Wait, how does a Maori film of an old English-language text originally set in Italy preserve local culture or help the Maori contribute their unique voices?



I mean, sure, making movies in the Maori language probably helps to keep the language from petering out, which is good.



But in order to preserve the culture, shouldn't they be making films written by Maoris, if not about Maori people?



Of course, then it wouldn't be newsworthy.

Even this translation is an affirmation -- books and plays tend to get translated into "important" commercial languages like French and German. And while, admittedly, transposed plots are not the perfect device for preserving local culture, but I think this is a good first step for several reasons.

It promotes the use and study of the local language by natives -- and possibly even by foreigners. It provides people with an alternative to the counterproductive criminal lifestyle that members of marginalized communities sometimes fall victim to. It introduces the Maori people to tools, processes, people and systems that they can use to serve their own ends (like, Maori-written films) one day.

It's less about introducing Shakespeare to the Maori than it is about introducing them to the idea that their language and their lives are valuable.

Do Maoris need white college students to introduce them to the idea that their language and their lives are valuable? Or is it the white college students who need the Maoris to speak a dead language so that *their* lives seem valuable?

It shows that the Maori can be convinced (tricked?) to adopt Whitey's culture instead of asserting their own cultural independence. XY makes some valid points, but I find it depressing that the story is of Anglo origin and not the work of an indigenous talent. Surely there are Maori writers or stories worthy of sharing on the big screen.

How is a Maori version of a Brit's play valuable to anyone other than the Commonwealth? IMO, it only serves as further confirmation of the oppression that the Maori have suffered. Had the brits not invaded Neausyland, would the Maori be making movies based on the bard's tale? What if it had been the Russians that landed in Auckland? Would The Merchant of Venice in Maori still be significant? Or would they be making a Maori film version of The Brothers Karamazov? And would that still be significant to the BBC?

I'll wait for the Merchant of Rotorua.

troutgirl -- I think those are both right, and both not bad things, although I probably wouldn't use the word "need".

This post and this film seem to have aroused a lot of animosity, which I find disturbing and curious. I probably overstepped with some of my long-winded (Sudafed-induced?) statements that this film is a good example of the *preservation* of local culture. I still think, though, that this is more an example of cross-cultural cooperation than it is of cultural imperialism!

What's wrong with cultures sharing and reinterpreting each others' stories, for the sake of mutual enrichment? To answer shoepal's point, I think a Maori version of The Brothers K would be newsworthy, as would a British or Russian version of a traditional Maori tale (or, as many of you have pointed out, a MAORI version of a Maori tale).

I really don't believe that filmmakers go out with the agenda of advancing centuries of imperial oppression. I think art in general is actually a good tool for healing such rifts, and I think that giving the Maori the spotlight, however briefly, can only help them in the long run. Some people from different countries and cultures got together and made what sounds like an interesting movie, presenting a version of a story that the world would otherwise have lacked, showing tools and processes to people who otherwise might never have known them. Why is that bad??

The reason I have personally been so put off by this thread is that your attitude toward other cultures is so infantilizing -- I'm surprised you don't see this. In my previous post, I was trying to suggest that poor nonwhite people and their cultures do not exist to serve as passive vessels for your feelings of guilt and pity, and they certainly don't exist to be validated by your gaze and knowledge. I definitely feel that both of those impulses *are* "bad things", as you so quaintly put it. Maybe it's time for you to re-read _Discipline and Punish_ or even _Orientalism_.

Your discourse is distressingly bureaucratized, nannified, and self-satisfied, filled with the jargon of the "helping professions". Like what the fuck does *this* mean: "It provides people with an alternative to the counterproductive criminal lifestyle that members of marginalized communities sometimes fall victim to."? That's not even human English! Like a middle-class white American who commits a crime *chooses* to commit a crime, but a poor non-white person just slips into it because s/he's *marginalized*? My rule is never to deny the agency of an adult human being simply because you don't like the choices they come up with. Maybe a poor Maori kid is more powerfully expressing his subjectivity by stealing something that's not his, rather than by waiting like a good boy to be given something that someone like you decides would be good for him.

