Randell 1

He Wannabe Connected: the problem of cultural authority in Dreamkeeper Americana American Studies Journal This is a term paper I wrote for a class called Literature and Culture of the American West that I submitted for the 2014 issue of the Americanaa student-run academic journal for Brigham Young Universitys American Studies program.

Randell 2 Films depicting Native Americans have shifted in the past twenty years from previously negative tropes to positive stereotyping. It was once standard to cast Italians as Kiowa and to relegate Natives to cultural otherhood as either bloodthirsty savages or friendly Tontos. As Roberta Pearson says in her essay Indianism?, stock Indians would play drums, chant, shoot arrows, take scalps, live in tepees, drink firewater, and speak standard substandard English (255). This is nothing new; from childhood we learn to sing What Makes the Red Man Red? from Walt Disneys Peter Pan and to play cowboys and Indians in the backyard. It is now more common, however, to see Native Americans typecast as wise, natural, brave, and noble without being the exceptional noble savage. Of course, these types are infinitely more positive than what had previously been presented by Classic Hollywood, but the inclusiveness of these positive images is still problematic. Are all Natives wise and filled with good medicine? Perhaps many are, but surely not all. Filmmakers, shamed by the former perpetuation of the Hollywood Indian, now generalize and cast most Natives as medicine-man-ecologists and brave warriors. Unlike the colonizing white men who destroy, steal, and disrespect the land, the Natives are wiser and altogether superior in their treatment of resources and relationships. Dances With Wolves, for instance, shows that the fort to which Dunbar find himself posted is a garbage dump, with its water polluted by dead animals, and we see that When slaughtering the buffalo, the whites take only a tiny part of the animal, leaving the rest to rot (Buscombe 140). This sympathetic view villainizes the whites as wasteful killers and the Natives as responsible and sensitive stewards of the land. The problem, however, is that this mea culpa approach to history still casts Natives as others and defines them by what whites are not: the same problem present in the previous negative stereotyping in film. Since whites primarily understood the Indian as an antithesis to

Randell 3 themselves, then civilization and Indianness as they defined them would forever be opposites (Robert Berkhofer, Jr., Qtd. Wallace 112). The definition has merely switched from You are savage; I am civilized to You are ideal; I am not. Furthering this problem of cultural generalization and widening racial gaps is the appropriation of various Native traditions as simply Indian. A practice that was once unique to Sioux or Comanche is now stitched together in a mass form of powwow culture, not only by whites, but by many Natives themselves. The 2003 Hallmark miniseries Dreamkeeper is a perfect example of this principle of inclusion and appropriation. Not only does Dreamkeeper conglomerate the mythologies of various tribes, but it suggests that whites (or any race) may possess what they propose to be inherently Native qualities; pushing past mere inclusiveness among indigenous peoples to a more universal inclusiveness of romanticized cultural values. This idea (basically the noble savage approach appropriated to all Natives and not just the exceptional few) is as old as Anglo-Native interaction. Think John Smith and Pocahontas, Natty Bumppo and the Mohicans, Tom Jeffords and the Apaches. These stories show a romanticized outlook on Native life and culture from the perspective of white men. Which leads to the root of the problem: why do these WASPs consider themselves authorities on what defines being Native? Why are these films praised as being authentic, when they are made by cultural outsiders? Positive stereotyping: the P.C. effect Films that represent any cultural group, but particularly Native Americans, are difficult to film nonproblematically. There has been so much negative stereotyping of Natives in American cinema that any films, such as Dances with Wolves, that seek to portray mostly positive types of

