Edmonton Walk of Honour inducts Eyre

Aboriginal filmmakers to receive places on Edmonton Walk of Honour

By Catherine GriwkowskyTwo Aboriginal filmmakers will be inducted into the Edmonton Walk of Honour at Beaver Hills House Park as part of the Dreamspeakers Film Festival.

Smoke Signals director Chris Eyre took home awards at the Sundance Film Festival, while Edge of America won a Director’s Guild of America Award.

In addition to television, Eyre has directed Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Friday Night Lights and Mystery.

“As a Native, I’d rather be immortalized in a park than in a museum,” Eyre said.

Documentary producer Dr. Allen Benson is the CEO of both Native Counselling Services of Alberta and Bearpaw Media Productions.

The pair join actor Tantoo Cardinal and filmmakers Gil Cardinal and Gordon Tootoosis.Comment:  For more on Chris Eyre, see Variety Reviews A Year in Mooring and Entertainment Panel at RES 2011.

Variety reviews A Year in Mooring

A Year in Mooring

By Joe LeydonA quietly contemplative, deliberately paced tale of renewal and redemption, "A Year in Mooring" sails smoothly, if not downright defiantly, far beyond the commercial mainstream. Pic may strike some as reminiscent of Robert Bresson's more meditative works, while others will liken it to '70s character-driven dramas by the likes of Bob Rafelson and Jerry Schatzberg--all of which should indicate the unlikelihood that Chris Eyre's beautifully crafted indie will make a big commercial splash. But fest exposure and careful marketing could lead to successful dockings at arthouse ports of call.Comment:  A reminder that this is a non-Native film by Native director Chris Eyre. For more on the subject, see Preview of A Year in Mooring and Filming A Year in Mooring.

Below:  "Josh Lucas is a successful businessman escaping from a tragedy while restoring an old sailboat in A Year in Mooring.

Entertainment panel at RES 2011

My pal Victor and I arrived in Las Vegas Tuesday around dinner time. We got some sleep and had a leisurely Wednesday morning--mainly because the RES 2011 trade floor didn't open until the odd hour of 5 pm.

In the afternoon we went over to the Las Vegas Hilton and set up the Pechanga.net booth. On the way out we saw something happening in a side room and went in to see what it was. It turned out to be RES 2011's "entertainment as a business" panel.

On the stage were Chris Eyre, Georgina Lightning, Michelle Shining Elk, Gyasi Ross, and Sonny Skyhawk--all of whom I've mentioned before. Moderating was the ubiquitous Litefoot. The panelists said the usual things: Hollywood doesn't want to tell Native stories, so Natives have to tell their own.

After a kerfluffle about whether Eyre was supposed to be there, we retired to the Hilton's Tempo bar (minus Gyasi Ross, plus Randy Bardwell, president of Native Threads). I had my first real conservation with Skyhawk, who said he reads Newspaper Rock and agrees with 99% of it. In particular, he agreed that Johnny Depp shouldn't play Tonto and claimed Depp isn't part Cherokee. He also recalled disparaging blog comments by Kiowa writer Russell Bates and praised me for being a neutral and fair-minded voice in Indian country.

Anyway, we schmoozed for an hour, then Victor headed back to our hotel while I manned the booth from 5 pm to 7 pm. Then I returned to the hotel, where Victor and I were summoned to a cocktail party in Skyhawk's hotel suite. The whole bar group was there along with music entrepreneur Ben-Alex Dupris and erstwhile Native Voice publisher Frank King.

I was surprised to hear that Dupris and Chris Eyre are regular Newspaper Rock readers also. Eyre praised me for tackling subjects that nobody in Indian country wants to touch. That's easy to do because I'm an outsider with nothing to lose. But their kind words were flattering--worth remembering the next time somebody slams me for not being an Indian.

Even more flattering was Dupris's guess that I'm around 40 years old. Nice try, dude, but you missed by at least a decade. In fact, I was the oldest person there except for Skyhawk and his wife. Respect your elders, Indians!

For more on the Native movie business, see:

Red Man Films heads to Italy
2010 Oscar nominations are lily-white
Any change since Dances with Wolves?
"Bottom line" argument is racist
Audiences more openminded than Hollywood

Preview of A Year in Mooring

Meet the 2011 SXSW Filmmakers | “A Year in Mooring” Director Chris EyreDisarming in its subtly, “A Year in Mooring” is the quiet cinematic journey about the inevitability of change. Starring Josh Lucas in his first leading dramatic role, “A Year in Mooring” follows the story of a successful businessman (Lucas) attempting to resurrect his life. Entering an idyllic harbor as a broken and haunted man, he buys and boards a dilapidated sailboat. Walking an isolated line between solitude and redemption, he’s watched by three equally mysterious residents: a waitress (Ayelet Zurer), the veteran mariner (James Cromwell), and a newly single father (Jon Tenney). [Synopsis courtesy of SXSW]

Responses courtesy of “A Year in Mooring” director Chris Eyre.

Using images to delve into the past…

I became a filmmaker when I started taking pictures as a teenager. I photographed everything—people, animals and many landscapes. I didn’t know why, but as a Native-American adoptee, I first started looking at all the historical photos of my own tribe in high school and tried to figure out who all these distant relatives might be. I especially loved the historical photos by Edward Sheriff Curtis. I found out later that my great, great grandfather on my Cheyenne-side was photographed by Curtis in 1899. His name was “Cohoe/Nohoe” or “lame man” (due to a bad leg). By using images, I was trying to go back somewhere and understand more of who I was or who my biological people were that I had lost.