Another issue you're eliding is the question of whether this film will be any good as a piece of art -- or whether it's basically art-therapy cum temporary jobs program. Personally, I don't think art is really a "tool for healing rifts" -- that's called family counselling. Why should things made by non-white people be judged any differently than those made by white people? Also, frankly, it sounds to me like the driving force behind this project was a white guy with an obsession -- a Kiwi wigger, to put it crudely. 400 Maoris working for over 10 years and not a single one of them with a compelling story to tell in their own damn script is not my idea of a triumph. Although it can't hurt anyone to learn about the tools, art always begins with something that is burning to be expressed -- without that, all the digital cameras in the world are just doorstops.

Finally, part of me sympathizes with your strong desire to "preserve" cultures -- but I think to put it that way is understandable but not so intellectually defensible. You explicitly set up a bourgeois antinomy between "unique" and "local" cultures, versus "standardized" and "commodified" cultures. But, as Benjamin reminds us, what could be more standardized and commodified than a film that is printed over and over by a mechanical process? You would also think that someone who studied linguistics would have a little more inflected view of the impossibility of "fixing" language or culture -- a deeper realization that the only fixed culture is a dead culture. I feel that if you accept the concepts of reificiation and commodification at all, you are accepting that there is no unmediated authenticity which can be preserved from the general logic of capitalism -- which is that everything is *equally* a commodity, including the aura of the authentic itself. If you don't believe this, I think you should not appropriate the terminology and history of this sort of analysis -- it's OK for someone who doesn't know better to talk about shit like this in a loose way, but I think such a usage is less forgiveable for those who have specialized training.

Well, whether this project is a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing' is hard to say without really being there. I only have two comments:

1) Shakespeare is of a European origin but universal appeal.

2) The only way to really preserve indigenous cultures is to preserve their habitat and leave them alone.

Wow! Intellectual Cat Fight! Roar!

The way I see it, this film is equivalent to producing a version of The Merchant of Venice filmed in Watts (LA) or Harlem (NYC) in a native african language like swahili. Of what value would this be to an african american kid in suburban Baltimore?

"[P]oor nonwhite people and their cultures do not exist to serve as passive vessels for your feelings of guilt and pity, and they certainly don't exist to be validated by your gaze and knowledge."

You're absolutely right. And this is not what I meant. I'm sorry that this is the impression you got.

This whole debate has taken on a life of its own, independent of what I actually meant to say. This is probably due to my misuse (and misinterpretation of my misuse) of many words: preserve, need, valuable, importance. Those are all loaded terms that I was throwing around with less forethought than I should have. Given my carelessness, I can understand how Joyce has come to feel like my viewpoint is "bureaucratized, nannified, and self-satisfied." But, while I'm obviously biased, I honestly believe that I am none of those things, and that my own poor diction has misrepresented me.

So let me try to recast some of the statements that appear to have caused the most pain:

"It's less about introducing Shakespeare to the Maori than it is about introducing them to the idea that their language and their lives are valuable." --> Actually, it IS about introducing Shakespeare to the Maori. And, one day, Maori stories to the British. And the world to the idea that no language or culture has any more inherent, objective value than another.

"Do Maoris need white college students to introduce them to the idea that their language and their lives are valuable? Or is it the white college students who need the Maoris to speak a dead language so that *their* lives seem valuable?" --> I believe in the value of learning for its own sake, and that, for me, includes learning about other cultures, no matter who you are. This is what I meant by answering "yes" to both questions, but I didn't think about the implications of the actual sentences as written. Neither side "needs" to be externally validated or shown the value of their own lives.

