So I’ve been really interested in learning more about a movie currently in production: The Last Princess, the Princess Kaiulani film. I first heard about this low-budget film when an article in the Advertiser ran, claiming people were outraged by the original title of the film which was “The Barbarian Princess”.
I became even more intrigued when I saw them filming on the grounds of Iolani Palace when I rode the bus to work. People in period costumes at a buffet line (off-camera) and authentic carriages awaiting riders were amazing sites to see. Very anachronistic.
No IMDB page has been created yet, so I combed the web more and came across this blog entry about The Last Princess aka The Princess Kaiulani film from Vivacious Valenian. I think the actresses selected are interesting choices. I just hope they don’t overdo the accent; That could really kill the believe-ability.
And in regards to the title “The Barbarian Princess”, I think it’s an interesting tactic to use a title to get audiences in the “mood” for a film. Case in point, the racist views about interracial relationships in “South Pacific” carry no weight in today’s society. Segregation is so passe, therefore lost on today’s audiences. But, when you use outdated vernacular (ie: Hawaiians, polynesians and other indigenous cultures were referred to as “barbaric” by colonizers) you paint a picture for the audience of the time period. I understand how some could perceive it at insensitive, though.
Can’t wait for this one to come out.
Filed under: Pearls of Wisdom, People, Rants, hawaii | Tagged: barbarian, film, hawaii, independent, monarchy, princess kaiulani
Why be excited? Barbarian Princess has a bad script. The script writer, Forby, has ignored not only Native Hawaiian cultural experts but even Native Hawaiian academia who had offered to help him out.
Besides the script writer was very insensitive. How would you like a movie about President Aguinaldo of the Philippines called “Heathen Insurgent” (something American press did call him) or maybe a movie about Meiji era Japan called “Slant Eyed Monkies”? Did they call Cate Blanchette’s movie “Elizabeth, Really a Man”, something that the French called Queen Elizabeth I? Those things may have been normal for the 19th century, but we’re in the 21st century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRDx8ouk2xQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gubVK_Si-Y4
Thanks for the feedback, Hokulani. I think Forby being a non-resident would offer an interesting objective point of view. Sure, it will miss some nuances and maybe even flub a few facts, but as long as they put a disclaimer up front, I’ll still be interested in watching it.
I’m in a play at Kumu Kahua theatre where the plot revolves around a filipino man and his fellow filipino labor workers. The story was based on a short tale from Carlos Bulosan and features many filipino culture references, but it was written in fact by a haole man named Lonnie Carter. What effect did that have on the story? He wasn’t writing from his personal experiences so it made the themes and morals more universal, something I think is valuable to recognize as a storyteller.
Well I think it then comes down to what is more important, telling a good story or being culturally and historically sensitive?
I believe that someone can be both and not either or as you seem to indicate from your experience in Kumu Kahua.
For me its not a matter of whether the writer/director is haole or non-local. Its the script itself. I have seen a copy of it and on the first 10 pages, there were already misquotes particularly on the relationship between Kalakaua and Cleghorn. In addition, it plays on stereotypes of not only Hawaiians but also Scots and Irish–and I have shown the script to Scottish people and they were offended and said what I am also saying. If you call good story telling as retooling stereotypes and not caring about a community’s reaction to how you present their history, then I suppose Forby is a good story teller.
Likewise with Bulosan, whom I’m very familiar with, I would object not to Lonnie Carter per se but how he presents the story of Bulosan and what he would emphasize (i.e. Bulosan’s socialist idealogy or his reaction to the US colonial regime in the Philippines during his time, etc).
Every writer is entitled to create or tell a subject in his/her own way, but does that give a writer (or story teller in your terminology) the right to put information or moods that clearly did not exist in the life of the subject? If someone were to do a docudrama about George Bush and put in imaginary fights with Dick Cheney, would that be fair to the audience? I think not. I think a good writer is someone that can present a subject to an audience without creating misinformation? There is a fine line between non-fiction, fiction, and propaganda.
@ Hokulani
I cannot understand why you seem so hell-bent on making this movie out to be horrible. Were you one of the experts who was rejected? Are you seeking revenge?
Why don’t you give the film a chance, and then judge whether it’s sensitive or not? Most of the complaints that you outline in your videos are satisfied in the script … just read it, and try not to see through eyes blind with rage. What kind of Hawaiian spirit is that?