• 1 Preceding One Thousand Ropes is The Orator/O le tulafale (2011), Tamasese’s first narrative feature (...)

1At the 2017 Hawai’i International Film Festival, the netpac award (netpac stands for Network for the Promotion of Asia Pacific Cinema) went to One Thousand Ropes (2016), the second feature film directed by Tusi Tamasese, a Samoan now living in Auckland, New Zealand.1 The citation for this prestigious award reads:

• 3 This word "authenticity" is a loaded term. This is because it's difficult to know what is authentic (...)

3The word “authentic” in this paper means “real, or genuine, and not counterfeit,” as applied to dramatic narrative feature films.3 The notion that representation of a people or a culture in a fictional film (a “made-up” story) should be “authentic” is a paradox. After all, works of fiction may draw from real life (such as events or persons) but they are not documentaries, the medium we most commonly associate with factual accuracy. This being the case, why then is authenticity (which is another word for “accuracy”) important in fictional films? Is it because a narrative feature (especially a dramatic narrative) aspires to create on screen a fictional world that is a representation of reality? Such an authentic representation allows the viewer to “suspend disbelief” and to believe that the representation is genuine and not counterfeit. The ideal is when the representation is so authentic that the viewer is totally immersed in the narrative as it unfolds and the experience of watching a film is meaningful, satisfying, and even deeply moving. In short, a worthwhile experience.

• 4 A problem with inaccurate representation is that the engaged viewer could end up believing a falseh (...)

4The need for authenticity in cinema is especially important for viewers knowledgeable about the culture or the people being represented on screen. If a viewer feels the representation is not credible, the viewer may lose interest in the story unfolding, and may even leave the theatre early. For example, when I first saw the film Cast Away (2000, by R. Zemeckis) starring Tom Hanks and set mainly on a remote island in Fiji, I lost interest in the movie and left immediately when the viewer was supposed to believe that green coconuts (instead of brown ones) had fallen down from the coconut trees during the night. There were no strong winds to explain this unusual action and I lost interest in the story I had paid money to watch. In fact, I believe the filmmakers of Cast Away did not make this film for people like myself, but for a global audience that knows little about the Pacific, its peoples, and its environment.4 After all, the story of Cast Away is about a man being stranded on a remote island, and accurate representation of the details of the island’s flora and fauna must not have been a priority.

• 5 For an extended review of Disney's Moana, see Tamaira, Hereniko et al., 2018.
• 6 I became involved because I was the Director of the Oceania Center for Arts and Culture at the Univ (...)

5Another example is my experience as a story and cultural consultant for Disney’s animated feature film Moana (2016).5 Concerned to represent indigenous cultures and peoples authentically, Disney sent its two directors, Ron Clements and John Musker, to Fiji, Samoa, and Tahiti, with the hope that interviewing, observing, and listening to those whose cultures they wished to represent in a major feature film would result in authentic representation. In pursuit of authentic representation, Disney formed an “Oceania Story Trust”, a group that consisted of knowledgeable individuals from the Pacific that would advise and educate Disney about life in the Pacific, past and present.6 Disney’s sincere efforts to consult with experts on Polynesia and its peoples resulted in many aspects of Polynesian culture represented authentically in Moana: for example, respect for the ocean, the use of double-hulled canoes to traverse the wide Pacific ocean and discover new lands, the belief that the land is female, the role of family totems, the importance of family and relationships, and many more. However, Disney’s film Moana portrays the character of Maui as a shape-shifting buffoon with an inferiority complex. In Polynesian mythology, Maui is a demigod and hero, but in Disneyʻs Moana, Maui is a sidekick to a 16-year old teenage girl called Moana who sails beyond the reef on her own, without the approval of her father who is terrified of the ocean. Along the way, Moana encounters Maui, who teaches her the finer points of navigation (wafinding). This relegation of Maui to a less powerful role than a 16-year old untutored teenage girl is empowering for young girls in Polynesia and the world over. However, it diminishes the power of a Polynesian male hero and demigod with a very healthy sex drive, according to Polynesian mythology.

• 7 Maui provides comic relief with his shape-shifting antics, his buffoonish appearance, and his infla (...)

