Film Review: Smoke Signals

It’s no secret that Hollywood has been misrepresenting Native Americans for years. “Smoke Signals” (1998) is a fun, well-made film that proves they have plenty of stories to share and, when allowed their own voice, can tell them quite well.

When this movie was released, it was a significant event -- billed as the first Hollywood feature film written (Sherman Alexie, a Spokane/Coeur d'Alene Indian), directed (Chris Eyre, a Cheyenne-Arapaho), co-produced and starring American Indians. It performed well at Sundance, winning the Audience Award and earning a nomination for the Grand Jury Prize.

And it’s easy to see why. Alexie’s characters are realistic and down-to-earth, comfortable and natural in their surroundings. While most of the time Native American characters in films have been little more than overblown stereotypes, these characters have strong, dynamic personalities, and can ably speak for themselves.

The film is the result of Alexie’s first script, based on his collection of short stories titled “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven.” Alexie is the author of 11 books and more than 300 short pieces, and after growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation is adept at capturing the eccentricities of life on the rez.

“Smoke Signals” opens on the expansive, humble plains of Idaho’s Coeur d'Alene Indian reservation on July 4, 1976. As a raucous celebration finally dwindles in the early morning hours, a ravaging fire engulfs one of the modest homes. An infant is saved when he is flung out of an upper-floor window and is miraculously caught by neighbor Arnold Joseph (Gary Farmer).

“I don’t remember the fire...I only have the stories,” Thomas Builds-the Fire recalls of his rescue years later. With his parents gone and his grandmother in charge of the child-raising responsibilities by default, Thomas grows into a clumsy caricature of what might happen if a stereotypical Native American storyteller decided to enlist Steve Urkel for fashion advice.

Thomas’ getup includes thick glasses, long braided hair and a stiff black suit, and he spends his time walking around, trading “fine examples of the oral tradition” (longwinded but engaging stories of questionable veracity) for favors.

But despite his clunky appearance and tendency to babble, Thomas is as loveable as they come. He learned about Native Americans through the mainstream media, (Victor can’t believe how many times he’s seen “Dances with Wolves”) and manages to make a number of wise observations while somehow skillfully landing a number of jokes.

Arnold Joseph’s son, Victor (Adam Beach), grows into a guarded and resentful young man, who, at 22, is wholly unsure of what to become and hardly motivated to even think about it. His favorite activity is shooting hoops in a deserted gym with some pals. “Some days it’s a good day to die,” he proclaims. “Some days it’s a good day to play basketball.”

Suddenly, Victor learns he must travel to Phoenix, where his dad moved to a number of years ago after leaving Victor and Victor’s mother, Arlene (Tantoo Cardinal). Only problem is, Victor’s broke and his mother can only spare a few dollars to help him out. Thomas comes to the rescue, offering up his modest savings in turn for the opportunity to tag along, and Victor reluctantly agrees.

Their journey takes them to Arnold Joseph’s cramped, dusty trailer in the middle of a choking-dry desert, where they meet Suzy Song (Irene Bedard), Arnold Joseph’s neighbor who possesses a personality as sweet as her name. She befriended Arnold Joseph and the two became close, she explains, because they “kept each other’s secrets.”

This film’s structure is a departure from traditional Native American-themed cinema because “Smoke Signals” is a tale of their experience from their perspective. It’s a method that’s beyond rare in Hollywood, and one of the only projects prior to the release of this film is the 1966 “Through Navajo Eyes” series, which was the result of filmmakers teaching a Navajo community nothing about filmmaking techniques except basic camera operation before letting them loose to shoot.

The sequences, including “Navajo Silversmith,” is a stunning portrait of their unique method of storytelling – although this collection of shorts was never intended as a mainstream release the way “Smoke Signals” was.

But historical significance aside, the fact stands that this is a quality film that’s never dull, and certainly fun to watch as it unfolds. Despite moments of seriousness, including the inevitable appearance of racism as Victor and Thomas venture off the reservation, “Smoke Signals” never takes itself too seriously for too long. Any film making humorous reference to General Custer and “The Long Ranger” in nearly the same breath can’t be pretentious.

The film follows the form of an “on the road” movie, where two people with opposite points of view expectedly bond and gain some wisdom about themselves along the way. Critics have pointed out that the film’s plot grafts a Native American experience on to what is essentially a safe and conventional Hollywood formula. While this might be the case to some extent, this film has more depth and elicits a genuine emotional response more successfully than many lesser films of this genre have.

