Pan gets panned

Many people complained about the casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily before Pan came out. But I didn't see anyone talking about this casting after Pan came out. Amid a welter of bad reviews, the movie quickly sank from sight.

Here are a couple of typical reviews that mention Rooney Mara's role:

'Pan' review: A movie so resoundingly godawful that you have to see it

By Josh DickeyHook and Peter manage to escape the mine pit, but are at cross purposes: Peter has got it in his head that his mother is here, while Hook just wants to get "home." And if everything you've read so far seems like a barrel of hot nonsense, well, buckle up, because you're about to meet Tiger Lily if everything you've read so far seems like a barrel of hot nonsense, well, buckle up, because you're about to meet Tiger Lily.

Rooney Mara's casting as the Native American princess got its share of blowback when it was announced. Politically it wasn't a great move, but creatively it was worse. Mara's icy detachment worked for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but here she just seems weird and slightly mean, the leader of a tribe of mostly people of color who wear ghastly bright rainbow streaks and warpaint and do a lot of coordinated dance-fighting.Pan Review

By Sandy SchaeferSpeaking of Blackbeard: the character is essentially a tweaked version of the Captain Hook character in Pan, and Hugh Jackman very much chews the scenery while he’s playing the role–sometimes for the better, sometimes not–but ultimately, the Blackbeard character fails to add anything new to the Peter Pan mythology that the (older) Hook before him didn’t (sidenote: Blackbeard also gets an exceptionally weird introduction in the film). Similarly, the decision to make the natives of Neverland a multi-ethnic group, rather than literal Native Americans, helps to distinguish Pan from Peter Pan adaptations past–but only on a surface level. The same goes for the decision to play up the warrior aspect of Tiger Lily’s personality, yet not give Rooney Mara much else to work with.

Pan falls short at being either an imaginative origin story for Peter Pan and/or a satisfying standalone big-budget fantasy adventure, when all is said and done. Director Joe Wright’s usual inventiveness as a cinematic storyteller gets lost amidst the CGI malaise of the film, while the movie’s attempt to craft a more complicated mythology out of the relatively simple Peter Pan story might’ve worked–but would have required a far less conventional and run of the mill approach, in order to do so.

Comment:  Now that the movie's out, we can say a few things about its execution.

1) The multi-ethnic "world tribe" of brown-skinned people is nothing new. In fact, that seems to be the default in Peter Pan productions these days.

Alas, it doesn't solve the racism problem. It merely shifts the problem from Native Americans in particular to indigenous people in general.

In almost every production, the pirates are white and the natives are brown. With their ships and guns, the pirates represent civilization--of the 19th century, at least. With their wooden weapons and half-naked outfits, the natives represent savagery. This is a core message of Western Civilization and the latest Pan merely repeats it.

2) Joe Wright talked about how wonderful Rooney Mara would be as Tiger Lily. No one seems to have shared that opinion. Whether Mara was poorly (1st review) or Tiger Lily was poorly written (2nd review), no one liked the character.

I'm guessing Wright didn't think deeply about Mara's ability to play an indigenous princess. I'll bet he thought, "She's small and sprite-like just like Peter Pan. She won't overshadow him as Jennifer Lawrence, Michelle Rodriguez, or Zoe Saldana would. Let's intentionally make her a lesser character so Peter shines as the 'chosen one.'"

Is that how you honor an indigenous character? No, that's how you whitewash one. It's a classic case of how "racebending" a character serves to neuter her.

For more on Peter Pan, see "From Tiger Lily to Green Inferno" and Natives Protest Tiger Lily Casting.

"From Tiger Lily to Green Inferno"

From Tiger Lily to Green Inferno: The Ethnocidal Exploits of Joe Wright, Eli Roth, and Hollywood

By Johnnie JaeInstead of waxing poetic about the ethnocidal liberties that were taken with the portrayal of the indigenous people, I wish Joe Wright had taken a cue from Spielberg’s Hook. Rather than serving up the same racist characterizations or promoting the ethnocidal “melting pot” present in Warner Bros. Pan, there was no Tigerlily and there was no tribe. There was no dehumanization of indigenous people, no opportunity for an actress to describe her movements as an indigenous warrior as ‘animalistic’. There was no opportunity to misappropriate an entire people’s identity and culture. There was no glorification or servitude to the “Great White Father” figure (Pan) or White Savior Industrial Complex, which brings us to Eli Roth’s The Green Inferno.

IMDB describes the plot of The Green Inferno in the following words:

“A group of student activists travels to the Amazon to save the rain forest and soon discover that they are not alone, and that no good deed goes unpunished.”

This is a huge improvement from the original description released last year that described the plot as “A group of student activists travel from New York City to the Amazon to save a dying tribe. Unfortunately, they crash in the jungle and are taken hostage by the very natives they protected.”

After watching this trailer, I’m sure many of you are not surprised by this characterization of indigenous people. Disgusted, but not surprised. In true Hollywood fashion, Eli Roth, like Joe Wright, glorifies the White Savior Industrial Complex and the “Kill the Indian, Save the Man” propaganda.And:Last year, when I first wrote about The Green Inferno, I wrote that:

“While it is just a movie and while it may not have been Eli Roth’s intention, this movie will negatively affect the way that people will treat the struggles of these isolated and uncontacted tribes. Dehumanizing them, making them into monsters will only help to justify the genocide of these aboriginal people because it causes people to lose their ability to empathize and to see these tribal people as fellow human beings. It instills fear and the belief that they deserve what they get for not joining ‘civilized’ society.”Comment:  I commented on these movies in postings such as Natives Protest Tiger Lily Casting and Cannibal Indians in Green Inferno.

The following image suggests how badly The Green Inferno stereotypes Indians as bizarre and inhuman.

Take back Tiger Lily?

"What's There to Take Back"

By Tiffany MidgeRecently, an online indie publication put out a call for submissions based on the theme of “Taking Back Tiger Lily.”

“This project seeks submissions from Native American artists, re-creating Tiger Lily to fit a real model of Indigenous womanhood…”

The way I see it, what this call for submissions is suggesting, and bear with me because I’m being sarcastic here, is that somehow Indian people are in such dire need, are apparently at such a loss for Native American role models to look up to, have no cultural heroes or icons to claim as their very own, that the only solution is to exhume from the mausoleum of twentieth century relics, the Disney cartoon character Tiger Lily–who, in the 1950s, was brought to universal consciousness, ushered into the hearts and imaginations of millions; shrink-wrapped, merchandised, packaged and delivered by a much-rumored-to-be-anti-Semite and a gender-bigot. Fast forward to 2015, this call for submissions proposes that Tiger Lily be resuscitated, repurposed, attempt a re-prescriptive and re-appropriated identity. Here she is, Ms. America-n Indian!

Midge does not agree with this project's goals:It’s difficult for me to visualize Tiger Lily as any sort of symbol of empowerment considering she never spoke a word. If this image is being used as a symbol, speechlessness and victimhood is pretty symbolic. Throughout most of the film she was tied up and at the mercy of pirates, so I fail to see how her legacy would arouse anyone’s admiration beyond that as an exotic rival for Peter Pan’s affections. Add that to the fact that she is a projected piece of celluloid; she bears no resemblance to anyone or anything remotely Indigenous, and certainly bears no resemblance to anyone or anything remotely real. I find this “project,” at best, fetishistic and essentializing, and at worst, apologist and racist. It upholds and privileges a white supremacist power structure.

There is no “taking back,” no “reclamation” of an idea that never belonged to Indians in the first place. A writer friend of mine noted, “Reclaim Sambo? Taking back Sambo for whose sake?” I echo that. Would anyone want to reclaim Frito Bandito? Aunt Jemima? Charlie Chan? God, no. These images are analogous to images of Tiger Lily. They are made from the same poison. The same polluted well. The suggestion is unsettling, volatile and creates a something’s-very-wrong-about-this, sick-to-my-stomach kind of feeling.Comment:  For more on Tiger Lily, see Native Stereotypes in Peter Pan Live! and Natives Protest Tiger Lily Casting.

Below:  Take back these stereotypical images? And do what with them?

Debating Peter Pan Live!

While I watched Peter Pan Live!, I did a bit of live-blogging on Facebook. I didn't plan to debate the production, but a couple of people responded and we were off.

Things started innocuously enough:

Off to Neverland

Watching Peter Pan Live!--the must-see event of the year!

I have a radical new idea for a remake: Cast a teenage boy to play Peter Pan the teenage boy. You know, instead of a grown woman.

Yes, I'm brilliant, I know. Thank you, thank you.

Didn't Christopher Walken used to sound normal when he was young? Now he sounds like he's doing a Christopher Walken impression.Casting a teenage boy presents a lot of issues from a musical theater perspective.It can't be much worse than trying to convince oneself that 26-year-old Allison Williams is a teenage boy. I'm not buying it.

I bet Daniel Radcliffe could've nailed it.Of course, a 25 year old man is much more convincing...it's about the voice, for one, and the ages of the Darling children.I meant when he was a teenager. "Cast a teenage boy [such as Radcliffe when he was a teenager] to play Peter Pan the teenage boy."