6Any film by a major Hollywood studio that sets out to profit from a native culture is suspect. A studio therefore has to try its utmost to mitigate the negative fallout that is likely to occur, but even with the best of intentions, as happened with Disney’s Moana, complete authentic representation in a blockbuster movie is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, Disney’s efforts to reach out to cultural experts from the Pacific resulted in many authentic moments in its film Moana. When a major film studio becomes aware that its reasons for disregarding native advice is more to do with a possible diminishing of profits from ticket sales, it should stop and seriously consider finding an appropriate solution. For example, the controversy surrounding Maui could have been resolved if Disney had used a name other than Maui. This decision detracted from the many positive steps forward in Disney’s desire to be more authentic in its depiction of indigenous cultures.7

• 8 Public presentation by Ron Clements and John Musker at the Doris Duke Theater in Honolulu on April (...)

7Is it possible that Disney insisted on using the name Maui because the name suggests (for those with a superficial knowledge of Oceania) that their fictional narrative is rooted in an authentic past? My opinion is that Disney’s real reason was driven more by its determination to use Dwayne Johnson (aka the Rock), a Polynesian with star power, in order to increase its profits. Although Disney tried its best to be accurate in its portrayal of certain physical characteristics (such as restoring hair to Maui’s formerly bald head, after heeding advice from a Tahitian elder).8 But accurate portrayal of certain physical details for a Polynesian demigod was not good enough for many Pacific scholars (see the article by Mirose Paia and Marie Salaün in this volume). For them, any representation that diminishes the heroes of a native people for box office success is a perpetuation of the history of appropriation for economic gain.

• 9 See the recently made film How Mum Decolonized the Screen (2018), written and directed by Heperi Mi (...)

9Some native filmmakers telling stories on screen about their own people have also been taken to task for representations that have been labeled inauthentic. In large part, I believe the main cause of this is ignorance on the part of the filmmaker about the politics of representation. Inadequate research or knowledge about a culture, or the desire to make a profit, can easily cause filmmakers to make compromises. Second, most filmmakers are storytellers who want their films to appeal to or resonate with the masses of people. This desire to connect with audiences could result in a more generalized view about a culture or a people instead of one that is specific and nuanced. This is one of the reasons why some filmmakers resort to stereotypes that audiences already have about a people or a culture. One way to change this is for filmmakers to begin their narratives with a stereotype about a people or a culture but as the narrative unfolds, to challenge or debunk the stereotype. Another way is to tell the story from the point of view of someone of low status within the culture, much like revising and retelling “history from below”. Looking at history or representation from the point of view of the underdog, rather than the victor, is one way to decolonize the screen.9

• 10 The films of Taika Waititi, such as Boy (2012), Hunt for the Wilder People (2016), and What We Do i (...)
• 11 Personal Communication – when my feature film Pear ta Ma 'On Maf: The Land Has Eyes screened at a m (...)

11Whale Rider is one of the most successful narrative features set in the Pacific that isn’t made by a major studio.10 It was a critical and financial success, and yet it was not without controversy. For example, the film’s producer, John Barnett, went on record to say that Whale Rider is not a Maori film. His point was that the film does not set out to represent all Maori living in New Zealand. This proclamation was intended to counter charges of misrepresentation. However, it is not a perspective that is held by most viewers outside New Zealand, who regard Whale Rider as a Maori film, and in doing so, conflate portrayal of a specific tribe with all Maori tribes. This conflation of specificity with collectivity leads to believing that all Maori people’s mythology claim that all Maori arrived in New Zealand on the back of a whale. The late Barry Barclay (1944-2008), the first Maori to make a feature film, refused to see the film, claiming that the film takes a sacred Maori tale and then puts a shiny gloss over it to cater to the tastes of mass audiences around the world.11 Barclay was also of the opinion that a Maori film should be directed by a Maori, even though the film is based on a novel written by a Maori, Witi Ihimaera (1987), and Ihimaera was closely involved in the making of the film. Though Niki Caro has the writing credit for the screenplay, she worked closely with a screenwriter from Hollywood in order to make the screenplay more accessible to a global market. The editing out of culturally specific material such as the septic tank scene mentioned earlier supports Barclay’s concern.

• 12 After the release of the film, Oscar Kightley was brought over to the University of Hawaiʻi by the (...)

12In Samoan Wedding (2006, by C. Graham), an urban romantic comedy, the question of authentic representation was also an issue.12 The story of four male friends in their 20s and 30s who wreak havoc at weddings, Samoan Wedding was criticized by some Pacific scholars for its negative portrayal of young Samoan men and women. In this narrative, the young men are more interested in getting drunk and having a good time than they are about going to church or developing their professional careers. In addition, the love interest of one of the four men is portrayed as sexually promiscuous. Playing this role is a former Miss Samoa beauty queen, whose identity in real life and the character she plays in this film blurs the boundaries between real life and screen behavior called acting. Some even argued that this young woman’s screen behavior perpetuates Margaret Mead’s claim in Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) that Samoan girls, according to her anthropological research, have no hang-ups about promiscuous sexual behavior.