Randell 4 Natives are often overly romanticized and condescendingcommonly referred to as Native sympathy films. As Michelle H. Raheja says in her book Reservation Reelism: One of the more insidious effects of Hollywoods racial optics regime was that . . . the films served as pedagogy and knowledge production for spectators. These films have been highly influential in shaping perceptions of Native Americans as, for example, a dying race that is prone to alcoholism and is inherently unable and unwilling to adapt to change. Even in films that express admiration for Native Americans . . . seemingly respectful and balanced representations are often rooted in uncritical, problematic racial ideologies that reflect unexamined notions of Native American culture on the part of the director and on the part of North American society as a whole (x). Kevin Costners Dances With Wolves has, in particular, been criticized for this last element. Film critic Betsy Israel skewered the film by saying, In his back-bending effort to be sensitive, he so fetishized his Indians every gesture that many scenes suggest museum tableaux. And in the process . . . he portrayed his noble natives as exotic pets, primitive versions of Us who might be trained to like coffee (64). In efforts to be politically correct, white directors are actually attributing positively bent stereotypes to cultures that are not their own. Costners character, John Dunbar, is so enamoured [sic] of the Sioux that he wishes to become one, to merge his white identity into an Indian one (after he acquires an Indian name he says, When I heard my Sioux name being called over and over I knew for the first time who I really was) (Buscombe 140). In mere reversal of prior formulas, the whites are all crass bullies and the Natives are all harmoniously spiritual and family-oriented. Still, as Shari M. Hundorf argues in her book Going Native, Its not a film primarily about Indians, but about a white mans spiritual journey. And its overarching ideological project . . . is to show that there is at least one good white man, who

Randell 5 cares and understands (Qtd. Buscombe 142). Perhaps these types of films are an extreme effort to erase some of the white guilt caused by Hollywoods former treatment of indigenous people, but if so, they are missing the mark. To be fair, Dreamkeeper is very different from Dances With Wolves and many other sympathy films; but it still smacks of these generalizations. Like Dances With Wolves or Powwow Highway, nearly all of the characters in Dreamkeeper are Natives and are played by Native actors. The protagonist is a teenage Lakota Sioux boy named Shane, ironically the same name as a culturally influential, white cowboy hero. The story follows Shanes journey into adulthood as he drives his grandfather from their reservation in South Dakota to the All Nations Powwow in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Somewhat like Smoke Signals and other films, Dreamkeeper begins with a criticism of life on the rez. Shane is involved in a gang, has no father, and lives in poverty with his longsuffering mother. He steals a boom box from the other gang members to buy a ring for Mae Little Wounded, a girl on the reservation. His stealing disgusts Mae and the other members of the gang are out for revenge. To avoid his problems, Shane agrees to drive his grandfather to Albuquerque in exchange for his old truck. On the way, Grandfather, a professional storyteller, tells Shane Native legends from various tribal groups to teach his grandson life lessons. These stories are supposed to teach Shane to keep to the Red Road, a Lakota spiritual tradition that traces the spiritual life of an individual. To do this, Grandfather not only uses Lakota or Plains Indians tales, but also incorporates myths from various traditions from First Nations tribes in Canada to tribes in the far Southwest. This suggests, in the same vein as general powwow culture, that all Native tribes are connected in some wayeven ones who historically never had contact or shared tradition. These stories also support the idea that each tribe can be

Randell 6 labeled as having group characteristics. Lakota women like to be won and their men must earn the respect of their family; Kiowa are loyal and fearless warriors; Cheyenne are sacrificing and creative; Blackfeet are family-oriented. Grandfather uses these labels of loyalty, sacrifice, respect and so on to tell Shane that he, like the characters of these stories, is Indian and should seek to embody these traits. Traits of Natives from pasts that never really were; traits that can be attributed to all Natives. Considering that years ago Natives would label themselves not even according to tribe, but rather their clan within that tribe, makes this film a little problematic. If Grandfather defines what it means to be Native by these traits, then arguably the thesis of the film could be that anyone that possesses these traits can be considered a part of Native culture. Beads and feathers: breeding false authenticity As Grandfather tells the stories, the setting changes from modern day to the world of the legend he is telling. As is the case with Dreamkeeper, Sometimes Hollywood producers nod toward the Others perspective by attempting an unusual degree of ethnographic accuracy (Pearson, 257). The creators of Dreamkeeper did sincerely try to make each characters costume, makeup, properties, and dialect culturally accurate to the tribe the story is talking about. In the making-of clips for Dreamkeeper, the cultural advisors and several of the Native actors comment on the authenticity of the film. Sonny Richards, one of the cultural advisors, says, My part as a cultural advisor, were trying to make it as authentic as possible; so were trying to get the makeupmakeup is very important. So were bringing in a cultural advisor for each tribe. Like for the Northern Cheyenne theres a gentleman here when I came. Then John Fusco, the writer, jumps in and describes how this advisor contributed to one legend about a woman called Quillwork Girl: We have on set with us an elder from the Cheyenne nationhis name is Joe Little Coyoteand Joe advised that Quillwork Girls mother would have been in the quillwork