Another point of contention is that at times the filmmakers go out of their way to make the film stereotypically Indian. For example, Victor tells Thomas that he must change his disposition, or whites won’t take him seriously. “You gotta look like a warrior!” he says. “You gotta look like you just came back from killing a buffalo!” But it is during some of these moments that film is most successful, because it succeeds in poking astute fun at mainstream culture’s representations of Native Americans.

This is especially apparent when, at numerous points in the film, television sets in the background play black-and-white productions of old cowboy-and-Indian movies, direct from the tradition of the vilified, war paint-clad whooping savage.

Thomas provides succinct insight: “the only thing more pathetic than Indians on TV is Indians watching Indians on TV,” he says. Moments like these stir images of well-known Hollywood productions like “The Searchers” and “Little Big Man” that were made at a time when most Native American parts were played by white actors who spoke in a disjointed, broken English, and were still recognizable underneath layers of “red face” makeup.

While the film immerses itself in the realities of modern Native American reservation culture, it doesn’t assume imitate knowledge of it – instead it reaches out to a wider audience through mostly simple jokes with obvious references. The use of these references (like Custer and “Dances with Wolves”) can be seen as either a good thing for the film or a disappointment depending on point of view – good that film gains a wider commercial appeal, or bad if this is considered a sellout.

Another strong point is the film’s flashbacks, which are brief yet poignant, jumping back and forth in time while keeping the story moving. They help the audience better understand the present by revealing the past, while also injecting depth into the characters.

Adam Beach, perhaps better-known for his performance as Private Ben Yahzee in John Woo’s 2002 World War II action film “Windtalkers,” appropriately captures Victor’s energy as it sways from scowling bitterness to acceptance and understanding.

Gary Farmer is also excellent as Arnold Joseph, a man forever grappling with his overwhelming guilt and frustration at his shortcomings. Farmer is no stranger to Native American-centric “road trip” films, having starred in director Jonathan Wacks’ 1989 “Powwow Highway,” a film about two men who trek from Montana to Santa Fe. In that film he played a physically imposing but gentle and thoughtful man, and “Smoke Signals” shows he’s able to tackle a deeper and more complicated role.

“Smoke Signals” is not just a film of significance. It is also a significantly good film, able to colorfully capture the character and spirit of a subject close to the heart of its makers.

Film Review: "Bride and Prejudice"

The refreshing “Bride and Prejudice,” a Bollywood re-working of the similarly-titled Jane Austen classic, delivers entertainment so good-natured it’s difficult to sneer at.

As the film opens, Balraj Bingley, his sister Kiran and culture-shocked American Will Darcy (Martin Henderson) travel to rural Amritsar, India to attend an extravagant celebration. Darcy -- heir to a staggering resort hotel fortune -- plans to investigate a nearby resort to see if it might make a good investment for his family’s empire.

But he is sidetracked after meeting the beautiful and headstrong Lalita Bakshi (Aishwarya Rai), the second eldest daughter in a family of four unmistakably marriage-available sisters. Darcy is ignorant to Indian culture and clashes with Lalita at first, but their early bickering only leads them down the path to eventual love.

Things are further complicated by the arrivals of Johnny Wickham (Daniel Gillies), a dashing Londoner who threatens their romance by claiming to know a darker, crueler side of Darcy, and a flagrantly un-hip suitor named Kohli who features some seriously goofy mojo.

“Bride and Prejudice” is directed by Gurinder Chadha, who also directed the hugely successful 2002 film “Bend it Like Beckham.” Chadha and Paul Mayeda Berges, the writers of “Beckham,” also share co-writing credits here. Their script does a good job of incorporating elements of Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” while weaving in enough cultural tweaks and modern updates to make the story their own. The characters in “Bride and Prejudice” are, for the most part, lively, fresh and generally believable. A few, like Darcy’s stuck-up mother, fall into the overly stereotypical column, but most avoid a similar fate.

The plot of the film is simple and transparent -- anyone who knows much about Austen’s book or has seen a few Hollywood-ized love stories will immediately know where this one is headed -- but the film is too energetic and has too much fun telling its story to for this to slow it down very much.

Those who are the least bit familiar with Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” will have no trouble deciphering many of the characters from the original text. While some elements of the book are easy to identify, the script employs more than enough originality to keep the film from coming off like a clumsy re-hash.

“Pride and Prejudice” excels at telling an absorbing story while simultaneously examining deep-seeded topics like class and women’s societal roles. In Austen’s book there is a clear distinction between the middle-class Bennets and the gilded upper-class world the Darcys and Bingleys inhabit -- even though society allows them to intermingle. Elizabeth Bennet -- the Lalita prototype -- challenges preconceived ideas about what womanly behavior entails when she (gasp) lets her skirt get muddy on the way to a visit with the Bingleys.