• 13 Although Kightley co-wrote the screenplay (with James Griffen), Chris Graham (a pakeha or white New (...)
• 14 It is possible that the u.s. distributor was hoping that viewers who enjoyed well-known films such (...)

13When accused of negatively stereotyping his people, Oscar Kightley, the co-writer (and also an actor in the film), defended himself by saying that he was not trying to represent Samoan culture or to speak for other Samoans. All he was doing was telling a story based on his own experiences of life.13 In his words, “When Mickey Mouse speaks, does he speak for all mice?” He added that if people didn’t like his film, they should feel free to make their own. Kightley’s response is complicated by the fact that Samoan Wedding was initially called Sione’s Wedding, but when the U.S. distributor bought the rights, it changed the title to Samoan Wedding. This name change might have resulted in more ticket sales at the box office since more people around the world will have heard or visited Samoa compared to the number of people who will have met a man called Sione or know what country the name is referencing. The name change, however, bestows Samoan Wedding with a responsibility to authentically represent all Samoan weddings, an intention that the film’s original creators did not set out to do.14

• 15 The digital revolution has made filmmaking less expensive, although the cost is still prohibitive f (...)

14As for Kightley’s advice that critics should either stop criticizing him and set out instead to make their own films, the reality is that the playing field is not level, and not everyone has equal access to funding or resources. Filmmaking is an expensive business, and if a filmmaker from a minority culture is lucky enough to receive funding, perhaps authentic representation should be a consideration, if not a priority.15 My opinion is that filmmakers or artists should be free to create according to the dictates of their talents, but with freedom, they should expect criticism, if this freedom is not carried out with responsibility. Part of the reason why viewers expect authentic representation from indigenous filmmakers is because there are so few (if any) narrative features from each of the Pacific Island nations or countries. Until there are more than a dozen or so narrative features about any island culture or Pacific nation, viewers will continue to expect a single feature to authentically represent the whole, which may be at odds with the intentions of the filmmaker.

• 16 The main producer of this film is my wife, Jeannette Paulson Hereniko. Fortunately, she gave me tot (...)

15Financing through grants, personal funds, monetary contributions from friends or supporters, and maxing out our credit cards, my wife and I made a narrative feature film called Pear Ta Ma ʻOn Maf: The Land Has Eyes (2004) on my home island of Rotuma. This way of financing an independent narrative film is one that determined independent filmmakers resort to when there are no other avenues for funding. In these instances, filmmakers benefit from having creative control over their own work. As someone from within the culture, I was more concerned about representing it accurately (or authentically) because ultimately, I felt accountable to my own people. Further, I didn’t have a studio or another entity telling me how to tell my story.16 Thus when some in the industry (as well as some Rotumans) advised us to use the English language instead of Rotuman in order to reach a global audience, we decided that to be authentic, we had to use the Rotuman language since that was the actual language spoken all the time in the period in which the story takes place (1960s), except for the western-styled court and at school. If we didn’t have this kind of independence, the English language would have displaced and replaced the Rotuman language.

• 17 I believe the use of humor in this film would have made the telling of this story more accessible o (...)
• 18 Critical success does not necessarily translate into commercial success. In fact, the opposite seem (...)

16There are varying degrees of authenticity in indigenous films and no film can claim to have complete authenticity. However, there is one Pacific film that I think has more authenticity than any other film I have seen, and this film is Tusi Tamasese’s One Thousand Ropes (2016). The story of this film is deeply rooted in Samoan worldviews, aesthetics, values, and ways of knowing and being. Instead of making compromises in order to reach a global audience or to sell tickets at the box office, Tamasese tells his story from the inside out, and if viewers cannot understand completely what is going on as his story unfolds, he makes no concessions in his efforts to represent his culture and his people with authenticity. The intended audience appears to be other Samoans as well as thouse who care about Samoan culture.17 The characters in this film are complex and multidimensional, and the cultural milieu in which they operate and function in urban Auckland is complicated, impenetrable for the uninitiated, and mysterious. And yet, at the end of the film, I felt privileged to have been given an opportunity to peek into Samoan culture through the eyes of an auteur, whose vision is “fearlessly independent” as well as “immune to the dictates of popular or commercial cinema.” For me personally, this rare gem of a film stands out and stands apart from the other narrative features that were in the 2017 netpac competition at the Hawaiʻi International Film Festival.18