Problems arise

Race in ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬: Nine of the ten Lost Boys are white. The first four of Tiger Lily's tribe look brown-skinned and ethnic.

Even if the "tribal" actors are white, they're adorned with broad stripes of brown color. This conveys the impression that they're brown.

The tribesmen wear bone chokers and breastplates, and round pendants--like Indians. They tend to creep on all fours--like animals. ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬

The Lost Boys, including Michael Darling dressed as an Indian, reject Wendy's attempt to teach them how to avoid war. That's because Lost Boys, like Indian savages, are uncivilized.As near as I can tell, the Natives are also generic (tribally too unspecific).Yes, they're generic. But making them so doesn't solve the problem, it only redirects it.

The problem is that Peter's Lost Boys are wild, undisciplined, and ignorant because they have no rules, responsibilities, or parents. No law and order. In a word, they're uncivilized. And Tiger Lily's tribesmen are the same.

The message is that Lost Boys = indigenous people = savages. Whether the tribe is from the Americas, Africa, or Asia and the Pacific Islands doesn't really matter. The story is an indictment of all indigenous cultures. It suggests they're akin to children frolicking in the jungle, or animals in human form.As someone who grew up with this kind of unfounded, blatant, erroneous picture of Natives, I have only been condemning specific issues in these cases. But I am thrilled that we are finally at a place where we can finally address the broader ignorance issues that needs to be ended. Especially in popular media and entertainment.On the other hand:For heaven's sakes, it's FANTASY, it's silliness, it's choreographed -- did you notice how realistic the plants and trees were? *not*

Maybe you can go after "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" next time.Are you seriously going to argue that people haven't gotten their ideas about Indians from Western movies, sports mascots, and corporate logos--all of which are forms of fiction? In fact, people absorb messages about reality from whatever they see, including fiction. As a few centuries of novels, plays, movies, TV shows, and comic books have proved.

So we should say nothing about racist stereotypes in movies or TV shows because they're "fantasies"? How about school plays, paintings and statues, or songs? Did you miss the last ten thousand times I criticized racist stereotypes in our culture?

A blackface minstrel show is just a fantasy. As is a Halloween party with Pocahotties and "Nava-hoes." Really, you expect me to give these a pass because they're "fantasies" like Peter Pan? As the last 20 years of my work has demonstrated, that's not gonna happen.

Lost Boys = Lord of the Flies?Haven't missed a one of your criticisms, and most often agree with them (although I'm protesting your NIGA group for its abominable acronym). I guess you've protested Peter Pan for 30 or more years now?

The Halloween analogy is false -- stupid women wanting to be "Nava-hoes" doesn't compare to Barrie's play, nor the musical. And if you knew the story, you would not put = between Lost Boys and the Indians in the show -- the Lost Boys are a different group altogether.

We've had plenty of literature, that for better or worse, deals with issues like this. Do we ban it all, or do we learn? Would you remove Lord of the Flies from the libraries (after all, they were certainly "Lost Boys" who became quite savage)?The Indian savages perform the same function as the Lost Boys. They run and play in the forest, follow Peter Pan, and fight the pirates. They're different but equivalent groups.

That's why I said the message is that they're the same. Not that they're literally the same.

I didn't say my examples--the minstrel show and Halloween party--were alike in terms of "quality." But they're all examples of employing fictional or fantasy characters. They're alike in that regard.

And saying my analogy is "false" isn't much of an argument. Explain why it's false if you can.

In fact, anyone can present a racial stereotype and claim they're just "play-acting" or "pretending." If racism in "fantasy" is harmless, it's harmless whether it's a minstrel show, a Halloween party, or "Peter Pan." I say it's harmful in all these cases so the "fantasy" defense is rubbish.

I don't think the Lord of the Flies boys dressed specifically like Indians. Tiger Lily's tribe did. We're talking about characters who use racial stereotypes to represent a particular group--in this case, Indians or indigenous people. We're not talking about anyone who becomes "savage" in any way.

We're also not talking about censoring or removing Peter Pan. You invented that straw man because I didn't say a word about it. My solution is to fix the racist and sexist elements of this play and then present it.

If you want to present the original story with its racism and sexism, go ahead. You do that and I'll criticize it, just as I've done here.

Do we ban it or do we learn from it? I'm helping people learn from it by educating them about its racism and sexism. You're doing the opposite: telling people to ignore its problems and simply enjoy it as a "fantasy." Don't talk to us about "learning" when you're advocating the opposite.

P.S. My official critique of Peter Pan is 10 years old:

Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations

I found every line about Indians in Barrie's original book to make sure I didn't miss anything. I understand his racist stereotyping well.

No doubt I mentioned the play and the Disney movie before then. And yet Peter Pan is only one of a thousand topics I've dealt with over the years. The facts prove there's no "obsession" here, so your claim is false and insulting.

You say you haven't missed my criticisms, yet you're surprised I criticized Peter Pan. Criticized it the same way I've criticized countless comic books, cartoons, video games, and other things that qualify as fantasies for children. So why are you surprised?

To reiterate, I've criticized Peter Pan and movies, TV shows, and plays like it many times before. My actions have been completely consistent so your surprise is illogical. In fact, the only surprise would be if I ignored a spectacle featuring Indians in prime-time television.

Racist and sexist, too

On the gender front, ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬ may be even worse. Girls = mothers = caretakers and servants = nags and scolds = killers of fun and freedom.

Wendy should slap some sense into Peter. "You say you want a mother, but you don't want to do anything I say? What do you think a mother is, you stupid twit?

"If you want someone to serve you, go hire a maid or a butler. I've got better things to do than to babysit babies."

Now she's singing about how she wants to kiss Peter Pan. Even a century ago, girls went for the charming bad boys who would love 'em and leave 'em. All Peter needs is a leather jacket and motorcycle to seal the deal.

Back to the racial issues:

If you want a race of animal-like savages, make them bestial for real. Centaurs, cat people, talking bears, etc. Or make them toy soldiers come to life a la Toy Story. There's really no excuse to equate savages with indigenous people. ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬

Getting a closer look at Tiger Lily's tribe as they dance. Perhaps half the actors are nonwhite. All have dark hair and several have dreadlocks. Shoes look like moccasins. Definitely an Afro-Indian vibe. ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬

And they're mixing the Wyandotte song title with "Hickory dickory dock" and "Tweedledee, tweedledum." Well, gee, thanks for making it clear that Native languages aren't just singsong nonsense words.

Not to mention the tom-tom beats and chanting that echo a thousand old Westerns. They aren't even subtle. This is obviously an "Indian" song in everything but name.

And Tiger Lily says Peter is the sun and the moon. Good thing she praised the "great white father" only once in this scene, or it would be unbearable.

Peter is mystified that Wendy, Tinkerbell, and Tiger Lily all want more from him. Why are girls so needy and clingy? Why can't they be strong and independent, like boys?! ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬Do you know when this story was written, what society was like at the time?It was written around the time when Dorothy traveled to Oz, took command of her destiny (more or less), and proceeded without any thought of clinging to a man or becoming a mother.

That was several decades after Alice had her solo adventures in Wonderland. A couple of centuries after Jane Austen's heroines showed what strong, independent women could do. Are you seriously arguing that having all three female characters long for Peter was a sign of the times? That authors like Barrie couldn't conceive of any other way of thinking?

And the producers are putting the play on in 2014, not 1902 when it was written. They're responsible for how its sexist message plays today. If you or they don't want anyone criticizing the sexism, don't put it on the air now. Leave it and the racist savages in the dustbin of history where they belong.

Next up: How Santa's message of toys for everyone obscures the structural poverty built into our society.

Tinkerbell must die

Captain Hook's "brilliant" plan to kill Peter Pan is to poison him. He puts the poison in Peter's medicine while he sits next to the sleeping Peter. How about stabbing him in the chest instead? ‪#‎PeterPanDead‬

But Tinkerbell drinks it instead! What a bumbler that Hook is!

Tweet to save Tinkerbell? #TinkerbellMustDie

Now Peter is speaking to the audience, telling us to clap if we believe in fairies. Die, you little piece of CGI fakery!!

Odd. The swelling music seems to indicate we should be filled with joy, not laughter at this silliness.You must have had a very sad childhood -- and I'm not trying to insult. That a grown man is so obsessed with a little musical that children love is worrisome. When I was a little girl, I thought Mary Martin was speaking directly to me. I found joy in the show, and still do. Lovely music, great dancing, lots of fun.As I said, I've posted critiques and analyses of thousands of Native stereotypes. I'm not sure Peter Pan is even in the top 25 or 50 of the subjects I've covered. Despite the fact that it's one of the longest-running and most prominent purveyors of Native stereotypes in existence.

If you're worried that I spent a couple of hours posting a few comments about one play, I'd hate to see your reaction to the subjects I've actually focused on. You know, things like the Washington Redskins and other mascots, The Lone Ranger and Twilight, and hipster headdresses. I guess you'd be amazed at my rock-solid opposition to racist stereotypes wherever they occur.

P.S. My childhood was stunningly normal, not "sad." I'm incredulous that you've suddenly discovered that I criticize things. If you somehow missed my last 10,000 postings, check them again. You'll see a decades-long pattern of denouncing racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.

