john wayne's teeth- david meyerson

I'm at a loss to put many of my thoughts into words this time around.  The title of this blog entry comes from Smoke Signals, one of my favorite films depicting a road trip taken by two Coeur d'Alene Indians to Arizona in order to collect the ashes of one's dead father.  The song is humorous (as is much of the movie) and I can't stop trying to juxtapose it with a real John Wayne incident.  At the 1973 Oscars, Marlon Brando refused the Best Actor Oscar and asked the leaders of AIM- the American Indian Movement-to send a Native American woman, Sacheen Littlefeather,  to decline on his behalf and read a speech.  In the wings, what large man had to be restrained by three men, preventing him from charging the stage? John Wayne. Mr. Wayne killed many an Indian in his scores of Hollywood Westerns.  I guess art imitates life.

I've always been curious about the effect media portrayals have on everyday life.  As I read more about the Oscar incident, it begs the question of how the FBI saw the participants at Wounded Knee in 1973 (Wikipedia it!) and was their response based in part on a common representation of Indians as violent. Does film and television have that much influence?  When we think of the transition from the "lived' representation of Indian dwellings in the Wild West Show to the audience member confirming authenticity in film, it isn't such a huge leap.  The "audience" has to be defined.  Gen. Miles of yesterday becomes the non-Native filmmaker who is out to make a buck or the non-Native moviegoer who is not into critical inquiry.  Granted, Gen. Miles was there when it happened, but do audiences have that same kind of influence today?  I would say 'No' in this very post-Modern age.

While Hollywood has always favored money making films, it's harder than ever to make pictures about real subjects, especially those that happened recently.  On the one hand, the past twenty years has seen an explosion in the number of documentaries made, some of which are seen by a wide audience.  On the other hand, when there is so much out there in the ether, one doesn't have time to partake of differing points of view, nor do films stay in theatres very long unless they are bona fide money makers.  What results from this (and I would include the Internet in this observation) is a niche store for popular arts. Unlike a niche boutique that tries to serve an exclusive clientele, today's viewer is invited is the owner and consumer.  We consume based on our individual tastes and can ignore another point of view however much we choose.  This does not make for a smarter society and stifles the most important element of a critical mass of critique, dialogue.

Reading about James Young Deer depressed me because it happened so long ago.  Is there more independent film today, and do many voices have the opportunity to be heard? Undoubtedly, but they seem to be talking to themselves.  Where are the true subversives? Maybe they've never had the magnitude of voice I'm giving them.  It is no small gift to be able to portray yourself and your own cultural vision on screen.  Too much, and it feels narcissistic. I've long since tired of most Holocaust narratives because many do not approach universal themes or questions.  I wonder that I haven't seen many recent quality films about the Native American past.  For much of the twentieth century on film, Indians were stuck in a violent time warp, cannon fodder for settlers moving West. Today, if Native American films are seen at all, they are almost entirely in the brooding present with the past existing in spiritual wisps. (I'm speaking of films created with mass consumption in mind.)  I want to see a period piece written, directed, and acted by Native peoples that re-imagines how we "see" in the coming century