My new movie “A Year in Mooring” uses landscapes as atmosphere to help tell the characters stories. Those are the type of movies I like best, one’s that could come from a lost photograph.

In the pipeline…

A remake of the 1983 movie “Running Brave” that follows the true-life story of Native American Olympian Billy Mills from his time growing up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the 1950s to becoming the only American to win a Gold Medal in the 10,000 meter long-distance race at the 1964 Tokyo games. To this day, his victory is described as one of the greatest moments in Olympic history.Comment:  For more on the subject, see María Hinojosa Interviews Chris Eyre and Filming A Year in Mooring.

María Hinojosa interviews Chris Eyre

My local PBS station recently broadcast an episode of One-on-One (airdate: 10/4/10) featuring director Chris Eyre. I think One-on-One has a Hispanic focus and the station broadcast it for National Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept. 15-Oct. 15). Here's the story:

About One-on-OneAward-winning journalist María Hinojosa interviews America's foremost artists, writers, activists, and civic leaders.

One-on-One is produced by La Plaza, WGBH Boston’s award-winning production unit. The series is available to public broadcasters through American Public Television’s Exchange service.

Hinojosa's half-hour interview with Eyre wasn't anything remarkable. It consisted mostly of standard questions and answers. But here are a few tidbits from Eyre:

Smoke Signals was the movie that told Natives they could be filmmakers.

Casinos are a good thing for Indians. (Hinojosa seemed a bit surprised at this.)

The fact that he's Cheyenne/Arapaho went over his head until he turned 18. (In other words, he didn't think much about being Indian.)

Why does he live in Pine Ridge rather than New York or Hollywood? He moved there to be part of the Northern Plains culture and because of his daughter's ties there. (Left unsaid is why he isn't living on a Cheyenne or Arapaho reservation and learning those cultures.)

What people are missing when they see only poverty on reservations, according to Eyre: "The thing that you don't see is the wealth of the spirit, and the love, and the humor, and the community. And those are the things that really make up America. ... It's not about the facades in the front of the house. It's about the love and the laughter and the communities that live within 'em. ... [As filmmakers] we don't want the facades, we want to see what's inside." (This spirit, love, and so forth is exactly what the stereotypical SCALPED series is missing.)

He says Hollywood is becoming more and more receptive to honest portrayals of Indians. But when he pitched Edge of America (black basketball coach leads girls' rez team), the executives had trouble pegging it and their eyes glazed over. (Showtime eventually made it, of course.)

He's avoided historical dramas because the Indians always die at the end. He did We Shall Remain because it let viewers go inside the facade and see things they hadn't seen before. Things such as Wes Studi as a Cherokee slave-owner.

One project he's working on is A Whale Hunt about the historic Makah whale hunt in 1999. HBO passed it over in favor of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which he called another "feathers and leathers" drama.

He loved Dances with Wolves for its entertainment value.

If he had his own studio, he'd make movies about contemporary Natives. (Naturally.)

For more on the subject, see Chris Eyre on Native Youth and Eyre Films Native Century Pilot.

Chris Eyre on Native youth

A Youth Renaissance for Native Americans

Filmmaker Chris Eyre says Native pride will embolden the next generation of first Americans

By Chris EyreToday, it is inspiring to see the number of strong Native American youth eager to learn more of our ancient traditions and cultures from the elders, who are more than happy to share with those who respect them. The youth renaissance is rooted, I think, in the elders’ tenacity, 1970s activism and a backlash against the mass media’s depiction of Native Americans.

The dismal portrayal of Native reservations is inaccurate and harmful. The media focus solely on poverty and the cycle of oppression. What most outsiders don’t see is the laughter, love, smiles, constant joking and humor and the unbreakable strength of the tribal spirit that is there. Some reservations are strongholds of community, serving the needs of their people without economic gain but with traditions leading the way. My hope is that Native evolution will be driven by a reinforced traditionalism passed down from one to another.Comment:  The dismal portrayal of Natives on and off reservations is inaccurate and harmful.

This:The media focus solely on poverty and the cycle of oppression. What most outsiders don’t see is the laughter, love, smiles, constant joking and humor and the unbreakable strength of the tribal spirit that is there.is exactly why I criticize the SCALPED comic-book series. As well as articles and stories that portray reservations as unrelenting hellholes.

If the media's mistakes and stereotypes are causing a youth renaissance, it's the only good thing about them. I like the thought of Native youngsters fighting back against the prevailing view of Indians. It means they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They're not going to invent excuses for racism like (some of) their elders have.

For more on Chris Eyre, see Eyre Films Native Century Pilot and Hollywood Puts Natives "in a Box."

Below:  "Reservations "are strongholds of community," says Chris Eyre. (Emily Schiffer)

Eyre films Native Century pilot

Film crew works downtown on pilot for 'Native Century' series

By Mary WestonKatahdin Productions filmed a segment of a promotional clip for the documentary "Native Century" Thursday morning by the Centennial Clock on Montgomery Street.

The crew also filmed a scene at the Butte County Office of Education on Bird Street in front of the Ishi mural.