If you don't like that, sorry, but that's what I do. I thought it was obvious, but now you know.

Here are some of the criticisms directed at this production:

http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/notyourtigerlily-nine-months-later-still-dont-get-point/

https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/12/05/keene-why-fix-tiger-lily-why-cant-we-just-let-her-go-158155

http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2014/12/true-blood-brothers-in-nbcs-production.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/the_boggling_mixed_signals_of_peter_pan_live_why_on_earth_did_nbc_decide_to_stage_this_show/

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/06/the_7_worst_things_about_nbcs_peter_pan_live_partner/

I guess a lot of people are "obsessed" or had "sad" childhoods. Which are obvious codewords for, "Stop criticizing my beloved fairy tale, you can't make me think about its racism and sexism, la la la la la I can't hear you!"

A tweet to sum up the racial issues:

Tiger Lily's tribe in ‪#‎PeterPanLive‬: brown skins, body paint, bone chokers and breastplates, crawling on all fours--but not stereotypical?!

For more on Peter Pan, see Native Stereotypes in Peter Pan Live! and Peter Pan Live! Reviewed.

Native stereotypes in Peter Pan Live!

Let's turn from the overall production of Peter Pan Live! to its Native aspects. First, the problems in the source material:

What's up, Tiger Lily? Peter Pan and the Native American stereotype that has certainly grown old

NBC featured an actress of Cherokee descent, but some say Rooney Mara’s forthcoming film turn will merely be ‘redface’. Is there any way to redeem JM Barrie’s most dated character?

By Alan YuhasIn the 1904 play and 1911 novel that brought Peter Pan to fame, Barrie calls Tiger Lily a princess of a “Piccaninny tribe.” She has all the trappings we now recognize from the worst sort of Native American stereotype. Tiger Lily puts her ear to the earth, breaks out a peace pipe, and speaks with her cohorts in guttural gibberish. Most uncomfortably, Barrie is not only prolific with the word “redskin” but also has Tiger Lily rapturously declare Peter “the Great White Father,” after he saves her life.

There is, however, “something about Peter that captivated everyone and let Barrie get away with a lot,” said Anne Hiebert Alton, a professor at Central Michigan University and the editor of a scholarly edition of Peter Pan. From Barrie’s perspective, she said, the world divided easily between the British and everyone else.

“He’s not being consciously racist,” she said. “But we still can’t let him off the hook.”

Barrie’s works do stink of their era. He turns Tiger Lily into a hero but makes sure she is subservient to Peter; he treats her tribe as better than the true enemy (pirates, adults) but not nearly as important as the heroes (boys, kids, not girls). Alton also pointed out that Barrie died in 1937–long before anyone thought to take issue with his portrayal of Native Americans.

The production tried to fix the problems:

Ugg-A-Wha? Updating Stereotypes in ‘Peter Pan’

By Jeremy EgnerAll of which put the casting of Tiger Lily and a reworking of the song “Ugg-A-Wugg” near the top of the list of things NBC’s new “Peter Pan Live!,” which debuts at 8 p.m. Thursday Eastern time, had to get right.

“Tiger Lily needed to be Native American—that’s how Barrie conceived the role,” said Neil Meron, an executive producer. But the treatment can’t be “insulting to the Native American community,” he said.

Enter Alanna Saunders, 22, who graduated from the University of Miami in May and had lived in New York for roughly two weeks before she saw a flyer seeking Native American actors to audition for Tiger Lily. Ms. Saunders, a descendant of the Cherokee Nation, won the part and is thus starting her professional career on a live network extravaganza before an audience of millions, sharing the stage with the likes of Christopher Walken (as Captain Hook).

“It feels so ridiculous that I got this opportunity,” she said from the set last week.

Ms. Saunders brought no expectations to the production, she said, mostly because she had so little experience to draw upon. But she was curious about how “Peter Pan Live!” was going to handle one of the musical’s most famous numbers.

“I was thinking, ‘There’s no way they can do “Ugg-A-Wugg,”’” she said. “Because the lyrics are gibberish, and they’re pretty offensive in terms of trying to be any sort of authentic Native American reference.”

The song is a duet between Tiger Lily and Peter Pan, in which the islanders and Peter’s Lost Boys form an alliance against Captain Hook. To refresh it for modern sensibilities, the songwriter Amanda Green, the daughter of an original “Peter Pan” lyricist, Adolph Green, and David Chase, the production’s music director, worked with Jerod Impichchaachaaha’ Tate, an Emmy-winning composer and member of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma. The nonsense lyrics were replaced with nursery rhymes and the rhythms were shifted to make the song less stereotypical and more authentically Native American. (Mr. Tate discussed the process in more detail in recent interviews.)Natives still criticize production

From Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature blog:

"True Blood Brothers" in NBC's production of Peter PanThe take away? Lot of stereotyping:

Indians with crossed arms: check
Scantily clad Indians: check
Playing drum with hands: check
Kids playing Indian: check
Hollywood Indian music: check
Overrepresentation of men: check

So--a question.

"O-a-hey" is supposed to be a Wyandotte word. Does that make this all better? No. Not at all.

#NotYourTigerLily: Nine Months Later and They Still Don’t Get the Point

By Johnnie JaeHaving seen the production, I cannot even begin to understand how anyone could think that this gross misappropriation of our indigenous identities and culture is a step forward in diminishing harmful and racist stereotypes. It’s still the same disappointing, exploitative and racist characterization of indigenous women and people that it has always been. What’s really disheartening is that they took the same approach that Warner Bros. has decided to take with their feature film, Pan.

“They created a non-Native “tribe” that faux-headdress-loving Coachella fans would be proud of, while simultaneously engaging in an activity mainstream society is adept at—silencing Native peoples,” says Tara Houska of Not Your Mascots. “There are plenty of Native actors and actresses to fill Native roles, and plenty of Native writers to consult. If Hollywood feels the need to bring back a character entirely based on racist stereotypes, one would think the smartest approach would be involving Natives as much as possible in the character’s re-imagination.”

Let’s be honest. Peter Pan is one of the most racist and misogynistic literary classics and so are the cartoons, plays and films inspired by the novel. The world of Peter Pan is fiction, but the harm done through the blatantly racist treatment and portrayal of Indigenous people in the story is our reality.

I asked Not Your Mascots’ Maggie Hundley why it was important to discuss the issues with Tiger Lily and her Tribe in the Neverland Universe and she replied:

“Unfortunately, as a kid, I bought into the Indian ‘maiden’ and ‘princess’ caricatures that I saw in movies and cartoons and used them to judge myself. Things need to change. By calling out the degrading and exploitative character of Tiger Lily in Peter Pan movies and plays, we are challenging institutionalized stereotyping of indigenous girls and women in entertainment. It is important to call out these mockeries and create a new narrative to replace the false ones that are force-fed to us by major companies such as Warner Brothers and NBC.”While Johnnie Jae wanted Native creators to fix the Native portrayals, Adrienne Keene suggested another approach:

Keene: Why 'Fix' Tiger Lily? Why Can't We Just Let Her Go?

By Dr. Adrienne KeeneThose who may have followed my writings on Tonto and Disney’s 2013 Lone Ranger film might see this as a marked switch from my attitude at the beginning of that journey. I argued, very strongly, that Disney should have cast a Native in the role of Tonto, that Comanche advisors and other Native peoples should have been involved much earlier in the process to shape and develop portrayals of Native peoples on the screen.

After watching that long saga unfold, I have a different opinion. I don’t want Native peoples to be forced into a role of trying to put band-aids on a gaping wound of racism. I want Hollywood to stop resurrecting these racist characters.

Think of the world created by the story of Peter Pan. Neverland is inhabited by mermaids, pirates*, fairies…and Indians. Fantasy creatures, meant to show how different Neverland is than the world the Darling children inhabit. The problem is, Native peoples aren’t fantasy creatures, nor are we something of the past, like pirates. We’re real, contemporary human beings. We don’t all live in tipis and smoke peace pipes and say things like “squ*w gettum firewood.”

So my advice the next time that a high school wants to put on Peter Pan or the next studio wants to make another remake: Cut the “Indians” out. Completely. Be creative. Find some other fantasy creature to replace them with. My colleagues last night came up with the idea of space aliens, which I kinda love. A completely fictional “other,” allowing for full creativity. Make up some shiny silver blobs for them to live in. Make up a language. Wrap them in foil or something. Just don’t call them Indians.Comment:  For more on Peter Pan, see Peter Pan Live! Reviewed and A 21st-Century Peter Pan and Peter Pan's Racist History.

Peter Pan Live! reviewed

NBC's mega-event production of Peter Pan Live! aired Sunday night. The reviews were mixed, to say the least.

Some people liked it:

Smooth Flight to Neverland, Mostly. Just Ask @tinkerbell.

'Peter Pan Live' review: Allison Williams-led production, broadcast from Long Island, nearly soars

Others, including me, didn't find much to like:

TV Review: NBC's 'Peter Pan' falls sadly flat

By Mark KennedyThis "Peter Pan" needed a lot more fairy dust.