In “Bride and Prejudice” it is evident -- even more than 200 years later -- that we’re still plagued with many of the same issues. Big city Darcy is snobby and unreceptive to Indian culture and tradition until he becomes interested in Lalita and realizes he can’t win her over with merely the size of his wallet. Surrounded by Western luxury and armed with the appropriately stuffy-sounding British accent, Kiran Bingley is a cultural world apart from the Bakshi family -- despite their common ancestry. Lalita is encouraged to pick a husband not for love but for convenience and security, and her desire to marry for love does not easily jibe with Indian tradition.

Martin Henderson -- heir-apparent to Patrick Wilson’s Raoul in “Phantom of the Opera” in the line of barely-sympathetic male romantic leads -- does an adequate yet vanilla job as Will Darcy. Aishwarya Rai, the former model and Miss World titleholder who has since made an enormously successful transition into acting, is convincing in her first role English-only film as the strong-willed Lalita. But watch out for Nadira Babbar as the fretting Mrs. Bakshi and Nitin Chandra Ganatra as goofy Mr. Kholi, because they both have a stellar knack for stealing scenes.

The song and dance sequences are so incredibly colorful and vibrant that they give the screen enough wattage to light up a city block. The song lyrics and some dialogue border on cheesy at times, but this doesn’t cost the film too many points in the appeal department.

“Bride and Prejudice” isn’t looking to make too many profound statements or challenge filmmaking conventions. But that doesn’t make a film with this much energy and such a great sense of humor any less fun to watch.

Film Review: "Head-On"

“Head-On” is a romantic drama built on a foundation of familiar plot devices. What makes it a good film is that it doesn’t lean on those familiar pieces. Instead, “Head-On” uses them as a starting point to craft its own unique story by injecting a good dose of seedy quirks, hopeless complications, and unique intricacies. Behind writer-director Fatih Akin these elements combine to wonderful effect, shaping the film’s rough edges into an ultra-fractured modern fairy tale that works remarkably well.

To say Cahit Tomruk (Birol Unel) is a mess would be a gross understatement. The scruffy 40-something German Turk lives a hazy existence in a filthy, unkempt apartment, surrounded by piles of empty cans of his drink of choice -- Beck’s Beer -- and when alcohol is not enough, he heads for his stash of his drug of choice -- cocaine. We learn he was once married, but his optimism is long-gone. Now he spends his days working in a dark punk-rock club, stooping to collect empty beer bottles to pay the bills so he can afford to spend his nights lost in a substance-induced stupor.

One night amidst what we’re led to believe is one in an endless series of binges, he’s behind the wheel of a car and decides now is as good a time as any to end his suffering once and for all. But he survives the crash, and is sent to a hospital to recuperate.

That’s where he meets Sibel Guner, the beautiful yet certifiably deranged young German Turk whose out-of-control teenage rebellious angst has led her down the path to attempting suicide by way of sharpened steel to her wrists.

Fortunately, she’s not very good at the whole suicide thing either. You won’t succeed if you cut yourself horizontally, Cahit tells her. You need to cut along the vein. How Cahit became knowledgeable in proper slicing procedures, we can only assume.

To escape from the watchful eye of her family, Sibel is on the lookout for an available husband – and anyone will do as long as they’re of Turkish decent in order to please her parents. Cahit is the first eligible man in sight, so she pounces and makes her proposal. We’ll be roommates, nothing more – free to see other people, no obligations or feelings involved, she explains. Cahit is taken aback at first, but finally agrees.

And thus begins the Cahit-Sibel affair. They’re such an uncanny pair– Cahit the slobby, noticeably older man with a losing track record; and Sibel, the youngster with an affinity to the “instant gratification” vibe – that their inevitable up-and-down romance and its forehead-slapping eccentricities are certainly engrossing.

Take for instance a scene where Sibel and Cahit are dancing in a beat-pounding dance club, Cahit -- in a moment of defined clarity, tells Sibel that he thinks he’s losing his mind. “Of course,” she shrugs, “we all are” -- as if it’s the most normal thing in the world.

Unel and Güner are outstanding. Unel is especially good as Cahit –balancing the right amount of grit and gruff with a caring sentimentality that makes him a likeable character despite a number of unlikable habits. And how these characters are able to get you on their side even though you know their impromptu romance really has no business working out is a testament to the film’s effectiveness as a dramatic love story.