Ishi spent his first night in civilization in 1911 in a jail located on what's now the BCOE property.

"Native Century" will be a four-hour series directed by Chris Eyre of "Smoke Signals" [and] "Skins."

The documentary recounts Native American history in the century after Wounded Knee. The film chronicles how Native Americans have sustained ancient traditions and preserved sovereign nations while adapting to the 20th and 21st centuries, according to information at www.katahdin.org.

This week the company has been filming a pilot film about Ishi and the repatriation of his brain from the Smithsonian Institute.Comment:  For more on Chris Eyre, see Hollywood Puts Natives "in a Box" and Pix of After the Mayflower. For more on Ishi, see Brian Wescott, Charlie Hill, and Ishi. For more on Native documentaries, see Native Documentaries and News.

Hollywood puts Natives "in a box"

An article on Natives in movies makes several interesting points:

Industry puts Natives ‘in a box,’ panel at Missoula documentary fest says

Chris Eyre's difficulty in finding work:"Just because you do something one way a certain year and it works, doesn't mean you can do it successfully next time," he said. "There is no map. You live hand to mouth a lot. But if it's what you love, it's the greatest thing in the world."The prevalence of contemporary Native stories:"I will say, probably 80 percent of the scripts I'm seeing these days are on contemporary subjects," noted Haynes. "It's a crime that these aren't being realized."The need to make stories universal:"We try to work with our filmmakers to say, ‘Who do you want to watch this film? Who's your target audience?'" said Sneve, whose organization provides funding for Native American film projects. "One thing that's important is that it's a story everybody can relate to."The importance of making movies:"I always think of (filmmaking) as one of the ultimate sovereign acts," said Baca. "It's like running your own small nation; you have to plan and schedule and make sure everybody's doing their job, if you want to make things move smoothly. ... If we continue to build the community, I believe it'll become easier."Comment:  For more on the subject, see WGA Panel on Native Representation, Movies Teach "Racist Assumptions," and DeLanna Studi on Native Roles. For more on the subject in general, see The Best Indian Movies.

Pix of After the Mayflower

Photos of filming After the Mayflower, the first episode of PBS's We Shall Remain series, directed by Chris Eyre.

John Goff's Photos--WE SHALL REMAIN filming from July 2008

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Filming A Year in Mooring

Correspondent DMarks came across Chris Eyre's latest directorial project in downtown Traverse City, Michigan. He took pictures and posted a report in his blog:

"A Year in Mooring" Movie Filming in Traverse City

He doesn't think he saw Eyre unless Eyre was the guy in the pale green jacket:



Nobody seems to know much about A Year in Mooring (2011), but apparently it's a mainstream rather than Native film.

The movie's lead actor, Josh Lucas, isn't Native but has an interesting Native connection:Birth Name
Joshua Lucas Easy Dent Maurer

Trivia
Born in Arkansas in 1971 and christened Joshua Lucas Easy Dent Maurer. His parents lived on an Native American reservation, and they named him based on things that happened there. His birth was so easy that the doctor hit his head on the bedpost and injured himself.Note:  Arkansas doesn't have any federally recognized tribes. But the reservation mentioned could be in another state. Or it could be the "reservation" of an unrecognized Arkansas tribe.

DMarks notes that screenwriter Peter Vanderwall also wrote Shadowheart, a Native-themed movie. Is this a coincidence, or are Chris Eyre and the other filmmakers seeking people with a Native connection?

For more on the subject, see Catching Up with Chris Eyre and The Best Indian Movies.

Catching up with Chris Eyre

Director Chris Eyre: 10 years after Smoke Signals

By David Hofstede

How Eyre got started:"When I read Sherman Alexie's story 'This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona,' I knew that was the movie I wanted to make," Eyre says. "His writing hit upon something that I related to in a very deep way."

Approaching the sometimes-prickly Alexie with that request, armed only with a thin resumé and nonexistent track record, was his first challenge. But Eyre has always been one to visualize his goals before setting out to achieve them.

"I remember after high school traveling to the University of Arizona and a woman asking me what I want to do, and I said that I was a director," Eyre recalls. "Then she asked what I had directed, and I said, 'Well, nothing yet.' My thing is you have to say it before it comes to pass."Eyre's next moves: Being a go-to director for Native American projects has been a boon to Eyre's career, but he's also gratified when he's invited to take on a project that does not have an Indian component. After making Smoke Signals, he was offered the director's chair on the Rob Schneider comedy Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo. He turned it down. Even though the film was nobody's idea of a classic, the chance to do it still qualifies as progress for Eyre and for Hollywood.

"I'm happy to make films I'm passionate about, and that's what I've done," he says. "If the subject is Native American, I think I can go to a place that's richer than other filmmakers, but it's not the driving force for me. It's more important to try and transcend even that."

Currently Eyre is developing A Year in Mooring, a supernatural drama that is not related to the Indian experience, but he also hopes to film the story of the controversial Native American activist Leonard Peltier.Comment:  For more on Eyre, see Recreations in We Shall Remain and Eyre Directs Friday Night Lights. For more on the subject in general, see The Best Indian Movies.

Below:  "Chris Eyre on the set of We Shall Remain: Tecumseh's Vision (2009)." (Larry Gus)

Review of Trail of Tears

Here's my review of Trail of Tears, the third episode of the PBS series We Shall Remain. In this part I'll concentrate on the storytelling aspects.