Randell 7 society and she would therefore have a cross on the bridge of her nose. A very small detail. We stop for those details and make sure that everythings right. The writer, directors, and producers seem to earnestly want to show an authentic representation of what it means to be Indian. Some of the actors speak of their appreciation for this focus on cultural authenticity. Even, if not especially, the parts of the film that are not about the legends but about life on the reservation were met with approval by Nathan Chasing Horse, one of the actors playing a gang member: I really like it how theyre putting messages out there through Shanes character because he was a gang member, and yet he come from a traditional family. His grandpas traditional. And cause we have a lot of Native Americans that are like that: they have a traditional family but yet the youth are more into the modern-day gang, hip-hop. And so, its kinda like a . . . its a good message to see that. Kinda have the Natives look at their own. Ya know, Wait this is happening on a movie? This seems familiar to me. (Dreamkeeper) Eddie Spears, the actor who plays Shane, says something along the same lines, Ive actually experienced some of the stuff that Shane has gone through. I hope it will show the things that a lot of us have to live through today on the reservations with the gangs, the violence, the poverty, with the loss of our traditions (Dreamkeeper) Its interesting to note that both boys focus on the modern-day aspect of the miniseries which actually takes up a very small amount of film time. The majority of the film is comprised of the legends Grandpa is telling Shane. This is important to note because the world of the legendsthe authentic Indiansare not what the actual Native actors relate to. When Natives are filmed from a white perspective, whether it is a sympathetic or negative one, the Natives are nearly always put in a historical setting or a green space where magic can occur. Dreamkeeper

Randell 8 does both. Probably none of the actors have experienced rustling horses, fighting Union soldiers, speaking with animals, or traveling to alternate spiritual worldsall events that occur in the legends. Its as if Natives cannot exist, at least as others perceive them, in any other settings. They must be in beads and feathers, or as Nathan Chasing Horse says, Traditional, to be authentic. This presents a problem because, obviously, these kinds of traditional people no longer really exist and could not exist today. By that I mean Natives do not walk around in buckskin spearing bison on the Great Plains anymoreunless its part of a tourist trap. Can Native people possess the qualities presented in the legends? Absolutely. In fact, that seems to be the thesis of the film. But the film also suggests that the qualities can only be introduced and presented by the past and that the qualities are inherent and attributable to all indigenous people. So really, the great authenticity of the miniseries only compounds the problem. As Pearson explains, The Hollywood film [that] causes the Indian character to speak his native language . . . perhaps grant[s] his narration a greater authenticity (246). One of the other actors, Floyd Red Crow Westerman, lauds the film by saying: Thats what being Indian is about is spirit world, power. Where does that come from? Where does direction come from? Where do we find it? What do you listen to? As long as he listened to the spirit of the horse, he had a direction. Even one of the legends in this movie showed how this young boy had a stone of his father that kept his spirit there and he was able to do many things because he followed the spirit of the stone, the message it was giving him. (Dreamkeeper) For Floyd, this is what being Indian is about, but for others this may not be true. By pushing the idea of authenticity so much, the creators of this film lead the audience to buy these ideas of generalized cultural values and the inability to separate from the past.

