Reel Injun

PBS.Independent.Lens.Reel.Injun.2010.HDTV.x264.AAC.MVGroup.Forum

A must see for anyone who is interested in Native American Culture. This film, directed by a Native American, explores the misrepresentation of Native Americans in Hollywood over the years. As he travels the US, the film takes us on a journey through Hollywood's portrayal of Native Americans from the very beginning to the emergence of Native filmmakers and stars. It is thought-provoking, smart, funny, and real. Some of the truths shown are cringe-worthy, but it's something we should all see.

I learned a TON from this film. I started watching it thinking I had a good handle on just how terrible Hollywood has been to the cause of First Nations education, but I was wrong. From the revelation of a SURPRISING number of Hollywood actors who are still alive and have played First Nations peoples in their careers to the surprisingly obvious (how did I not realize this?!) fact that nearly all portrayals of First Nations Peoples on film are of the Plains People - feathered war bonnets and all! There is truly so much that is positive that I could say about this film, but the most important of which is the fact that it has been funded, produced and released to the wider public at TIFF and various other means (I myself watched it on television, yaay!) and it is largely the work of First Nations artists and community. I hope that funding continues so that further quality works like this can be released! Truly a revelation!

I was really looking forward to seeing this documentary. In fairness, it does live up to its promise to expose the "Hollywood Indian" as a fabrication. But seriously, who didn't already know that - at least to some degree? What Reel Injun fails to do is offer any substantial new insight into the reality of Aboriginal cultures. There's so much rich diversity, and yet we learn next to nothing about any particular group. There's a place in the documentary where the point is made that relatively few Americans actually know an Aboriginal person. It's unfortunate that Reel Injun doesn't do much to help in that regard. Maybe I was expecting too much from an 86 minute doc. Hopefully there will be a follow up to Reel Injun that focuses more on who Aboriginal people are, as opposed to what they are not.

The movie was very educational and told the truth about how Native Americans have been represented in film throughout history. It was interesting to see how they have been misrepresented, mistreated, generalized, and taken advantage of in films. People have become ignorant regarding the truth about Native Americans because of the image that Hollywood paints for them. Thankfully things are slowly changing and that the true story of Native Americans is starting to be told in Hollywood. The film did leave me wanting to know more toward the end and I feel like it did not come full circle and complete what it started.

This native-directed documentary about Hollywood portrayals of First Nations through the years is appealing, good-humored, and watchable, and will be a valuable educational tool. However, it would have been more valuable (and may be yet; this screening was apparently not the final cut) if its various flaws were addressed. There is a sense throughout of the film biting off more than it can chew. The "journey" framing device - in which Diamond heads out on the road to visit various real-life locations of cinematic lore - works case-by-case, but there's no through line and Diamond isn't on screen enough to establish a presence. While one sees the need to address on screen portrayals' relationship to the realities of early colonialism, 70s AIM activism, macho Indian-themed summer camps etc, these byways reduce the space for the central discussion of the movies themselves. Instead things drift toward pat decade-indexed generalizations, so that in the 70s Billy Jack leads directly to Wounded Knee - quite a stretch! While one can readily understand that native viewers don't much like John Ford westerns, presenting the racist cowboy of The Searchers as a direct expression of the filmmakers' attitudes is asking for trouble. And if you're going to show Little Big Man to an elementary school audience to gauge their reaction, then SHOW US the damn reaction! The best talkers of the film are activist John Trudell and comic Charlie Hill, but as insightful as they are, the native stunt man and costume designer do a better service to the movie's themes. (And please spare me the Robbie Robertson star turn!) And in the end everyone lives happily ever after in rose-colored Celluloid Closet style. All that said, though, the film also reveals the existence of a self-portraying Native cinema in the silent era, translates some hilarious Lakota profanity from a vintage western, and highlights the tragedy of the secretly triracial early movie star Buffalo Child Long Lance, among other revelations. Its moments of insight earn it a more than passing grade in spite of its failings.

I found this one to be very informative about the all the negative stereotypes that Native people all over Turtle Island used to face a lot through images seen about them on TV and the big screen!! Fortunately, it isn't as bad as it used to be in my opinion since Natives are being viewed as a lot more human. However the damage had already been done ever since motion pictures were invented during the turn of the century and many STILL see Native folks as "savages" who are "noble", "stoic", etc. It's pathetic that EVEN TODAY mainstream society still sees them in such a negative manner! I am personally appalled by the old Hollywood views of Native people and I wish they would just vanish into thin air! But.. ANYWAYS... that's my scoop on this program and why I voted 9 out of 10.