As usual, the look and feel of the episode is good. No complaints there.

This episode was written by Mark Zwonitzer, presumably a non-Native, and directed by Chris Eyre. It's interesting to compare the two episodes directed by Eyre with the one directed primarily by Ric Burns. Having viewed Eyre's work twice, I can see a difference.

Eyre:  Clear re-enactments. More personal, less political. I.e., more shots of people and places to establish scenes, fewer montages and quick cuts. More narration by Benjamin Bratt and Native experts, less by white historians.

Burns:  Hazy re-enactments. More political, less personal. Less narration by Benjamin Bratt and Native experts, more by white historians.

Is this an artifact of the stories told? (Maybe relatively little is known about Tecumseh's history.) Is it a personal difference between Eyre and Burns? Or is it the difference between a Native and non-Native director? Namely, that a Native director makes the Native figures seem more real and alive, less legendary or mythic?

I don't know. And I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. I actually like the Tecumseh episode best of the ones I've seen so far. But again, I find the stylistic differences between the two directors interesting.

As usual, the acting is good. Wes Studi is the only "big-name" actor you've probably heard of it. Some of the Cherokees are played by non-actors and I don't think you can distinguish them from the professionals. This seems like a rebuke to the producers who say, "We auditioned hundreds of Native actors and couldn't find one who could handle the role."

I think the story suffers some because it's less straightforward and more complex than the previous stories. There's also the unfortunate fact that the major players are named the Ridge or Major Ridge, John Ridge, and John Ross. These names aren't as distinct or memorable as Sitting Bull or Geronimo.

Narrative problems

The writing is a little unclear, especially at the beginning when establishing the key players. Three examples:

1) The Cherokees fought with the British against the Americans in the Revolutionary War. Major Ridge took his first American scalp at age 17 and personally fought the Americans "past the point of hope." Yet the next thing we learn is that he's decided to adopt the Euro-American lifestyle and become a Southern "gentleman farmer." King Philip and Tecumseh didn't take this approach, so why did Ridge?

About the only explanation Trail of Tears gives is this:Preserving the Cherokee nation meant walking, for a time, down the new path America was offering.But who says that was the only path? If it was, why was it the only path? What alternatives did Ridge and the other Cherokees consider? The episode doesn't say.

Wikipedia provides some key information on Ridge's conversion from an anti-American fighter to a pro-Southern farmer:He acquired the title "Major" in 1814, during his service leading Cherokees alongside General Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend during the Creek War. He also joined Jackson in the First Seminole War in 1818, leading Cherokees against the Seminole Indians.Wow...interesting. Ridge fought with Andrew Jackson against other Indians. He later acceded to Jackson's removal policy against the wishes of the Cherokees. In other words, he wasn't exactly a Tecumseh-style visionary. A word such as "accommodationist" or "opportunist" seems closer to the mark.

But Trail of Tears doesn't think these facts are relevant? This is why the show suffers some. It sanitizes the story, ignoring the rough edges that would've made the drama more compelling. It tries too hard to elevate Ridge to the level of elder statesman.

2) John Ross is introduced as a boy working in a store. We don't learn if he's a relative of Major Ridge or what until a while later.

He eventually becomes the Principal Chief and the so-called "Cherokee Moses." But what exactly led him to embrace the traditional Cherokee position when other mixed-bloods were selling out?

3) Major Ridge's son John goes to school in Connecticut and marries a white girl. The New Englanders who supposedly wanted the Indians to assimilate prove their true colors. They shout at the mixed-race marriage partners and call them "sinners."

The narration says the protests "left a mark" on him. "He will never believe whites in exactly same way again." But eventually he goes from advocating sovereignty to advocating removal. Why exactly did he embrace the white position if he had learned not to trust whites?

The final tragedy

The episode downplays the actual Trial of Tears, devoting only 15 or so minutes to it. I read that some people cried after seeing this, but I wasn't moved.

But I'm not sure that showing more tragedy would've been better. It might've overshadowed what came before. I'd say that's the story people need to know: how the US used political and legal machinations to dispossess Indians.

The episode also doesn't say much about the removal of the other "civilized" tribes: the Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole. Again, I'm not sure if this was wise. Focusing on one particular, personal story is generally good, but oversimplifying and omitting relevant information is generally bad.

Comparing this episode to After the Mayflower, I also wonder if it was the best story to tell. Both stories were basically about how Euro-Americans pressured the Indians to assimilate and how the Indians resisted. They covered the same or similar issues and conflicts. Perhaps another Indian story--California's Mission era? The Navajo Long Walk? The Dawes Act and how it disassembled Indian reservations? The boarding-school movement?--would've been better.

For these reasons, I didn't find Trial of Tears quite as satisfying as the previous episodes. Maybe it's because the story itself wasn't as satisfying. The Indians didn't fight to the death as they did in King Philip's War and the War of 1812. Major Ridge was trying to help his people, but he ultimately gave in.

Still, Trial of Tears is definitely worth seeing. Rob's rating: 8.0 of 10.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Review of Tecumseh's Vision

Still a week late, here's my review of Tecumseh's Vision, the second episode of the PBS series We Shall Remain. In this part I'll concentrate on the storytelling aspects.