NBC's live telling of J.M. Barrie's classic tale Thursday was an oddly ponderous, disconnected, disjointed and jerky mess. If it had been a Broadway show, it would have gotten the hook (pun intended).

It wasn't the small things that broke the spell—ungraceful wire work, clunky transitions, a Tinkerbell that was as annoying as a mosquito and sounded like a wind chime, a tea cup that fell from Peter's head and some technical glitches.

"Peter Pan Live!" simply never flew.

It suffered a draggy start, cursed by a "Downton Abbey" drawing room dialogue and a call for everyone to go to bed. It grew better in the colorful Neverland but veered into parody with a Captain Hook by Christopher Walken that seemed like a failed "Saturday Night Live" sketch about Johnny Depp. The whole thing lost steam by the second hour. Was anyone still trying to save Tinkerbell with 45 minutes to go?The boggling mixed signals of “Peter Pan Live!”: Why on earth did NBC decide to do this show?

"Peter Pan" wasn't a technical disaster or a racist cringe-fest--but man, was it weird

By Sonia SaraiyaNBC’s production of this 1904 musical did nothing different, interesting or risky. (It might not even have been sung live! What was the point, NBC?) Aside from a few changes to Tiger Lily’s song to make it slightly less racist, “Peter Pan Live!” was “Peter Pan,” more or less intact. Which is mind-boggling. If Disney had produced this, audiences would be asking: Why is it so overwhelmingly white? Why wasn’t Tiger Lily’s role rethought or cut entirely?

And the most obvious response to all of this, naturally, is that “Peter Pan” isn’t meant for television, because it’s a play, and it’s not meant for modern audiences, because it was written in 1904. But then that leads to the most obvious question that struck me as I was watching last night: Why on earth would anyone make this show in 2014? As the fabulous and opinionated Tom and Lorenzo wrote this morning: “There’s a difference between ‘old-fashioned entertainment’ and ‘offensive minstrel shows’ and this falls somewhere in the middle.”

We live in a world where a feminist retelling of the book of Genesis is a bestselling book and an upcoming miniseries on Lifetime. Where children’s fables are being unpacked and retold to include more female and minority perspectives. The “Hunger Games” franchise and the Marvel and DC universes are engaging with complex, dystopian themes in their storytelling. We are not shrinking violets in our American living rooms, and neither are our children, and yet this version of “Peter Pan” is like a time capsule from 1904, unwilling to do anything to disturb the fragile social norms of a bunch of long-dead white Brits.The 7 worst things about NBC’s “Peter Pan Live!”

Nearly two days later, we still can't quite believe what we just saw

By EJ Dickson1) Cast someone who can actually pull off the role of Peter Pan.

The problem was that Williams simply doesn’t have the charisma to pull off the Boy Who Never Grew Up. She looked nice, and sounded nice, but as the A.V. Club’s Caroline Siede put it, “Williams feels like the girl who got every lead role in high school but couldn’t quite compete with stronger performers in college. She’s not bad, but she lacks the right impulsive, impish energy for Peter Pan.” Someone with more firecracker energy, like an Anna Kendrick or an Ellen Page, would’ve made for a much stronger Peter.

4) Replace or cut out the “Ugg-A-Wugg/True Blood Brothers” number.

The trouble is that no matter what you do to Tiger Lily and the “Ugg-A-Wugg” number, it’s still a song about Native peoples celebrating Peter Pan, their white male savior; replacing the “gibberish” Native American lyrics with equally gibberish nursery rhymes doesn’t necessarily make it any better. And because the number itself really isn’t that integral to the narrative or even very good to begin with, the smart choice would’ve been for NBC producers to cut it (as they did with the operatic “Mysterious Lady,” presumably due to Williams’ vocal limitations) or replace it with a new, equally rousing, more politically correct number.

7) Pick a better show.

Let’s be real: Peter Pan is not the best musical in the world. While it’s great for parents to turn on when they’re busy, so they can plop their kids in front of it and watch them zonk out for a few hours, the pacing is slow, the score subpar and poorly edited—I know we all love Christopher Walken, but do we really need at least three musical numbers for Captain Hook and his band of pirates?—and the libretto full of stodgy, regressive ideas about women and gender. Considered as a whole, I’d take a good production of Guys and Dolls, The Music Man, South Pacific or even Grease over Peter Pan any day.A few people simply gawked at it:

Peter Pan Live on NBC: Reviewed

Hate-watching “Peter Pan Live!”: The funniest tweets during tonight’s NBC musical

Comment:  For more on Peter Pan, see A 21st-Century Peter Pan and Peter Pan's Racist History.

A 21st-century Peter Pan

The Racist History of Peter Pan's Indian Tribe

Even in the early 20th century, though, critics saw Tiger Lily and her fellow "Picaninnies" as caricatures

By Sarah LaskowMore recently, though, directors who take on Peter Pan have tried to update these ideas, a tiny bit. Hook, the 1991 Robert Zemeckis movie, leaves the tribe out altogether. When the British director Tim Carroll staged Peter Pan for the Stratford Festival in 2010, he turned the tribe into Amazons.

"The role of the Indians in the play is to be both exotic and a bit savage," he wrote in an email. "But the use of the term (and the stereotyped language) could only cause offense to a North American audience. It seemed to me that 'Amazons' was a neat way of killing two birds with one stone: as mythic warriors they satisfied the 'exotic and savage' criterion; but it also allowed me to cast a group of women."

2015's Pan, a film that imagines Peter's first years in Neverland as an orphan kidnapped by pirates and forced to work in a mine, made a similar choice. The film features Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily but dresses her tribe in a sort of outlandishly bright array of pinks, purples, browns and bright blues that manages to be fantastic enough that no one would ever confuse this tribe with an American Indian tribe.

NBC's 2014 version of the 1954 musical is going in the opposite direction, in search of something like authenticity. Unknown actress Alanna Saunders, whose paternal heritage has distant ties to the Cherokee nation, will play Tiger Lily, and the song "Ugg-a-Wugg" was updated to include actual Native American phrases. Perhaps these changes will keep today's directors from looking, in another hundred years, like purveyors of crude racial stereotypes; perhaps they'll seem just as clumsy as Barrie's original conception of the tribe's relationship to Peter—"We redskins—you the great white father."Updating the original

“We had to replace the lyrics ‘ugg-a-wugg’”: Meet the “Native American consultant” who worked on NBC’s “Peter Pan”

Salon talked to Jerod Tate about how NBC smoothed over the musical's un-p.c. edges

By Erin Keane[T]hen the really big thing that we worked on was the replacement of [the lyrics] “ugg-a-wugg.” Just a little background: In general, what we all know is that the Indian tribe that’s represented in Peter Pan was influenced by knowledge of Northeast Indians of the United States. So we’re talking Iroquois, Huron, Wyandotte, Algonquin, these kinds of cultural regions. So what I did was I set out to find a replacement word for “ugg-a-wugg” that was literally a Wyandotte word.CTC conjures a 'Peter Pan' for the 21st century

As NBC prepares to screen the musical this week, Children's Theatre is working on an update that may become the standard.

By Rohan Preston“What’s appalling about ‘Peter Pan’ is that everyone else in the play speaks perfect English, but when it comes to the Native Americans, the tribe, it’s the ‘ugga wugga’ song, which is made-up gibberish in the third person,” said playwright and choreographer Larissa FastHorse, a Lakota who grew up in South Dakota. “The play puts Native Americans in that realm of the fantastical, as if we were extinct. But we’re here, alive and creative, not better or worse than anyone else.”

FastHorse consulted with the Children’s Theatre, which plans to stage “Peter Pan” next spring and which wrestled with how to portray Tiger Lily, an Indian character, and the tribe. Artistic director Peter Brosius worked with director Peter Rothstein and new play director Elissa Adams to make changes to the script in consultation with some Indian artists.

They came up with an idea to change the tribe into a group of powerful, diverse girls known as the Pounce. They are a counterpoint to the show’s famous Lost Boys.

Theater officials were at first fearful that the licensing company would reject the suggested changes. Instead, Music Theatre International, which controls the performance rights of “Peter Pan,” is considering adopting them for all future productions that it licenses.Comment:  Let's look at possible changes:

1) Omitting the Indian tribe altogether may be the best solution. It's not critical to the story; it can be replaced by a few individuals or nothing.

2) Changing the tribe to primitive people in multicolored feathers doesn't address the "exotic and savage" issue. That isn't a goal, it's a problem. Yes, some indigenous people still go half-naked and hunt with spears, but they're likely to watch TV or log onto the Internet after a day in the jungle. Equating them with fairies and pirates from a couple of centuries ago will always be stereotypical.

3) Changing the tribe to Amazon women or "a group of powerful, diverse girls known as the Pounce" is better--if they don't look primitive and indigenous. Why not dress these women like warriors from Wonder Woman's Paradise Island--in full armor? Or as gang members from a West Side Story-like background?

4) Like Tonto and Turok, Tiger Lily is an iconic, if minor, Native character. Indians have so few roles that it's a shame to lose one. Producers should think about keeping her Native--but only if they solve the "tribal" problem.