"The best way to promote and preserve local cultures is to give them the means and the tools to contribute their unique (not standardized and commodified) voices to the global information and economic markets." --> I agree with Andy that the only way to preserve local cultures is to follow the Prime Directive and leave them the hell alone. But the fact of the matter is that they're not going to BE left alone. Given a choice between passively watching British versions of British movies in Maori theaters, or actively making Maori versions and getting familiar with the tools to share their own stories in a globally available format, wouldn't you agree that the latter is better in the long run?

All of that said, my intended take-home point is this, and I stand by it: "What's wrong with cultures sharing and reinterpreting each others' stories, for the sake of mutual enrichment?"

***

And THAT said, I'd like to reemphasize that cultural issues are a cornerstone of my current dissertation topic right now; I'd like to be able to discuss some of those issues here and on the research blog. However, I'm going to make missteps as I go. These should, rightly, lead to questions and thoughts from the peanut gallery. But I'd like to think I have a right to make those mistakes without being raked across the coals for viewpoints I don't hold, even if they seem implicit in something I wrote. I try to withhold judgment when I read others' thoughts, to get to the heart of what they're trying to say before I leap, and, finally, to offer criticism constructively. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same courtesy.

I'm not trying to sidestep the other issues that have been raised; they're important. But I feel like this post has reached a point of diminishing returns for me -- in fact, it no longer feels like a discussion but like the Spanish Inquisition or a minefield. I started this blog as a place to feel safe exploring, writing, and rewriting thoughts among friends. At the moment, I don't feel safe.

So I'm withdrawing from this thread. Feel free to continue to add your own thoughts or to flame me, if you find that necessary. I'm both sorry and glad to have raised such a stink, but my continued contribution seems like an exercise in futility, given the current climate.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that this film project might be a worthwile cultural interchange and a fun and productive project for the Maori people involved. It might very well be. On the other hand, it's wise to consider whether it might be patronizing and belitting to them, depending on how it's carried off. So you're both thinking clearly, but neither of you really knows enough about the project itself to draw a conclusion. In the land of conjecture you can argue as long as you like.

Personally, I've always believed in "praise in public, flame in private." It saves a lot of mess and gets the same messages across. If you have a real point to make, venom won't necessarily strengthen it.

Whatever the discourse on this page, Xy, we all know you ain't wrong in the head. There are plenty of more fequently updated racist kook blogs we could be reading if we were looking for that :) TG might play rough, but I think it's still play.

Blog on~

Sigh.

Xy, I was hoping that you would be able to interpret my statements not as attacking you, but as according you enough intellectual respect to hit you with my best shot rather than smile and nod and refuse to engage. I guess that was a mistake. I'm sorry if you feel raked over the coals instead. I'm sorry if I stomped all over your joy with my big boots on. I'm sorry if I violated your personal web space in a way you aren't finding enjoyable. I'm going away now -- it's safe to come out.

Apologies for labelling this intellectual discourse a "cat fight." I didn't mean to stoke the fire or insult the participants.

Quite an entertaining and enlightening debate amongst friends.

It seems that there was just a lot of miscommunication here. Xy has pointed out that some of the things she wrote were taken the wrong way...or even written so as not to accurately express what she was thinking. I think that the same is true of troutgirl.

It's difficult to not feel personally attacked when someone uses a lot of personal pronouns that address the statements to the person rather than the idea. (e.g. "...serve as passive vessels for YOUR feelings of guilt and pity.")

It's also difficult to tell that a statement like "Your discourse is distressingly bureaucratized, nannified, and self-satisfied, filled with the jargon of the "helping professions"." is meant in a friendly way.

We're all friends here. We all know that. But even so, it's very easy to misinterpret someone's words without the context of seeing their face or hearing their tone of voice. I think that caused problems on both sides.

In a way, there were two different discussions going on here. One was informal and a bit like thinking out loud, the other more formal and decisively-reasoned. It's no wonder things got a little confusing and conflicted.