Although this episode is an hour and 20 minutes, or a bit longer than the first episode, it doesn't lag.

The credits say this episode was written and produced by Ric Burns and directed by Burns and Chris Eyre. So it's basically a white man's production.

A few shifts in tone and style from After the Mayflower are evident.

1) Although Burns uses recreations throughout the episode, he shoots them at a distance...through tall grasses or smoke...out of focus...or using quick cuts. Clearly, as Burns said, he doesn't want us to take these recreations too literally.

This technique doesn't hurt any, but I don't think it helps any either. I'd say Eyre was right to try for a more realistic look in After the Mayflower.

2) Most of the narration is done by white historians, not by Benjamin Bratt or the actors. They tend to focus on the main characters and events and not on the Indian cultures.

Between the impressionistic recreations and the white-man narrators remove us a step from knowing the Native characters intimately. But I'd still say Tecumseh's Vision seems to unfold through Native eyes. There's no obvious bias toward a Euro-American point of view.

Once again, everything looks and feels authentic to the untrained eye.

Michael Greyeyes does a fine job as Tecumseh. So does Billy Merasty as Tenskwatawa. Greyeyes should be the go-to guy every time Hollywood needs an intense Indian actor in his 30s.

A couple of times the production uses screeching hawks--once when young Tecumseh is running through the grass and once when his brother is reborn as Tenskwatawa. No more hawk cries, please.

In their joint statement to PBS, the Wampanoag leaders wrote:PBS in its support and broadcasting of this production has given credence to a radically altered interpretation of the great Shawnee Chief Tecumseh’s 1811 declaration to President James Madison’s messenger by deleting its land based implication. “We Shall Remain” implies a call for pity and does not carry the same declaration and meaning as “… AND HERE, WE SHALL REMAIN.”I don't quite understand this complaint. Are they claiming that removing the two words "and here" radically changes the meaning? Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. Tecumseh's Vision has Tecumseh saying what I presume is the whole line:The Master of Life has appointed this place for us to light our fires, and here we shall remain.Sounds like a land-based declaration to me.

Conclusion

Anyway, Tecumseh's Vision is an excellent documentary. It has the same virtues as After the Mayflower, but not its slow start. After watching this documentary, you'll understand why some people consider Tecumseh the greatest Native leader ever.

Rob's rating:  9.0 of 10.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Quality of After the Mayflower

A week late, here's part one of my review of After the Mayflower, the first episode of the PBS series We Shall Remain. In this part I'll concentrate on the storytelling issues--i.e., the quality.

The first thing to note is that After the Mayflower was written by two non-Natives (I think). In fact, the only clearcut Natives I saw in creative positions were director Chris Eyre and casting director Rene Haynes. Obviously they used Native actors, advisors, and narrators, but how about putting more Natives to work behind the cameras?

The episode opens with essentially the material in the trailer. It closes with a five-minute "behind the scenes" featurette and 10 minutes of commercials and promos. So it's really an hour and 15 minutes, not an hour and a half.

The first scenes recount the classic Thanksgiving story. Although the camera focuses on a handful of Wampanoag Indians, the account seems to come from a non-Native point of view. As we've been told a thousand times, the Pilgrims have invited the Indians to share a thanksgiving feast with them.

No one knows for sure what really happened, but I think the reality was different. The local Indians traditionally held a harvest feast every fall. For the Pilgrims' sake, they brought and prepared most of the food. They outnumbered the Pilgrims by something like 2-1. So it might be more correct to say the Indians decided to share their feast with the Pilgrims, not the other way around.

The rest of the episode doesn't have this questionable point-of-view. To me it seems to come from a Native POV.

Everything looks and feels authentic in After the Mayflower. The Indians at the feast are shown laughing and gambling, which is a welcome change from their usual stoicism. This signals that we are indeed going to get a more humane, three-dimensional portrait of Indians.

Recreations and pacing

The episode uses recreations most of the time, with only a few talking heads and displays such as maps. But Benjamin Bratt and the historian advisors, not the actors, do most of the talking. I'd say this works well.

Some critics--and co-director Ric Burns--have complained about the recreations. Too much like the playacting in historical pageants, they said. But I disagree. The recreations are fine--with the following caveat.

The pacing of the episode, particularly in the first third, is slow. Bratt speaks in a solemn, dignified voice. He could've sped up his speech by 10-20% and made the narration more lively.

He and the other narrators sometimes reiterate a point already made--again, particularly in the first third. All in all, I think the creative team could've trimmed this episode by 10 or 15 minutes without hurting it. Making it an hour rather than 1.25 hours would've been better.

Another change I might've suggested was not starting with the thanksgiving feast. Tell the tale in chronological order and build up to the moment everyone's familiar with. That would've created a little tension that I think is missing in the first third. People would've been watching and waiting for the big moment.

The Thanksgiving section ends with a shot of a soaring seabird. I guess they couldn't find a hawk or an eagle on short notice. I wondered if they'd hit us with more clichés, but thankfully they didn't.

After the feast

After the first Thanksgiving, the episode continues with the events of the next 50 years. It keeps its focus firmly on Massasoit and his son Metacom (Philip). This approach works exceedingly well. We get personally involved with father and son, and want to see how their story unfolds, even though we know how it ends.

