Tag Archives: NMAI Film Festival

documentary, Film Festivals

#NAFVF11 Opening Night

Thursday, March 31st was the opening night of the 2011 Native American Film and Video Festival at the National Museum of the American Indian in New York City. This was my third time at the Festival and while I have always enjoyed myself in the past, this year, the organizers took it up a notch. So, I’d like to congratulate everyone involved with putting the Festival together. First off, while the Native Networks website remains an invaluable resource, I love this year’s festival website. Second, it was pretty cool that on opening night, the film screened online and the Q&A included questions from around the world via Twitter (the Festival hashtag is #NAFVF11, which I’ve been using to tweet about the festival). Finally, the director of the opening night film, Qapirangajuq: Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, Zacharias Kunuk, skyped in from the Arctic! Oh, and the Festival trailer was a nice touch, too. So, an all around great job of making use of technology to bring these films to the world and back.

And now, on to the show… The opening night film, Qapirangajuq, was directed by Zacharias Zunuk, who also directed the well known film Atanarjuaat/The Fast Runner. This documentary was a huge undertaking involving interviews with 60 elders from 4 communities who speak 5 different Innuit dialects and live in different parts of the Arctic. The elders discussed environmental concerns such as changing wind patterns which make it impossible to accurately predict the weather,* changes in the location of the setting of the sun, and the drastic melting of ice in the Arctic. The documentary presaged the festival’s focus on the environment (Friday, April 1 was largely devoted to films on the environment and ended with a panel discussion called “Protecting our Rivers”).

One of the highlights of the screening came during the Q&A, when an audience member asked co-director Ian Mauro about the correlation which the film made between the positioning of celestial bodies and the environmental crisis. Mauro, who has a doctorate in Environmental Studies, gave a great explanation, but in my effort to jot it down, I only caught interesting pieces. Elders from all over were commenting about the shift in the earth’s axis but Mauro could find nothing about it in the scholarly literature. However, scientists did stand up and take notice when Mauro described a process that is known to them as “refraction.” Due to the collision of hot and cold air in the Arctic, the sun creates an optical illusion which makes it appear at times of the year when it would not normally appear. Mauro noted that this oscillation process is the same that can sort of help you tell the future: if a walrus is oscillating in the horizon, it is a few hours away. Qapirangajuq is the Inuktitut word that comes closest to the English word “refraction” (I believe Mauro translated the word into English as “a pencil that looks bent in the water”). Hearing all this was a highlight to me because it was an instance of native people observing what scientists had not. (In that Russell Means video I referenced earlier, he also noted that scientists still had not come to understand that hair carries memory.)

One of the eloquent voices in the film was Innuit leader named Mary Simon. One of her simple yet powerful statements was that many who debate the environmental crisis focus on national boundaries, which is misguided because the environmental crisis affects us all, regardless of boundaries. Finding cross-cultural common ground in order to help solve the environmental crisis was a theme during the conference and highlighted in movies like River of Renewal. While refraction was a complicated idea to relay, it was surprisingly simple, yet disturbing, to understand how toxins, like yellow acid rain, precipitate, travel north to the Arctic and get locked there. In the film, interviewees noted that people in the Arctic are especially vulnerable since they will be the first to be affected from fish who have high levels of mercury. It was really striking to see our interconnectedness.

Besides showing us the importance of our interconnected actions vis-a-vis the environment, the film is more pointedly critical of Westerners’ roles in Innuit communities. Mauro chuckles while he acknowledges that his Inuktitut nickname is “the thief,” a name he says serves as a reminder of his position in the Innuit culture, where researchers are often seen as more interested in their research than in the local culture. One interviewee prompted laughter as he wonders where all the scientists who claim that the polar bears are in danger of decline are, since he sees no evidence of their disappearing. Another argues that it is actually outsiders, with their noisy helicopters and the collars that are placed on the bears, who are really harming these animals.

This is one of those movies that everyone should watch but in terms of scholarly interest, those teaching about the environment and Innuit culture will want to check this documentary out. In addition, I would recommend it as a way to sensitize science students and scholars doing scientific work in native or other communities to the concerns of the communities where they are studying or working and, ultimately, the big one we’re all inhabiting: the earth.
* This reminded me of a video I recently watched where Russell Means laments the fact that historically, the Lakota had 52 different words for cloud formations. Can you imagine? Not only that there were 52, but that so many could have been lost.

Panels

2009 Native American Film + Video Festival Panel 2

Leave a comment

At the 2009 festival, I was also able to attend the second panel called “Creating the Alternative: a Conversation with Four Directors.” I enjoyed this panel so much because the directors came through as very accessible and down-to-earth.