If Tiger Lily isn't leading an Indian tribe, she obviously doesn't need to be Native. But if her "tribe" is a group of girls like the Pounce, she still could be indigenous. There's no reason a brown-skinned woman shouldn't lead a multi-ethnic society.

For more on Peter Pan, see Peter Pan's Racist History and White Tiger Lily, Aboriginal Chief?

Peter Pan's racist history

The Racist History of Peter Pan's Indian Tribe

Even in the early 20th century, though, critics saw Tiger Lily and her fellow "Picaninnies" as caricatures

By Sarah Laskow[I]n the play, as one New York Times reviewer wrote in 1905, "Mr. Barrie presents not the pirate or Indian of grown-up fiction but the creations seen by childish eyes."

In practice, that meant portraying the fierce tribe that lives on Neverland in a way that even in the early 20th-century looked like a caricature. As The Times of London wrote:

"...the Never-Never-Land is peopled by Red Indians and Pirates, who lose no time in showing us that they know how to 'behave as sich.' [sic] The Red Indians always lay their ear to the ground, then give vent to unearthly yells, and prepare for scalping somebody—a Pirate, for choice."

At the time, this portrayal wasn't controversial. But while much of Barrie's original work is just as delightful today as 110 years ago, Tiger Lily and her tribe have become a problem for contemporary productions. There's no real reason for a tribe of Native Americans—"not to be confused with the softer-hearted Delawares or the Hurons," Barrie wrote—to live on Neverland, where they are impossible to excise from the story. But it's almost as impossible to depict them in a way that's not offensive.

In the play, Peter refers to the tribe as "piccaninny warriors," and in Peter & Wendy (Barrie's book-long adaptation of the story, published in 1911), they are introduced as the "Piccaninny tribe"—a blanket stand-in for "others" of all stripes, from Aboriginal populations in Australia to descendants of slaves in the United States. Barrie's tribespeople communicate in pidgin; the braves have lines like "Ugh, ugh, wah!" Tiger Lily is slightly more loquacious; she'll say things like "Peter Pan save me, me his velly nice friend. Me no let pirates hurt him." They call Peter "the great white father"—the name that Barrie had originally chosen for the entire play. A tom-tom pounded in victory is a key plot point.

"It was a popular fantasy trope," says Anne Hiebert Alton, a professor of English at Central Michigan University and the editor of a scholarly edition of Peter Pan. "Barrie was telling the story in the very early 1900s, and so part of it, I think, was: this was a good story, this'll stage well. He was very Victorian—and that's the age when British people were still proud to brag that the sun never set on the British empire."Comment:  For more on Peter Pan, see White Tiger Lily, Aboriginal Chief? and Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.

White Tiger Lily, Aboriginal Chief?

A new image of actress Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily has people wondering:

Eric Haywood ‏@Eric_Haywood
Something’s odd about this new Peter #Pan movie, but I just can’t put my finger on it. #TigerLily



Here are some excellent analyses of the ongoing problems with the upcoming Pan movie:

Rooney Mara's Tiger Lily Could Not Be Less Native. That's a Problem.If this new Tiger Lily is not a person of color, why is her dad so dark?

A poster and movie trailer for Pan, the Peter Pan prequel planned for a summer 2015 release, is giving the public a first glimpse of actress Rooney Mara in the role of Tiger Lily, a Native American character in J.M. Barrie's 1904 play. The visuals have reignited the controversy that broke out in March over the casting of Mara, a non-Native actress, in the role. Reporting on the choice touted the film's "multi-racial" world and "a very different [Tigerlily] than was originally imagined."

But there was concern and even outrage over Mara's casting. An online petition was started to urge Warner Brothers to "Stop casting white actors to play people of color!" On Twitter and other social media, many people voiced disappointment in Mara for accepting the role.

In our our earlier coverage of this issue, we saw two possible explanations of the casting choice. One was simply the old Hollywood practice of casting white actors as Indians—the traditions of "whitewashing" (casting well-known white actors in Native roles to ensure ticket sales) and "redface" (white actors playing Indians, often by invoking common stereotypes) that have been common from the silent-film era up through Johnny Depp's Tonto in 2013. We entertained another explanation, though: that the filmmakers, concerned by the racist portrayal of Natives in Peter Pan—and it's really bad, particularly in the 1953 Disney film—were trying to avoid repeating it. After all, many ICTMN readers have commented that the character of Tiger Lily is an inherently racist creation, and that Mara might as well take it because no self-respecting Native actress should have to reinforce the stereotype for the sake of a blockbuster credit.The image seems to suggest Mara's Tiger Lily is not Native. Aside from the actress's own physical appearance, there's a touch of tartan in her costume; Tiger Lily is the daughter of the Chief in the original story, but it looks to us like this Tiger Lily's dad might be less of an Indian chief and more of a Scottish or Irish chieftain. There is a big, big problem with this reading, though.

The Chief in Pan is played by Jack Charles, a famous Australian Aboriginal actor. Here's what he looks like:The choice to cast Charles as the Chief supports the worst-case scenario theories about this whole mess. Charles clearly signifies that the tribe in the film (originally the "Pickaninny Tribe" in J.M. Barrie's play and book, let's not forget) is non-European in nature. How or why does he have this white, Irish-looking daughter? It's hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that the filmmakers feel people of color are good for supporting roles, but a lead actress must be white. If the filmmakers wanted to avoid the racist attitudes behind the Tiger Lily and Chief characters, and cast a white actress to create a new, stereotype-free Tiger Lily, why is her father the Chief so iconically ethnic? If Tiger Lily's ethnicity doesn't matter, then go ahead and cast Rooney Mara, and give the character a dad who looks like he could have fathered her, given what we know about genetics. Casting a white actress as Tiger Lily to sell tickets but an Indigenous Australian as the Chief to keep the racial other-ness in the original story just isn't right. Rather than an attempt to rehabilitate a problematic character, it is what concerned petitioners originally feared: simple and unsubtle whitewashing, based on the belief that the film would not succeed with a Native actress in a Native role.

And yes, we're braced for the "revelation" of the plot twist that Mara's Tiger Lily came to Neverland from England before Peter did, and was adopted by the Chief. We can see that one coming a mile away. That doesn't negate the cynical nature of Mara's casting, just shows the filmmakers felt they had write an explanation into the storyline.Worshiping whites

From Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature blog:

How 'bout we all pan NBC's PETER PAN and Warner Bros PAN, tooThe trailer for the new movie due out next year has a scene where Pan is on the floor, spears aimed at him. It looks like he's about to be killed, but an older man (which I imagine the script says is an elder or maybe Tiger Lily's dad) stops them. In his hand is a necklace of some sort that Peter was wearing. The man says:
"The little one. He wears the pan."

Here's a screen capture of that scene in the trailer:The trailer cuts to Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara, who says: "The Pan is our tribe's bravest warrior."

Here she is in that moment:Her line (Pan is our tribe's greatest warrior) points right at the foundation for Barrie's film. Indians who worship whites. That's not ok. It was't ok then, and it isn't ok to give that racist garbage to kids today. Right?

Some of you know that there was a lot of discussion when Rooney was selected as the actress for the part. Many people said that a Native actress ought to be cast instead of Rooney. I disagree with that idea, too.

Fixing the words in the song, and/or casting a Native person in that role does not change the point of view(s) on which the story rests. These are, through and through, "the white man's Indian." There is no fixing this story or any production of it so that the Native content is authentic.

Attempts to do so remind me of the many schools that sought/seek to make their Indian mascots more "authentic" so that they could keep objectifying Native people, using their ideas of who Native people are for their own purposes.

Can we just let that stuff go?Comment:  Even if all the "tribal" actors are white, the feathered costumes make them look tribal. Mara's ridiculous headdress makes her look tribal. That plus the spears make the tribe look primitive and savage. Even if they're white, they're strange and exotic--exactly what you don't want to see in a depiction of tribal people.

The "bravest warrior" line may be an exception. But if the creators are sticking to the original story, it suggests a huge problem. Tiger Lily starts as a helpless damsel in distress; she ends up worshiping Peter Pan. Here's a key passage from the original book:

Peter Pan--Chapter 10One important result of the brush [with the pirates] on the lagoon was that it made the redskins their friends. Peter had saved Tiger Lily from a dreadful fate, and now there was nothing she and her braves would not do for him. All night they sat above, keeping watch over the home under the ground and awaiting the big attack by the pirates which obviously could not be much longer delayed. Even by day they hung about, smoking the pipe of peace, and looking almost as if they wanted tit-bits to eat.

They called Peter the Great White Father, prostrating themselves [lying down] before him; and he liked this tremendously, so that it was not really good for him.

"The great white father," he would say to them in a very lordly manner, as they grovelled at his feet, "is glad to see the Piccaninny warriors protecting his wigwam from the pirates."

"Me Tiger Lily," that lovely creature would reply. "Peter Pan save me, me his velly nice friend. Me no let pirates hurt him."

She was far too pretty to cringe in this way, but Peter thought it his due, and he would answer condescendingly, "It is good. Peter Pan has spoken."