A friend of mine complained that the Pequot Massacre got short shrift--only a couple of sentences--but that's okay with me. Massasoit wasn't there, so he didn't experience the horror personally.

I think the creators made a good choice here. An abstract recitation of facts might have grown boring, but the personal approach makes us care. And for those inclined to be put off by "guilt trips," we don't see a lot of dead or dying Indians.

The cinematography isn't as lush as it was in Terrence Malick's The New World--but then, how could it be? The production values are good for a documentary of this type. No complaints in that department.

Massasoit is played by Marcos Akiaten (Chiricauha Apache) and Philip by Annowon Weeden (Mashpee Wampanoag). I'm not surprised to learn Akiaten is Apache. With his headband, he kind of looks like one. But he does a great job and is the standout in the cast.

I noticed Zarn McClarnon and Tonantzin Carmelo in the show. I didn't notice Alex Rice, another moderately well-known Native actress. So they didn't just use unknown Indians from local tribes. I've seen McClarnon enough times that his appearance was a bit jarring to me, but few viewers would react that way.

Conclusion

At the end, I wasn't moved or anything--because I'm not that kind of guy. But After the Mayflower made the events of that period real for me. I had read about them in history books, of course, but I can't say they sunk in. Now I don't think I'll forget what happened after the Mayflower.

The episode also provoked a lot of thoughts and questions. To me that's a sign of good filmmaking. I'll discuss some of these points in the next part of my review.

Overall, After the Mayflower is a fine piece of work that's well worth watching. Rob's rating: 8.5 of 10.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Below:  A sympathetic Englishman tells "King Phillip" he can't win a war with the British. (Actually, yes, he could've, but we'll get to that.)

Overviews of We Shall Remain

'We Shall Remain':  From Plymouth to Wounded Knee, a Tale of Survival"We Shall Remain," a five-part PBS series that retells American history from the Native American perspective, is a remarkably old-fashioned documentary. It is built up slowly, chronologically, and powerfully from a few basic and familiar elements: talking heads, an authoritative narrator and loving aerial shots of the primordial forest. Even its use of historical reenactments reminds one of the kind of movies screened at National Park Service visitors' centers a generation or two ago.

Executive producer Sharon Grimberg and a team of directors and producers (including Chris Eyre, Ric Burns, Dustinn Craig, Sarah Colt and Stanley Nelson) have committed to telling an alternative history, but they forgo alternative means. Even the events chosen to anchor the individual films are already familiar from history books: The Mayflower, the War of 1812, the Indian wars and Wounded Knee. But slowly, over the course of more than seven hours, one begins to realize the power of this approach. "We Shall Remain" is unapologetically committed to the now suspect idea of Great Man history, the chronicle of charismatic leaders, epic battles and dramatic, decisive events indelibly marked on the calendar and mythologized for centuries after.

It may be old-fashioned, but it radically shifts the sense of agency and psychological complexity from familiar American icons to Native Americans who once played only supporting roles. The effect is rather like the psychological shock one gets when the map of the world is turned upside down. It's still a map and still reliable in every way. It's just disorienting.'American Experience: We Shall Remain'

Five signal moments in Native American history are explored in the new PBS series.Of the many elephants occupying the room that is the history of the United States, none is larger than the official mistreatment of the Native American by the new neighbors from over the water. Like slavery, it is a subject at once much discussed and somehow fundamentally ignored, and because the story has been so sensationalized on the one hand and romanticized on the other, there is a continual desire to tell it right.

Truth being the elusive thing that it is, however, this amounts to an ongoing project rather than a completely achievable end.

The latest attempt is “We Shall Remain,” an ambitious, largely gratifying series of five feature-length documentaries that begins airing weekly tonight on PBS as part of "American Experience."Television Review | 'We Shall Remain'

Centuries of American Indian Valor, Celebrated and RecreatedTo the extent that certain kinds of sweeping historical documentaries on PBS feel like junior-high social studies, “We Shall Remain,” which begins Monday and unfolds over five weeks, is the sort of information-intensive class that lends itself to copious note taking if not enlivened argument. The subject is the history of American Indian resistance over four centuries. Our instructor is Benjamin Bratt, a longtime supporter of Indian causes, who serves as off-camera narrator and never wavers in his tone of earnest contrition. He speaks as if he has been asked to apologize for the sins of white oppression. His effort at an ethnically authentic pronunciation of Lalawethika, a Shawnee leader, is alone an exercise in cultural amends.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

3D Indians in We Shall Remain

PBS series tells 300 years of native historyNative American filmmaker Chris Eyre--whose credits include "Smoke Signals," "Skins" and "Edge of America"--directed the first three.

"This is not about nobles and this is not about savages. It's about Native American leaders that need to be recognized in the pantheon of American Indian heroes. If we're a collective of a melting pot we need to recognize leaders of different complexions that are also part of the American pantheon of heroes," he said.

"I normally see Indians in loincloths running from tree to tree and rock to rock. In this case we've created Indians into people."

Eyre said it's the first project he has done that's a period piece, and it allowed him to expand on people's understanding of historical figures such as Tecumseh and Major Ridge.

For example, Major Ridge led the Cherokee Nation and "has always been the villain who signed away the homeland," for moving his people out of Georgia to Oklahoma, but he did so to keep the tribe alive, he said.