Moderator Jason Silverman asked the panelists why they make films and Georgina Lightning’s response pulled me in right away. Although her father was not the type to wear his emotions on his sleeves, she was deeply impressed when one night, a movie was able to stir his emotions to the point that he teared up. The power that film had on him and the potential it had to tap into human emotions was a huge influence on her decision to become a filmmaker. Her reply was particularly poigniant since Lightning’s father committed suicide when she was 18.

Chris Eyre’s answer was similarly personal. He noted that because he had not grown up with his biological parents, the reunion was a big theme in his films. (I understood this to mean that he became a director, in part, as a way for him to effect that reunion with his blood relatives in many ways through his films). When asked about the differences between mainstream and independent or native film, Eyre (Cheynne/Arapaho) noted, “our work is about personal things.” He told an anecdote (which it seemed he might not appreciate being repeated so I won’t) about mainstream actors feeling unchallenged and forceably (perhaps sadly) creating situations that would personally challenge them.

Sterlin Harjo’s response made me break out into a big grin. I can’t actually remember his response to the question but I can remember him saying that he is actually okay with people bootlegging his film because he won’t make money off of it anyway.  Success is not predominantly measured on an economic scale. When asked if the stakes are high for him, his reply was similary laid back and indicative of a different type of worldview. “My grandmother’s proud of me,” he said. And, after all, isn’t that what really counts?

When Silverman asked if the directors are trying to present counternarratives, Harjo (Seminole/Creek) said that if he did that, he would be taking someone else’s interpretation of him and responding to them. (I was glad he said that because I was just writing a paper about native dress and made a similar point about how too much emphasis is placed on counternarratives rather than different starting points.) I first heard about Harjo’s film Barking Water during that panel. I looked it up online and it doesn’t appear to be for sale yet and since I’m not into bootlegging — although your dubious permission is appreciated, Mr. Harjo : ) — I’m glad they’re screening it at the NMAI this coming Thursday. I worked extra hours last week so that I could take off early to see it! Harjo and one of the producrs will be there, too, which is cool because I really enjoyed his down-to-earth take on things.

Harjo and Lightning (Cree) both noted being nervous when their films were screened for their own communities. I was too shy to ask but I wondered how this differs from the experience of Eyre whose movie, Smoke Signals, reached a mainstream audience.

Pavel Rodríguez, who is P’urhepecha, noted that in Mexico, the films natives make are usually communal efforts. Even though his name is the one listed in the credits as director, the effort is communal one. The films are made with the tools available and not for a film industry. While researching for my paper, I found out that this is one of the reasons it is difficult for libraries to acquire these videos and films for our collections. Figuring out remuneration for an entire community and distributing is not so easy as it is with American (as in U.S.) films that are sold within an economic framework that is similar to mainstream movies.

Film Festivals, Panels

2009 Native American Film + Video Festival

Leave a comment

I attended the Native Networks Symposium held on Friday, March 24 at the 2009 Native American Film + Video Festival. Since this blog was born several months later, I am only just now posting my thoughts. I’ll put this out in three installments, one for each panel I attended and one for the film screening I was able to attend. But before I do, I’d like to wish the Film & Video Festival a very Happy 30th Anniversary!

The “Mobilizing for Survival” featured panelists Mario Murillo, of WBAI and associate professor at Hofstra University, who discussed ACIN, the Northern Cauca Indigenous Association and the Colombian government’s divisive tactics toward indigenous groups. As an example of the power of grassroots media, Murillo noted how community video broadcast on CNN countered governmental arguments that people were not getting killed during clashes in Colombia (see article and video at 46:23). There are 87 indigenous groups in Colombia.

Elias Paillán (Mapuche), who began his talk by playing a musical instrument and noting the importance of the Mapuche language and instruments as conveyors of information, spoke about invasions into Mapuche territory historically and the principles of duality/complementarity.

Paul M. Rickard (Cree), executive producer of the “Finding Our Talk” series discussed the importance of preserving native languages and how non-confrontational filmmaking on culture is also a way to make an impact. He noted that a 2001 study predicted that in a century, only 3 of 50 native languages would survive in Canada (Ojibway, Cree and Inuktitut). He discussed how difficult it is to get funding for programs on (not to mention official recognition of) native languages in the United States and Canada. One example of this is a Mohawk show that is dubbed, rather than subtitled, in English and French. He also acknowledged the difficulty of reaching a broad audience since shows are aired early in the morning. (This brought to mind how Latino shows on American television are also broadcast very early in the morning and how there is sometimes a call for more people to tune in in order to increase ratings and both maintain shows and bump them into better timeslots.)

Tonya Gonnella Frichner (Onondaga), President of the American Indian Law Alliance, noted how Canada supports native programming via funding more than the United States does. She also noted that the United States has a limited presence in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (the Eighth Session was held this May 18-29, 2009). Mario Murillo noted that if the United States gives little, Latin American governments give no support to native programming. They are mostly funded from abroad.

Next time, I’ll post some thoughts on the “Creating the Alternative: A Conversation with Four Directors” panel.