Lights! Camera! Action!

originally published on OpenFile Montreal, December 13th, 2011

I was asked to review the latest remake of the classic disaster film, First Nations Housing. Although the film is still currently in production, the rumours of scandal on set, reports of conflict between the director and the lead actors, and financial troubles which threaten to bankrupt the whole project has everyone talking.

I, like so many others, have thrilled to the various versions over the years, but I admit that I don’t have high hopes for this most recent attempt to re-imagine the story. This time, the film is set in a small Northern reserve in present-day Ontario. The government in power is Conservative rather than Liberal, but don’t expect any twists or turns on that account.

When the first version of this film was released almost 20 years ago, the central plot device was having Jean Chretien’s character introduce a “Red Book” with commitments to develop a housing approach that would emphasise community control and local resources. The symbolism was reminiscent of Orson Welles’s work, and the Liberals rode the wave to election glory, achieving a majority. Of course this made it all the more poignant when those promises were forgotten despite the Liberals having achieved the political power to follow through on them.

Though it was a box-office flop, I still believe the version with the most potential was the first remake, filmed only three years later. It introduced us to the concept of a “Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples”. I remain convinced that the attempt to interest the audience in a drawn out series of interviews and investigations, resulting in numerous recommendations calling for an increase in spending for on-reserve housing, was simply before its time. Today’s viewers are much more accustomed such forensic detail. The government’s dismissal of these recommendations felt so much more tragic than just broken campaign promises.

However it is undeniable that the remake with the most dramatic impact was the film produced over 18 months in 2004-2005. For the first time, native actors were portrayed as having a real say in the development of a solution. There was a delicious build up of tension as native groups were played off one another, and even though you knew there wasn’t going to be a happy ending, the director somehow managed to make you feel like it was possible. The way the Gomery Inquiry utterly gutted the Liberals and ushered in a Conservative government was pure cinematic gold. The closing scenes with the conservatives driving a stake through the heart of the Kelowna Accord literally left me with tears in my eyes.

I am skeptical about the approach being taken by the latest director. Rather than framing the issue on a national level, the story remains intensely focused on one small Cree community, improbably named Attawapiskat, creating ambiguity about whether there are any issues beyond this one reserve. I suspect many people are going to enjoy the way the director delves into the personal backgrounds of the protagonists in lurid detail, but the screenplay reads like a Jerry Springer episode summary. Do we need to spend so much time following Chief Spence around, listening to gossip about salary, her love life, and so on? By the way, what the hell is the Zamboni supposed to symbolise? The director has completely lost me there.

I feel that the portrayals of the Prime Minister and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as finger-pointing buffoons who claim to have no understanding of the underlying issues are a tad unrealistic. There is no suspension of disbelief possible here as Harper’s character is almost a caricature of the ‘bad guy’ while Duncan just comes across as impossibly dense. Although, the way public opinion in this film swings so quickly from ‘shock and sympathy’ to ‘Indians-as-inherently-corrupt’ fits well into this cartoonish portrayal so at least there is some cinematic coherence.

I do think it’s about time to modernise the story somewhat, and perhaps even introduce an alternate ending that reflects a growing consciousness of aboriginal issues in Canada. I realise I may be a minority in that regard. There is certainly a strong tradition of staying true to the original plot. It is after all a tragedy, and happy endings kind of mess with the formula.

About âpihtawikosisân

Métis from Lac Ste. Anne, Alberta. Currently living in Montreal, Quebec. Passions: education, Aboriginal law, the Cree language, and roller derby. Education: BEd, LLB, working on a BCL
This entry was posted in First Nations, INAC, Injustice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Lights! Camera! Action!

  1. Brian Fisher says:

    Megwich madame, thank you so much for your clarity and compassion.

  2. H. Harvey says:

    You truly have found a new calling: Hollywood is on the phone!

  3. Cynthia Preston says:

    Love it Irony, drama, tradgedy and humour……..if only it wasn’t all so so true….

  4. Moira Dunphy says:

    Oh, I think it could still be framed as a tragedy. Minister Duncan could be revealed as a simpleton, being manipulated by the villain. Take the image of the noble Indian by the side of the road with a tear in his eye- replace the noble with a puzzled Ex-Minister Duncan, and instead of the road put him outside Parliament, looking in, a tear in his eye and a sob caught in his throat…

  5. Alya says:

    One of the big problems with this movie is the audience response. They are conditioned to catch the director’s choice of emotion, set up by the lights and costumes and music. Emotions rise, logic is suspended, and the world is painted believably black and white. What the audience needs isn’t more popcorn and car commercials but a good look behind the scenes. They need to see how the orchestra leads their emotional response and how the man in the suit can seem more convincing than the lady in tears but he’s still reading from a script. Behind the smoke and mirrors of this “Hollywood magic” there are a whole lot of shades of grey and I want to thank you for opening the studio doors for us and letting us look inside.

  6. Medic72 says:

    Can’t help but love your writing style.

  7. Nokamis says:

    I sense a note of slapstick comedic styling in this movie congruent with the character of two of the leading males. You know, much akin to Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges (not a stretch to find another leading stooge), Dumb and Dumber and the list goes on. The powers that be behind the scenes may well insist the movie be viewed in rose colored three D glasses, however hold your line of true artistic integrity in the interest of producing a drama with the best of the best comedic style.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s