The film also features appealing cinematic elements – for instance a number of shots utilize a freehand technique that gives them an instability and subtle motion. This gives the film an element of unpolished frankness that helps keep the tone of the film in line with its unpolished, openly-flawed characters.

A number of the shots are also stunningly beautiful. The use of bright colors -- particularly apparent in one scene when Cahit is in a car driving at night as the neon lights outside electrifyingly reflect into the car-- provides the film with moments of exciting richness.

During the film there are a few interludes of a Turkish band performing some traditional songs. Other than the fact that the film’s main characters are also Turkish, these scenes seem out of place and interrupt the pacing of the film. However, the interludes do provide an interesting juxtaposition of Old World custom versus New World reality – traditional Turkish values versus the fast-living punk-rock sensibilities of Cahit and Sibel.

A good romantic film doesn’t need uncommonly good looking actors placed in bland, predictable situations to work. As “Head-On” shows, personality can go a long way.

Film Review: "Lost Embrace"

While not completely fulfilling, the prizewinning “Lost Embrace” is an enjoyable look at a distinctive version of family and community set in the largest city in Argentina.

“Lost Embrace” (El Abrazo Partido) stars Daniel Hendler as Ariel Makaroff, a restless college dropout turned clerk who’s had about enough of working in his mother’s lingerie store in a corroding downtown Buenos Aires mini mall. His estranged father has been out of the picture for years. But in his absence Ariel has been accepted into the extended family of the shopping mall. The window front –whether it is from laziness or economic inadequacy – still features his father’s name, even though it’s been a long time since he kept shop.

Ariel has a strong resentment toward his father for committing what he sees as a calculated abandonment under the pretext of a wartime call of duty. He is also frustrated that his mother and older brother seem to have partially shrugged it off. Ariel never wants to forgive his father for his past actions, but is forced to confront his perception of family history.

Ariel is a man bent on escape. He once studied architecture, but has since dropped out of school. His sketches are all that remain from that phase of his life. Now, he reasons, is as good a time as any leave Buenos Aires as he sees his life heading down the path of a slow motion car wreck. He decides he will head to Europe, where he can sightsee and eventually settle in Poland, his ancestral homeland by way of his grandmother.

The cast of characters who operate stores in this mall make up a unique and slightly odd bunch of personalities. Ariel’s brother, Joseph, is a telephone headset-clad importer-exporter, who constantly tries to fast-talk his way to the next profitable shipment of cheap, junky toys. Two Italian brothers are better at arguing with each other than attracting customers. One old-timer named Osvado never seems to sell anything.

These characters are certainly original in their own right. But it seems like any second-rate mall where high-powered light bulbs seem to be at a premium and air conditioning is not in the budget would attract such quirky personalities.

“A mall is a world of appearances,” Ariel says, and his own mall is no exception. Behind the bright-painted glass storefronts exteriors, this mall is teeming with its own underbelly of stories. In moments of voyeurism, sweeping pans across the storefront windows reveal there might be more going on than meets the consumer’s eye.

Take for instance the story of Rita (Silvina Bosco), a seductive blonde who runs an internet store with a much, much older man – is he her husband or father?

In the extensive, anonymous sprawl of a metropolis like Buenos Aires, the film presents and interesting example of how people from vastly different walks of life are able to form thriving small communities based on common interests. In this case, it is the conservation of their mall. The film does not need to see any of the mall characters anywhere but inside the mall – after all, this is their makeshift neighborhood and center of the universe.

While there are certainly some funny moments in the film, it seems like some lines fall flat during the translation. Most of the film’s humorous lines still work to some degree, but other times moments feel like they have been set up as humorous and ironic, but don’t quite achieve their desired effect.

The active, hand-held feel of the camerawork lends “Lost Embrace” a realistic and honest quality. Though at times the film’s motion borders on dizzyingly excessive, this technique works well the vast majority of the time.

Hendler is good as the uncomfortable, frustrated Ariel. And Adriana Aizemberg is believable as his melodramatic mother.

Some of the films best moments come when it examines stories of the other mall inhabitants. One intriguing sidestory involves a couple from Korea who specialize in Feng Shui paraphernalia. But in most cases, the auxiliary characters come off as shallow and underdeveloped. The film spends the right amount of time introducing these characters, but without much additional detail many seem to end up one dimensional.

Despite its small shortcomings, “Lost Embrace” is certainly a worthwhile experience. Now, if only more run-down mini malls could dig up as much personality, perhaps they’d attract some more customers. Then again maybe many already do, but we outsiders simply don’t know where and how to look.