"There was no good choice. When you think about women and children and grandparents, it's romantic to fight until everybody's been annihilated. But as a leader you have to ask yourself if that's the best way to preserve your way of life," Eyre said.

"I wanted to create three-dimensional characters who were flawed but were put into extraordinary circumstances and had to make decisions for their people that made them people who should be acknowledged as Native American heroes."'We Shall Remain' Tells Native American History, with Native Americans at the HelmFor actor Marcos Akiaten, of Chokonen, Chiricahua and Apache ancestry, who has portrayed Native Americans in a number of previous films before taking on the role of Massasoit, the production was quite a change.

"It was a great delight to be directed by an Indian director and an executive producer who made a tremendous amount of compromises in order to make this as authentic as possible," Akiaten says. "I've been in many of these large Indian productions that have been directed basically by Caucasians, and [this] was an opportunity for me to actually work with an Indian director. And it was through his eyes that helped bring my part and the other parts and the other factions of this movie all together as one."

Cassius Spears of Ashaway, R.I., a Narrangansett and former educator and cultural adviser at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, has a bit part in the film. He says the efforts to get it right paid off.

"As a cultural adviser, I noticed that they put extreme effort into looking at the details," Spears says. "From the tattooing, from the dress, from language, all the material that they put together, and then again paying very close detail—I have to say it was awesome, awesome."Comment:  I wouldn't say Natives were at the helm unless they did most of the writing, directing, and producing. The only "helming" I see here are Natives directing or co-directing episodes.

I must've missed all the modern-day movies with Indians running from tree to tree and rock to rock. Chris Eyre alone has worked on several movies about today's Indians. And that doesn't include such major efforts as Dreamkeeper, Into the West, and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

Fact is, people have been trying to portray Indians realistically in movies for at least 30-40 years. Sure, they often haven't done a good job of it. But let's not pretend that every movie portrays Indians as skulking savages.

I guess this is part of the marketing process. In almost every Native movie since Dances with Wolves, the creators have claimed that previous movies were bad but theirs will be good. They alone have realized the hidden truth: that Indians are three-dimensional people. Yeah, right.

For more on the subject, see We Shall Remain vs. Stereotypes and Wampanoag POV We Shall Remain.

Recreations in We Shall Remain

Seeing History Through Indians’ EyesIN his two-decade career as a filmmaker Ric Burns has made histories of the exploration of the American West and the settlement of New York City without resorting to the use of dramatic re-creations. In the passionate debate among filmmakers over the documentary form he sides with those who find the acting and low-budget effects too often cheesy and distracting.

Dramatic re-creations were as alien to him as documentary and period work were to Chris Eyre, an American Indian director whose character-intense films include “Smoke Signals” and the adaptations of Tony Hillerman’s novels “Skinwalkers” and “A Thief of Time” for PBS’s “Mystery!”

So it was with some mutual wariness that Mr. Burns and Mr. Eyre teamed up, at the request of the PBS history series “American Experience,” to direct “Tecumseh’s Vision,” one of five documentaries that make up “We Shall Remain.”And:Starting as what Mr. Eyre called “an arranged marriage,” the production team had some tense moments that needed to be smoothed out by a few walks in the woods. At one point Mr. Burns was so insistent on his vision for a particular shot that he went running a quarter mile across a field to set it up, leaving his exposed legs scratched and bleeding; Mr. Eyre, won over by Mr. Burns’s passion, conceded.

There were other challenges. The two directors appealed to members of the Absentee Shawnee tribe to include a depiction of a tribal football-like game but were rebuffed. “There’s such skepticism among Indians at telling our history in movies,” Mr. Eyre said.

And there was still the problem of the re-creations, a form that Mr. Burns says he generally loathes.

Ms. Grimberg and Mr. Samels were insistent on re-enactments. Some of the stories the series would be telling predated photography. And there wasn’t much in the way of documents and archival material to make them visually interesting in the way pioneered by “The Civil War,” on which Mr. Burns worked with his brother, Ken. “There was no way to really humanize the stories without having some drama in them,” Ms. Grimberg said.

With the cinematographer Paul Goldsmith the team tried to avoid what was so objectionable. “They’re always hokey,” Mr. Burns said, adding that “99 times out of 100” they were merely illustrations.

The team settled on images that included plenty of abstraction, shot from a distance or in extreme close-up, or filmed through reeds. In one scene where Lalawethika falls into an alcohol-induced stupor and has a vision that changes the course of his people’s history, some images move in and out of focus, while others are seen through a haze of campfire smoke.

“There’s always got to be a ratio between what the image discloses and what it holds back,” Mr. Burns said. “If you just give everything, if the camera just sees with blinding clarity all the real estate, the audience goes away. There has to be room for the audience in the image.”Comment:  Yeah, that's a real problem, Mr. Burns. Theaters packed with people watching documentaries--people who suddenly get up and go when they see dramatic recreations. I.e., people who demand talking heads and archival material even if these old-fashioned techniques suck the life out of subjects. Not.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Kayenta Today reviews We Shall Remain

The Kayenta Today newspaper reviews the PBS series We Shall Remain in advance of its debut next week.