Always when he said, "Peter Pan has spoken," it meant that they must now shut up, and they accepted it humbly in that spirit; but they were by no means so respectful to the other boys, whom they looked upon as just ordinary braves. They said "How-do?" to them, and things like that; and what annoyed the boys was that Peter seemed to think this all right.If there's even a hint of white-worshiping tribespeople in the Pan movie, look out.

For more on Peter Pan, see Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.

Natives protest Tiger Lily casting

Rooney Mara's casting as Native American princess Tiger Lily in new film Pan is slammed on social mediaCritics on social media are less than happy about Wednesday's news that Rooney Mara has been cast as Tiger Lily in Pan, a live-action adaptation of the classic fairytale.

And they are taking to Twitter and other Internet sites to complain, according to The New York Daily News on Friday.

The outlet quoted one internet commenter as writing: 'Rooney Mara cast as Tiger Lily in new Peter Pan film because there are clearly no Native American actresses.'

It quoted another as crediting the 28-year-old with being an 'an incredibly gifted, insightful artist. But come on. You couldn't find a Native American actress to play Tiger Lily?!?!'Is #NotYourTigerLily next?

By Soraya Nadia McDonaldFirst there was #NotYourAsianSidekick.

Then #NotYourMascot.

Then #NotYourTonto.

Will #NotYourTigerLily be next?

Those Twitter hashtags were created by online activists in protest of stereotypical characterizations of Asian and Native American people and the racial microaggressions they encounter. #NotYourMascot trended during the Super Bowl, and #NotYourTonto trended during the Oscars.Native Americans Demand Warner Brothers to Reconsider Casting of Rooney Mara for Role of Tiger Lily in Peter Pan remakeEradicating Offensive Native Mascotry, a group of Native parents and their allies from across the country are asking Warner Brothers Pictures and director Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) to reconsider the casting of the actress Rooney Mara for the role of Tiger Lily. To this end they are conducting a “Twitterstorm” and have already trended the hashtag #NotYourTigerLily nationally to make their concerns about this historically problematic role of a Native American princess heard.

The depiction of a Native American tribe the Pickaninnies in the Disney version of Peter Pan is a regressive and stereotypical portrayal of Native American men as savages who speak in simple guttural speak and the portrayal of the silent "Indian Princess" Tiger Lily is also stereotypical and is one that most Native parents do not want their children to see. The Native parents of EONM were very disappointed that Disney chose to rerelease the film in 2013.

"What Disney tried to teach Native girls through Tiger Lily was that as native women, they were to accept violence and remain silent. They were shown that even as children they would be sexually objectified and that they needed to play into that role. They were taught that Natives were big "Spoofums" that could not be trusted and that they lacked the intelligence to protect them, that their only chance of rescue would come from the white man."

-- EONM member Johnnie Jae (Jiwere-Nutachi/Chahta) Executive Managing Editor of Native Max and a freelance photographerThe protesters are doing more than just tweeting:

Thousands Protest Choice of White Actress for ‘Pan’s’ Tiger Lily

By Alex StedmanWhile the casting announcements for Warner Bros.’ Peter Pan remake “Pan” have been rolling in, one in particular caught the eye of activists.

The studio cast Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, and thousands have taken to a Care2 petition to protest the choice of a white actress for the Native American role. More than 4,200 signatures, out of their stated 5,000 goal, have been received.

“This casting choice is particularly shameful for a children’s movie,” the petition reads. “Telling children their role models must all be white is unacceptable.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Redeeming Tiger Lily in Pan and Whitewashing Tiger Lily in Pan.

Below:  A previous Tiger Lily.

Redeeming Tiger Lily in Pan

While some people slammed the whitewashing of Tiger Lily in the upcoming Pan movie, others took a broader view of the racial issues:

If Joe Wright’s ‘Pan’ Wants to Be “Multi-Racial,” Why Cast Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily?

By Kate Erbland“Wright is planning to create a world that very international and multi-racial, effectively challenging audiences’ preconceived notions of Neverland and reimagining the environment.” “Rooney Mara is in negotiations to play Tiger Lily.”

Do these two statements seem at odds with each other? The Wrap reported both--in the same story!--yesterday, as part of a casting bit that passes along word that Mara is reportedly in negotiations to take on the role of Tiger Lily in one of the many Peter Pan “reimaginings” flying around Hollywood. Director Joe Wright has steadily been lining up other interested talents for his Pan, and while there is a touch of international appeal here (one of them is Australian!), it certainly seems out of touch and frankly incorrect to tout that a film that seems poised to star Mara, Hugh Jackman, and Garrett Hedlund is somehow “multi-racial.”Rooney Mara Cast As Tiger Lily, Wariness Ensues

By Lexi NisitaWarner Bros. appears to have anticipated this controversy—and rightly so. According to Variety, "The world being created is multi-racial/international—and a very different character than previously imagined." That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a problem. In fact, it sounds nice! In order to make the Peter Pan story into something progressive and relatable instead of an outdated, racist mess, you'd basically have to rewrite the entire thing. Re-imagining that world in a way that doesn't treat Native American characters like mythical creatures and preserving the core of the story while casting in a modern, colorblind way (à la Shonda Rhimes, perhaps) would restore a lot of our faith in Hollywood. It might work, but we're putting an emphasis on the might, because this is dangerous territory and it could also go very, very wrong. Re-imagining a story to remove unfortunate racial stereotypes is a worthwhile endeavor, but re-imagining a Native American character as a white character is not a step in the right direction, unless it's coupled by a lot of bold choices in the opposite direction. Almost everyone in mainstream cinema is already conceived of as white, to begin with...so, that's not a very imaginative way of doing anything, is it?

First, there's the issue that Native American people are hugely underrepresented in Hollywood as actors (and as characters). In a perfect world, people of a variety of different races would be cast in a variety of different roles—roles that aren't defined by the character's racial identity. But, that's not the world we live in. Instead, many non-white actors and actresses only get leading roles in movies that specifically deal with racial themes or require a specific ethnicity to be represented, for some reason. So, it only aggravates the problem when even for those roles, white actors are cast.Rooney Mara’s Casting Isn’t the Only Problem With ‘Peter Pan’s’ Native American Character, Tiger Lily

By Tyler CoatesWhat’s astounding, of course, is that the outrage is about a white woman playing the character Tiger Lily rather than the fact that Tiger Lily is part of the new script at all. The character is not a particularly sensitive or sophisticated representation of a Native American woman; after all, the idea of a Scottish author adding a tribe of indigenous Americans to his fairy-tale land is a little uncomfortable, no? Especially given that Barrie’s name for the group is the Piccanniny Tribe. From their earliest appearance in Barrie’s 1904 play, Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up, the Picanniny Tribe was depicted in typical stereotypical fashion: wearing pelts and feathers in their hair, communicating in guttural grunts. Disney’s popular animated film version was not better; while Tiger Lily herself is visibly Native American, she doesn’t utter a line of dialogue. And let’s not forget the 1954 Broadway musical version of Peter Pan, which featured a Nordic Tiger Lily and the song “Ugg-a-Wug.”

Many other modern Peter Pan retellings, from Steven Spielberg’s Hook to Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson’s Peter and the Starcatchers series (and the subsequent Tony-winning play based upon the first book), have removed the Native American elements entirely, which is all probably for the best. It’s not that Native Americans don’t deserve to be depicted in the story; the question is: why have the Indians, representative of the English fascination with Native Americans, remained in the various adaptations of Peter Pan throughout the years in the first place?

The point is, the whitewashing of Tiger Lily and the Native American tribe is nothing new; if anything, it has its roots in J. M. Barrie’s own vision for the Peter Pan story. The Indians are the other, a fantasy-land version of a real, diverse group of individuals. That they have been depicted with such ruthless stereotypes is an unfortunate truth born out of the unsophisticated mindset of the time in which these characters were created.

If Pan does anything right, it’ll strike the notion that Tiger Lily is an Indian princess at all. Sure, if her “tribe” is in fact indigenous to Neverland, it would have been nice to see an actor of color play the part. But that the post-Victorian concept of Native Americans is still so deeply intertwined with Neverland’s indigenous peoples is an issue; if Pan does its job well as a reimagination of this classic story and its characters, it’ll treat Tiger Lily as a literary figure with more respect than previous films, theater productions, and books. After all, in this new, imaginative vision of Neverland—a fictional place, after all—all bets are off, and Joe Wright and his team could potentially improve upon over a hundred years of negative stereotypes of indigenous peoples.Comment:  Until Pan casts its first person of color in a major role, the "multiracial" claim is a joke. Indeed, it may be an outright lie intended to ward off criticism.

I tend to agree with these critics. It's not enough to say Tiger Lily is Native, so she should remain Native. You have to consider the whole context: namely, Peter, Wendy, and the boys as white saviors and the Indians as primitive savages. No matter who plays Tiger Lily, these problems will remain.

I tweeted some thoughts on these issues:

New "Peter Pan" to be set in WW II era. So the Indians will be soldiers, factory workers, etc. in Western clothes?

Good writing could redeem the Lone Ranger's Tonto. The savage Indians of Neverland are irredeemable. They should be changed or eliminated.