Randell 9 Through the white mans lens Its very hard when you get into a culture to tell the tales that are so disconnected from your own culture; unless the material is already very well researched and is coming from a place that totally understands that culture. And this one, as soon as I read it, you can feel the authenticity of the writing. (Steve Barron, Director of Dreamkeeper) This focus on Native authenticity is ironic in a film written, directed, and produced by white men. The executive producer is actually Hungarian so he doesnt even have an American perspective. Besides the Native cultural advisors, the films only claim to authenticity comes from the writer, John Fusco. In the making-of footage, Fusco says: Hallmark approached me because they were aware of a Native background that I have, not through blood but through [a Lakota adoption ceremony], or an extended family. I was adopted into a family in 1989 on the reservation and given an Indian name . . . Thunder Heart. So I had a real extended family around me on this, Native people, many of them are advisors on this show right now. Fusco, whose work primarily focuses on westerns, has been criticized in the past for portraying a similar message in the Walt Disney film, Hidalgo. Frank T. Hopkins, the protagonist of Hidalgo, claims to be descended from a real Lakota Indian princess. Despite the fact that even slight research shows that this is very obviously a myth that was spread by Hopkins himself, both Fusco and the Disney Company pushed the idea that it was an amazing true story. This shows that Fusco is more interested in the story that he wants to tell, not necessarily what is accurate. An aspect of Hidalgo that is even more troubling in Dreamkeeper is Fuscos assumption that outside cultures can assimilate and become part of a very different cultural heritagesomething he obviously believes as he was adopted into a tribe. In Dreamkeeper there is a white character

Randell 10 (billed as red-headed stranger) who is also heading to the All Nations Powwow. He sees Shane and Grandpa in a diner and earnestly engages in the following dialogue: Red-Headed Stranger: Hey brothers! Yall headed to the All Nations? Grandpa: Yeah. Red-Headed Stranger: Cool beans! Cool beans! Me too. What tribe? Grandpa: Were Sioux. Pine Ridge, South Dakota. Red-Headed Stranger: Hey, alright! My great-grandmothers grandmother, well her aunt, she was one-third Kiowa! Shane, understandably, rolls his eyes and tells the eager stranger that they dont have room in the truck to give him a ride. As the stranger walks away, he derisivel y sneers, Wannabe. Grandpa, however says, Maybe he wannabe connected . . . Long ago it was said the white man would look on in disbelief as his sons and daughters began to adopt the Indian way. To learn what their fathers didnt understand. Yeah. Hes a wannabe. He wannabe connected. This is certainly a sympathetic cultural view from an outsider, the main problem being the question of what exactly is the Indian way? And more importantly, who gets to decide its definition. In Dreamkeeper, despite being surrounded by Natives, that person is John Fusco. This automatically makes the story and film inauthenticthe view is from the anthropologist gone native. No matter how much he claims to be part of the culture, hes not and could never really be. The truly astonishing part is that because of his background, Hallmark and others assume that he has more knowledge and authority than most actual Nativesa troublingly racist viewpoint. As Buscombe says, Theres no doubt that telling the story through the eyes of a white man skews the films view of Indians (143). This is why, although Native sympathy films may be praised as groundbreaking, no ground has truly been broken unless films go the Smoke

Randell 11 Signals route and film a story using all Native talent. The great thing about Smoke Signals is that its not even about being Indian or racial angst; its a film about family relationships, particularly fathers and sons. Until filmmakers feel comfortable enough to push away from traditional portrayals of Natives, positive or negative, no progress will be made. Buscombe probably said it best when he wrote that if there were more Native filmmakers we wouldnt get alternative Westerns, in which the Indians win, because if Indians make films it seems unlikely that they would want to make Westerns. They have their own stories (143).

Randell 12 Works Cited 1. Buscombe, Edward. Injuns!: Native Americans in the movies. Cornwall: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2006. 139150. Print. 2. Dreamkeeper. Dir. Steve Barron. Perf. August Schellenberg, Eddie Spears. Hallmark, 2003. DVD. 3. Israel, Betsy. Boo the Right Thing. American Film. 16.8 (1991): 64. Web. 4. Pearson, Roberta E. Indianism? Classic Hollywood, Classic Whiteness. Ed. Daniel Bernardi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. 245259. Print. 5. Raheja, Michelle H. Reservation Reelism: Redfacing, Visual Sovereignty, and Representations of Native Americans in Film. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011. Print. 6. Roetman, Elizabeth A. On the road to Hidalgo: Native American Representation and Performance in contemporary film. Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, April 2, 2004, Dallas, Texas. University of Nebraska-Omaha. Web. 7. Wallace, Karen. The Redskins and The Paleface. Classic Hollywood, Classic Whiteness. Ed. Daniel Bernardi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. 111117. Print.