We Shall Remain

By Malcom BenallyThe director Chris Eyre, in all three of the films allows historians, descendants, writers, maps, and archival material to tell the American Experience in “We Shall Remain.” Despite all the talk about wars, genocides, and mayhem, I did not see a single person fall off a horse. But, a lot of information comes across about the way life was for America Indians in the colonial days. With all the fancy visuals aside, the first three films in this PBS series would make a great National Public Radio series. In fact, I couldn’t buy Tecumseh talking very fancy English in his final stand, but I probably wouldn’t have noticed it if I was listening to it on NPR.

It is the last two documentaries that will definitely generate dialogue. Here in the West, we like our films with a tinge of entertainment and intrigue, and the last two documentaries “Geronimo” and “Wounded Knee” fulfills that need, even for a PBS series.Comment:  I don't have a problem imagining Tecumseh speaking "fancy English." Many Indians came from storytelling cultures and were great orators. I presume Tecumseh spoke persuasively since he persuaded so many Indians to join his confederation.

If the last two episodes without dramatizations are more interesting than the first three, I'll be surprised. Documentaries are almost always better with recreations and dramatizations than with talking heads and static images only.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

First look at We Shall Remain

I've watched the half-hour preview of the PBS series We Shall Remain that will debut this month. Here's a brief look at the five episodes:

After the Mayflower, Tecumseh's Vision, and Trail of Tears are a mix of dramatizations and the usual talking heads and archival materials. Chris Eyre directed the three episodes.

Based on the preview, the dramatizations appear to give a genuine Native's-eye view of events. They may be comparable to Terence Malick's take on the Pocahontas story in The New World. I'm guessing they'll set the standard for these stories for years to come.

Geronimo looks like a mix of talking heads, archival photographs, and animation (!), with little or no dramatization. It may be controversial because it presents some Apache criticism of Geronimo's lawless activities.

Wounded Knee looks like a mix of talking heads and archival film. I didn't sense any criticism of AIM or the Wounded Knee occupation. It looks as though Dennis Banks, Russell Means, John Trudell et al. are spinning this incident as a grand gesture of Native power and independence.

The producers apparently are white people who seem sincere in their wish to present Native history from a Native viewpoint. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but my initial impression is a good one.

We Shall Remain vs. stereotypes

We Shall Remain:  Teaching Native American Culture Within American HistoryHow do you teach Native American history and culture in the context of an American history class? Is the Native American content taught in separate components or woven within the framework of the remainder of the curriculum? As an 8th grade history teacher, I know that unfortunately in many textbooks Native American culture is compartmentalized and taught from an outside perspective. “We Shall Remain,” the new documentary series from American Experience and PBS airing in April and May (check your local listings), is an invaluable resource for teachers who wish to teach Native American culture within the curriculum of United States history courses. The series includes five films, each offering a unique approach, depicting the role of Native Americans within the context of American history. The five episodes include: “After the Mayflower,” “Tecumseh’s Vision,” “Trail of Tears,” “Geronimo” and “Wounded Knee.”

I recently asked my 8th grade American history students what immediately came to mind when I said “Native American.” Several mentioned the help Native Americans provided the Corps of Discovery on their expedition to the West, a topic we recently discussed in class. Many of the responses, however, characterized Native Americans in militaristic terms--focusing on warfare, attacks and battles. Additional common responses included “Thanksgiving,” “teepees,” and “hunting bison.” These responses left me disappointed, in part with the limits of my instruction. The history of Native Americans in North America is much richer and more fascinating than just these highly stereotypical glances.Comment:  That the students mentioned the role of Sacagawea is good. That they mentioned her only because they recently studied her is bad.

I suspect the other answers reflect the students' long-term, outside-the-classroom notions of Indians. The notions they've been brainwashed with for 10-12 years before reaching a junior-high history class.

And where do they get these ideas? For the umpteenth time, from the mainstream American culture via the media. From countless depictions of Indians at the first Thanksgiving, living in tipis, and hunting buffalo. Not to mention the constant association of Indians with "redskins," savages, warriors, spears, arrows, and tomahawks.

As I've said before, a line extends from products such as Redskin magazine, the Carpinteria Warriors, and the "Go Native" party to stereotypical thinking and thence to racism and hate crimes. The people who contribute to these seemingly "harmless" products may not realize they're harming Indians, but they are.

To stop the harm, stop excusing these products--as non-Indians tend to do--and start thinking critically about them. This is what respecting and honoring Indians really means.

Stereotypes shall remain?

Of course, I'm not giving We Shall Remain a free pass until I see it. Four of the five episodes are set in the distant past. They feature Indians vs. Euro-Americans in conflict with the Indians ultimately losing. I'm not sure these shows will dispel more stereotypes than they reinforce.

If I had the resources, I wouldn't choose to do more historical dramas about the tragic fate of Indians. Even if I wanted to expose people to history, I'd do it from a modern perspective. I'd try to make it something that today's average moviegoer would want to see.

Take the Geronimo story, for instance. You could do a supernatural story about Geronimo's spirit possessing one of his descendants. A murder mystery about the theft of Geronimo's skull and bones. A science-fiction story about traveling back in time to meet Geronimo. An alternative-history story in which Geronimo's forces defeat the US Army.

In short, do these stories always have to be historical dramas that are "good for you"? The kind director Chris Eyre warned us against before he decided to direct a couple of episodes? Answer: No.

Below:  "I'm not a primitive savage. Wherever did you get that idea from?"