writes that Harold of Orange "privileges the Native audience in the way that Hollywood films have privileged the mainstream audiences from the beginning of film history" (192). While a Native audiences gets the jokes and recognizes the issues the film addresses, it is harder for a mainstream audience to pick up on all of this, although some of the issues include white fantasies about Indians, stereotypes, colonialism (the Bureau of Indian Affairs), genocide (the Ghost Dance and the Massacre at Wounded Knee), the commodification (commercialization) and acquisition of Indians and their culture (through collecting of "artifacts") and the display of Indians/artifacts in museums.

Kilpatrick writes that Harold and his Warriors are trying to get a grant from a nonprofit, charitable foundation, "where--from a native American trickster's point of view--white money launders its conscience" (183). In other words, the tricksters are actually giving the white foundation what it wants:  an opportunity to assuage its guilt over the U.S.'s treatment of Native Americans. While the board members aren't aware of their patronizing  and patriarchal attitude toward Harold and the Warriors, Native people having been having to deal with it for hundreds of years. From the author/writer Gerald Vizenor and Harold's point of view, laughter and imagination are better ways to deal with these issues than are anger, violence or depression.

Questions for discussion and reflection:

• Do you feel, as an audience member, that you understand the film?
• What problems are there with marketing this movie in a commercially successful way?
• How does this movie align with other narratives or films we have studied to date in this course?

Link to watch the movie online via SnagFilms: http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/harold_of_orange 

Connections Between Alexie's Novel and Film

              After watching the movie Smoke Signals and reading the novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, I realized many connections and similarities. Part of the reason for these similar traits in each title is their association with Sherman Alexie. His novel was autobiographical and some of the same events I saw in Smoke Signals. There are obvious traits in both that represent the stereotypical Indian lifestyle such as alcoholism and poverty, and then there are traits that represent Alexie’s life. For example, the fire that killed his family (or sister in the novel), his relationship with Victor (Rowdy in the novel), strong relationship with his Grandma, ability to story tell, and his overall appearance in both pieces seem similar. Both the novel and the movie also address what it means to be a “real” Indian. In Smoke Signals, Victor criticizes Thomas’s appearance by mentioning he was not a real Native. Thomas then lets his hair out of his braids and took off his vest to look more intimidating otherwise the whites, as Victor said, “will walk all over him”. The same idea can be seen in the Alexie’s novel when the other Indians on the reservation call him an “apple”, being red on the outside and white on the inside. There seems to be this consistent battle between Indians and whites that isn’t seen with the eye but seems to be buried deep in their conscience. There seems to be metaphorical rope that western society has that keeps pulling Indians farther and farther away from their culture.

                The concept of storytelling is an important aspect in Smoke Signals. The way that Thomas is always going on and on about stories that Victor really has no interest in, brings out Victor’s anger and sadness. There is an underlying issue that Victor didn’t reveal to Thomas until later in the film, but the issue and reason for all his anger was the disappearance of his father. He was always telling Thomas that he would come back, but Thomas knew the real reason he left and why he wasn’t going to come back. Victor’s father’s responsibility for Thomas’s parents’ death left him to be a useless alcoholic that couldn’t deal with his emotions properly. I think the reason Thomas was always telling stories about Victor’s father was because most of them portrayed him as a loveable and kind guy. Victor’s father’s relationship with Thomas was always a loving kind because they both knew who was responsible for Thomas’s parents’ death. At the end of the film, the burning of Victor’s father’s trailer represented respect and was a pled for forgiveness from Thomas’s parents. 

The true signals of Smoke Signals

The title of the film was changed to Smoke Signals from “This is What it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona”. What do you think the director is trying to say about the significance of smoke signals in this film? What about communication in general?

The director is trying to say that similar to how a Phoenix is reborn from its own ashes, the fire in the movie also causes the characters to be reborn a different person.  In the beginning they said after the fire Victor’s dad was never the same.  He felt guilty about the fire and therefor was changed because of what happened.  This is also the reason he left.

 

Smoke Signals were used to communicate over long distances using a code.  This idea is also in the movie during the scenes when the house party goes up in flames, when Victor’s dad trailer is set on fire, and the stories Thomas tells. 

When Victor’s dad saved Thomas from the house fire he was the hero, because he saved Thomas.  Except that was the signal that everyone saw, when the true signal that Victors dad seen caused him to feel guilt.

The signal that might have been sent when Victor’s dads trailer was set of fire, may have been a symbol of letting go.  I was also a symbol for Victor’s dad body.  Like the trailer, his body was burned and for both Suzy and for Victor the ashes that were left changed them. 

Also the stories Thomas tells might have a literal meaning but most of them also have a deeper hidden meaning that when interpreted right show what the true message is.   

Thomas Builds-the-Fire

The character of Thomas Builds-the-Fire is developed very uniquely in Smoke Signals.  Where as some might see him as childish for the way he presents himself, on a deeper level, Thomas is the more adult of the two main characters.  For the most part, he does not try to be anything he is not, whereas Victor makes himself do things simply because he thinks it is what he "should be".  Thomas also loves stories and uses them as a way for entertainment, holding on to memories, and other important reasons.

When Thomas tells the story of Victor's mom, he seems more enthralled by it than Victor does.  Even if the story is not entirely fact based, it is believed by the people, including Thomas, and that is really what makes the story meaningful.  Thomas realizes that not everything has to be based on facts to me important and meaningful to someone, and that is why he is the more grown up character throughout most of the movie.