Make the savages a band of pirates, cavemen, Greeks, or whatever. If no leathers and feathers, they won't "read" as Indians.

Indians aren't essential to story. A white or Native woman could lead generic tribesmen. But if they're Native, cast Natives.

Heck, turn Peter Pan's "Indians" into a multicultural band of hipsters a la Coachella. Then cast a Native actress as the tribe's leader.

No matter who plays Tiger Lily, Neverland's Indians = primitive people of the past. Literally fantasy figures divorced from tribal reality.

Tiger Lily vs. Tonto

Casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily has obvious has parallels with casting Johnny Depp as Tonto. But there are key differences:

The Lone Ranger is a reality-based story. Peter Pan is a fantasy.

You can argue that Westerns featuring traditional Indians don't help today's Native people. They reinforce rather than dispel the age-old stereotypes of Indians as primitive people of the past. Americans are already inundated with images of Indians as chiefs and warriors; they don't need any more.

But if you're making a Western for whatever reason, traditional Indians are appropriate. They belong in such a story. Leaving them out is arguably worse than putting them in.

In contrast, Peter Pan's Neverland adventures first appeared in 1904, in a story set in that era. Indians then were adopting Western clothes and lifestyles. They were no longer warriors in buckskins hunting animals and enemies.

You could argue for including 20th-century Indians in a 20th-century Peter Pan. But no one has done that before, or is proposing that here. Inevitably, any Indians in Peter Pan will be fantasy figures like the story's mermaids, fairies, and pirates.

The Lone Ranger's "faithful Indian companion" is integral to the story. The Indians in Peter Pan aren't.

Without Tonto, the Ranger is just another gun-slinging lawman. His partnership with Tonto is arguably his defining trait.

In contrast, J.M. Barrie wanted any old band of brutes to add exotic "color." As the "Piccaninny" name indicates, he didn't care whether they were African or Native American.

Their role in the story is minor and can easily be omitted. Indeed, creators have done versions of Peter Pan without the Indians, which proves they're unnecessary.

In short, hanging on to these stereotypical savages would be a mistake. Unless Tiger Lily is a sophisticated Native woman without a savage tribe, I don't see a good way to redeem her.

For more on the subject, see Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.

Below:  Carsen Grey (Haida) as Tiger Lily.

Whitewashing Tiger Lily in Pan

More on the controversial casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in Pan:

White Woman Rooney Mara Might Play Tiger Lily in Pan, Because 2015 Needed Its Own The Lone Ranger

By Rebecca PahleTo recap what we know about Pan so far: It’s a Peter Pan origin story. It’s directed by Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Hanna, Atonement) and so far stars Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard and a Garrett Hedlund as a young’n'sexy pre-Captain Captain Hook. Deadline described it as a film in which Peter is the “savior of the natives” of Neverland, which I was a little skeptical of, because what movie, in the 21st century, would be so blatantly, toxically racist, on top of clueless enough to think that “Peter Pan, savior of the natives” is an OK thing to present to an audience of millions, many of them children?

Apparently I may have been a little overly optimistic there. Because also falling under the “blatant, toxic, racist, clueless” category: Whitewashing Tiger Lily. I should have seen this coming. Star Trek Into Darkness. The Lone Ranger. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What a sweet summer child I was.

The way Peter Pan author J.M. Barrie originally wrote his story’s Native Americans wasn’t exactly fair to begin with. They’re stereotypes: Violent, compared to animals, and frequently referred to as “savages.” It’s tough to watch “What Makes the Red Man Red?” from Disney’s animated Peter Pan without wincing.

But Tiger Lily being a problematic character isn’t an excuse to cast a non-Native American actress. Rather, it’s the same as it was with The Lone Ranger: The key to bringing a racial caricature forward to the modern day isn’t to disregard that person’s race but to change the character so they’re not a racial caricature. Jesus Christ. It’s not that hard. There’s something to be said for “loyalty to source material,” but early 1900s racism is not one of the things you need to keep.

"Tiger Lily Doesn’t Equal Human Torch" plus a very long rant

By Felicia DayBottom line, actors of ethnicity don’t get a lot of work to begin with. And that very fact creates a scarcity in the number of actors of different ethnicities to choose from when casting. It’s a chicken and the egg syndrome. In what instance can you point out a role where a Native American actress has a chance to be a lead in any movie? Almost none. So why chase a dream that doesn’t seem like it could come true, because the system would never allow it?

It’s a self-perpetuating reality we live with, so the only way to change it is to break the norm, and cast more leading characters with more diversity. At the very least give roles that are intended to be ethnically diverse to ethnically diverse actors, I mean, BARE MINIMUM, PEOPLE.

So for me, the opportunity to give a leading role that could be a Native American, a possible protagonist role that the audience could relate to and live the story through, to a white actor, is kind of shitty and backwards to me. And that’s why I posted my initial tweet.

To compare Tiger Lily being cast as a white women to Human Torch or Heimdall being cast as an African-American is not equivalent, because I don’t think this issue is about violating or adhering to “lore,” I think it’s about providing more representation. And that’s why I think that the Human Torch being cast as African-American is an awesome thing, because that move evolves Hollywood and storytelling and the Marvel universe.

Remember in the past, lead characters were most likely written as white in the first place, because they were created in an even more white-centric world. Fantastic Four debuted in 1961, segregation was outlawed in 1964. You can’t say that the culture at large at the time didn’t influence the creator’s choices when making these characters! Fast forward fifty years, the culture at large NOW doesn’t match up with the lore from before, and we should be open to changing it.

Tiger Lily, in the book, is actually portrayed in an EXTREMELY racist way. But hey, it could be a great opportunity to re-invent the character as a Native American to be proud of, rather than dodge the issue entirely, and take the role away and give it to a white woman.

Why NOT re-imagine Tiger Lily so that the audience can fall in love with and admire a woman of color? Or reimagine a superhero as an African-American, one among a TON of white ones we see every day? Let’s show the audience that they can live through anyone’s eyes!

Whitewashing, Colonialism, and Hollywood, Oh My!

By Samantha EstoestaThis is not the first time that Hollywood prefers, or specifically asks for, actors or actresses who are white to play roles of characters who are people of color. Who can forget the casting call for Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games trilogy, specifically asking for actresses of white heritage or that the only actor who is a person of color in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender (a tale that specifically focuses on persons of Central Asian, Inuit, South Asian, and Tibetan heritage) plays the villain, Zuko? There is even a list of the 25 infamous Yellow face performances in film.

Before someone starts telling me that Mara is chosen for the role because there are not enough actresses of Native heritage to play the role, here are seven fantastic Native actress that could have played the part: Julia Jones, Amber Midthunder, Teneil Whickeyjack, Roseanne Supernault, Q’orianka Kilcher, Shauna Baker, and Shannon Baker.

Listen, Hollywood, you liking and taking the histories of peoples only to transform those incredibly important histories into a bottom line is just another form of colonialism. Instead stripping people of color of the natural resources (things incredibly important to their existence as a people and their very histories) on the land that they inhibit in exchange for trinkets and small pox, you take their histories, transform it into a Hallmark-esque movie, only to vehemently refuse to give any proceeds back to the people.

We see this every day as people of color, be it Katy Perry dressing like Geisha, Lime Crime’s China Doll make-up line, the ridiculous number of Bindi-wearing white celebrities, and ever-popular “Sexy Squaw” Halloween costume.

Comment:  A couple of tweets on the subject:

tara zhaabowekwe ‏@zhaabowekwe Mar 13
Whether it's Johnny Depp or Rooney Mara, #redface is a disgrace. We're people, #NotYourTigerLily #NotYourStereotype and #NotYourMascot.

Mags ‏@Creekleo Mar 13
Native American women are depicted in movies as beautiful maidens sexually available to white men #NotYourTigerLily

The last point is a good one. No matter who plays Tiger Lily, she'd better not be a typical "Indian princess" from the 20th century or before. I.e., someone who's basically a damsel in distress and a prize for the white hero (or white viewers).

For more on the subject, see Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.

Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily

Apparently Hollywood didn't learn anything from its casting of Johnny Depp as Tonto. Here we go again:

Rooney Mara to Play Tiger Lily in Warner Bros.’ ‘Pan’

Hugh Jackman and Garrett Hedlund also on board

By Justin KrollWarner Bros. has tapped Rooney Mara to play Tiger Lily in its Peter Pan origin tale “Pan.”

Hugh Jackman and Garrett Hedlund are also on board with Joe Wright set to direct.And:The film will be a new take on the classic story. It is set during World War II and follows an orphan named Peter who is kidnapped by pirates and brought to Neverland, where he discovers he’s destined to save the land from the pirate Blackbeard.