It's important that you understand that this film IS directed by Neil Diamond. However, it is NOT the Neil Diamond that middle-aged ladies love to listen to but just someone with the same name. Do NOT approach the singer and congratulate him on this movie--he'll probably think you are a nut! This film is about the depictions of Native Americans in film and the stereotypes that you'll see in them. The film has some wonderful facts that really are interesting. It also has a really, really good point to make--that too often, they are treated as a monolithic group and not as people. Both the ridiculously noble as well as the crazed, blood-thirsty killer image are one-dimensional and really miss the mark. The film does a GREAT job in pointing this out and featured tones of wonderful interviews and clips of films with positive depictions. While I heartily recommend the film, I do have one big gripe with it. While it does not destroy the overall message at all, I really disliked how the film unfairly maligned John Ford and John Wayne by making a very broad over-generalization. While there was SOME truth that Wayne popularized killing 'Indians' in film, he and Ford did NOT create this myth of the evil native. In fact, several times Ford and Wayne made films that said the exact opposite. Yet, oddly, the film used one of these wonderfully sympathetic films to try to prove its case--a situation where the film makers either really did NOT see the film or they deliberately misrepresented it. They showed many clips from "The Searchers" and pointed out that Wayne was popularizing the evil Indian myth. This is the exact opposite of the meaning of this film. Wayne plays a man who is crazed--who is obsessed with killing these people. And, he is clearly BAD and the film condemns him for this!!! Also, other examples where Wayne and Ford made the natives real sympathetic people are also ignored in the film--a great example being "Fort Apache"--where Wayne argues with his commanding officer--insisting that the natives be treated with respect and honesty. To me, their anti-Ford/anti-Wayne argument is SOMETIME correct (such as in "Stagecoach") and sometimes not---and is, oddly, a case of stereotyping. Next time, think through your film analysis better--it would have made this a perfect or near-perfect documentary. Instead, it can detract from the film when the viewer is savvy concerning these films.

REEL INJUN does Injustice justice: we see early examples of White Men in Blackface, in Black and White- and then White Men in Redface, in Color(ed?)... I always get a big kick out of seeing actors who clearly AREN'T "American Indians" (which is an oxymoron) pompously spouting ridiculous dialogue. The translations shown in REEL INJUN are hilarious. I never knew that "Iron Eyes" Cody was Sicilian; a bit of a revelation, that. That he took the Part to Heart was touching: you can be who- or what- you WANT to be in this life. The juxtaposition of Reel Injuns with Real World Injuns brought the mixed message(s) home quite clearly (one can't look at the horrific photos of the original Massacre at Wounded Knee and NOT understand the dichotomous yawning chasm between Reality and Reel "reality"). My favorite line in the movie was delivered by the young comic: A group of White Men ride up to an "American Indian" and say, "Where road go?" The "Amerind" replies: "Road STAY. YOU go." I heard somewhere that The Emancipation proclamation, which freed slaves of African descent, didn't apply to Native Americans: it was still legal to own Indian slaves...

The title "Reel Injun" is a play on the words 'real Indian' and is very appropriate because it focuses on the roles of American Indians in cinema ('reels') over the years. It covers the whole scenery, from Indians being featured in the very first "motion pictures", a series of photos on a wheel that would appear in motion when the crank was turned, all the way to present time when Indians are making their own movies about their own people, portrayed the way they really are. The history of the American Indian over the past 500-odd years is a really sad one. There were many tribes, of a mostly peaceful people. But the early settlers from Europe looked at them as savages, and ruthlessly killed or imprisoned them, banishing them from the land that had been their home for centuries. I remember as a kid growing up in the 1950s, learning about American History and seeing western movies, never giving a second thought about it. But now as a somewhat wiser adult I can see what an injustice it all was. So naturally Indians were portrayed as savages in early western motion pictures, building on that false stereotype. Gradually through the years their portrayal has gotten more and more realistic. The surviving Indians just want to be considered 'human' because that is what they are. They want the same treatment and opportunities as others in "the land of the free." Good film, it is hard to watch without shedding a tear here and there. One of the humorous parts, there was a famous actor Iron Eyes Cody, who became sort of an icon of "the real Indian" in movies. It turns out Iron Eyes was of Italian descent, born of immigrants in Gueydan, Louisiana, less than two months before my own father was born in the same general area. Iron Eyes' birth name was Espera Oscar DeCorti but was sympathetic to the Indian culture and lived his whole adult life as an Indian. Yes, we are all humans, we all come from different tribes, at different times in history.