The world being created is multi-racial/international--and a very different character than previously imagined.This news quickly spread through the mediaverse, with Native and liberal activists raising objections:

Today in Hollywood whitewashing: Rooney Mara cast as Tiger Lily in Joe Wright’s Pan

By Caroline SiedeJoe Wright’s Peter Pan origin story starring Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard and Garret Hedlund as Hook has potentially found its Tiger Lilly. If negotiations work out, the iconic role of the young Native American princess will be played by none other than Irish-Italian actress Rooney Mara. The film is being billed as a “new take on the classic story,” and in this case, that “new take” extends the old tale of Hollywood whitewashing characters of color. (Recently, Johnny Depp tried to skirt controversy by being “formally adopted” by the Comanche Indians before playing Tonto in the Lone Ranger film.)Rooney Mara Lands Tiger Lily Role, Stirs Controversy

By Emma KoonseComments on social media sites such as Twitter revealed anger and confusion over Wright's selection of Mara for the part, with many accusing Hollywood of "whitewashing" films with white actors.

"Rooney Mara cast as Tiger Lily in new Peter Pan film because there are clearly no Native American actresses," Sarah wrote on Twitter. "I like Rooney Mara and am impressed with her work, it's just frustrating how so many roles are whitewashed."

Carey posted, "Person from impossibly wealthy family gets wealthier," after re-tweeting news that Mara would portray Tiger Lily in the Warner Bros film.

Another Twitter user Lauren added," Rooney Mara joins Johnny Depp in 'People I Wish Hadn't Been Cast as Native Americans.'"

Is It OK for Rooney Mara To Play a Native American Character in 'Pan'?

By Matthew Hammett KnottThe internet exploded last night with the news that Rooney Mara was in talks to play Princess Tiger Lily in Joe Wright's forthcoming Peter Pan origin story "Pan." The uproar was immediate--Tiger Lily is a Native American character, while Mara is plainly white.

At first glance, this would seem to be another example of the Hollywood whitewashing that required "Prince of Persia's" lead roles of Prince Dastan and Princess Tamina to be played by Jake Gyllenhall and Gemma Arterton. We all know why it happens, but it doesn't make it any more edifying.

However, is this a similar scenario? Variety reports of Wright's film that "the world being created is multi-racial/international" and that Tiger Lily is "a very different character than previously imagined," adding that actresses including Adele Exarchopoulos and Lupita Nyong'o were considered for the role.

While it bears mentioning that all starring roles announced thus far have gone to white actors, we don't yet know what exactly Joe Wright has done with the role of Tiger Lily or how he envisages this "multi-racial" world as a whole.Casting Controversy: Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in 'Peter Pan' PrequelConcerned Natives and culture-watchers of many ethnicities are decrying the choice as yet another redface travesty, much like Johnny Depp's Tonto in the 2013 film The Lone Ranger.

The 1953 film, adapted from Scottish author J.M. Barrie's 1904 play and 1911 novel, has always been a source of aggravation for many Native Americans for its depiction of a "redskin" tribe, complete with "injuns" who speak in pidgin and say "how" and "ugh."

Casting a white actress as an Indian princess in a story that was far from racially sensitive to begin with--this really does sound like Johnny Depp's Tonto again, doesn't it?--was hailed as a stupid move all over the blogosphere and Twitter. "Great to see Hollywood so thoughtfully responding to criticism that it woefully under- and misrepresents indigenous people!" writes Callie Beusman at Jezebel.

Jacqueline Keeler--@jfkeeler--one of the #NotYourTonto organizers, tweeted, "Rooney Mara cast as Tiger Lily in a Peter Pan remake? WT-? Why won't they stop! I need a rest!" Tweeter @fozmeadows wrote "Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily? Right. Because NOBODY IN HOLLYWOOD has Q'orianka Kilcher's contact details. *headdesk*"

While casting a white actress as an Indian character is a familiar kind of disappointing, some folks who are trying to read the tea leaves are seeing something else--a revamped Tiger Lily who isn't Native American at all. This would be a departure from J.M. Barrie's source material, but maybe not such a radical one. Peter Pan's Indians, after all, do not live on Turtle Island, they live in "Neverland," and there is no real reason why they are Indians. And in J.M. Barrie's original play (but not the movie), they are said to be of the "Pickaninny Tribe," which adds an anti-African American slur to the anti-Native "redskin" caricature. It's a blurring that suggests Barrie didn't really care whether he was writing about Indians, or Africans, or African Indians or Indian Africans--he simply wanted a handy caricature and exotic other that might show up in the dreams of white English kids circa 1904.Comment:  My own snarky tweet on the subject:

How long until Rooney Mara discovers one of her ancestors was Cherokee or Creek or something, and gets adopted into the Comanche tribe?

Actually, I include myself among the "folks who are trying to read the tea leaves [and] seeing something else." The actresses they've considered for Tiger Lily suggest they'll avoid Indians altogether and make the "tribe" multiracial.

For more on the subject, see Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.

Ireland Baldwin tweets Indian costume

Ireland Baldwin, the daughter of Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger, got in trouble for a series of tweets. Jezebel.com may have been the first to report on it.

Ireland Baldwin Defends Her Native American Halloween CostumeMom who really doesn't want to be at Disneyland Halloween and was forced to dress up but had one… http://instagram.com/p/gCLTsWEoKU/This is who I was being for Halloween at Disneyland. You all are pathetic.Deleted the picture because it was insulting all the poor little white girls who need a racial cause to be apart of for attention

— ireland (@IrelandBBaldwin) October 29, 2013

Ok everyone. I apologize if my Halloween costume offended you and your culture PERSONALLY. However, I don't apologize to a majority...

... Of you who thought it was necessary to return the favor with a lot of hateful mentions.

A Native American costume was AN OPTION at a Halloween store.

I respect all cultures and I would never mock one. I am Cherokee Indian and I am also well aware of what many tribes encountered in the past

And for some of you pathetic morons to bring my family and other matters into the discussion, you are all sad excuses for human beingsPresumably Baldwin's tweets came in response to other tweets. I don't know exactly what people said, but we can imagine it.

Commenters respond

Some Jezebel commenters responded directly to Baldwin's claims:It couldn't be a racist costume because it was based on a Disney cartoon, also there was the option in a store. If it was racist, that would mean the Disney cartoon and the store are racist, which certainly could never be a possibility.

Seriously, if you are basing the racial appropriateness of stuff off of Disney cartoons, sorry kiddo, but Disney cartoons are racist as fuck and still have a hard time with race.

When she grows out of her teenage sociopathy she will regret that entire tirade. I like that she hit just about every square on the "Racist Apologist Bingo" card. Brava, kid.

Is it me or are we seeing a LOT of privileged, white, pretty, blond girls going absolutely INSANE this Halloween with the black/brown face and getting REAL huffy when called out on it? I'm getting the distinct impression they feel entitled to do whatever they want due to aforementioned blond whiteness. It's giving me rageface because I'm also seeing a shit ton of feminists defending them. Intersectionality, time to embrace that already and not put up with this bs.

You know, there were/are a LOT of different tribes. Isn't it amazing how every single clueless white person always claims to be Cherokee?

Ireland Baldwin, you cannot claim you are part Native American in order to justify your racism, whether you really are or not. I am part African (in my ancestry for real, but am as white as skim milk) but am not using that as an excuse to do racist shit.

She's part Cherokee? Kim Basinger's Wikipedia states that she might be part Cherokee. But how convenient for Ireland Baldwin to bust that "fact" out.

You would be shocked how many people I've encountered outside of the midwest who did not know Native Americans still exist, as if they just perished or something. I get the feeling a lot of people who put on redface do so with the assumption that there are no Natives alive to take offense.

There are many, many more who DO know and just don't care.

For what it's worth, I'm 35, from the East coast, and have met exactly one person who I knew to be primarily Native American. It doesn't excuse Ireland's stupidity, but I think you're right that she probably had no reference point for modern real-life native Americans.Comment:  As I tweeted after reading this:

Claiming to be Cherokee to justify an Indian chief or Pocahottie costume = claiming to be German to justify a Scottish kilt or Greek toga.

There's a glaring contradiction in the above assertions. If Baldwin is Cherokee as she claims, what is she doing in a stereotypical Plains-style costume? If she has no reference point for Natives, why is she claiming to be Cherokee?

If you're an Indian, that doesn't give you a licence to wear whatever you want and claim it's authentic. Just the opposite: It behooves you, more than anyone, to get the costume right. To wear something that's culturally correct, not a stupid stereotype.

More coverage

Other websites reported on the controversy, depicting Baldwin as defiant:

Ireland Baldwin Defends Native American Halloween Costume: “I Am Cherokee Indian” (PHOTOS)

Ireland Baldwin Dons Native American Halloween Costume, Lashes Out at "Pathetic" Critics

Or contrite:

Kim Basinger--Ireland Baldwin Apologises Over Native Indian Halloween Costume

'I made a mistake and I apologize': Ireland Baldwin responds to backlash after Native American Halloween costume causes Twitter uproarThe uproar continued for several days following the incident, with many people seemingly unwilling to let it go.

'People make mistakes, everyone. I made a mistake and I apologize if it offended,' Ireland wrote on October 30, before addressing individual @Buri103, explaining, 'I copied a Disney character and I'm sorry that it offended you.'

On Thursday, the star managed to make light of the situation, tweeting, 'Before I dress as Wednesday Addams and Juno Macguff this weekend, is anyone offended?'Comment:  For more on Pocahottie costumes, see University Bans Offensive Halloween Costumes and Native Regrets "Naughty Native" Costume.