Tatau, BBC, Cultural Appropriation and Creative licence

[Cetacea]

Tatau is a British drama television series that premiered on BBC Three in April. Its a supernatural thriller set on a Polynesian Island, vaguely reminiscent of Rarotonga. I've only watched the first couple of episodes but generally its quite painful.

Tatau follows a pair of young travellers from London who, after one of them gets a traditional Maori tattoo, become caught up in a murder mystery within a supernatural world of Maori mythology.

Interestingly, one of the actors is Temuera Morrison, best known for taking Maori to space as Jango Fett- a well known New Zealand Maori (Polynesian) - has come out with some of his concerns about the production stating:

"But sometimes I'm not quite sure if our directors understand the balance between creative and cultural license," ..."The thing is, they actually take our culture and they don't understand it, they just draw the marks on their bodies not really understanding what they mean,"

..."On one side it's lovely to bring some of our cultural elements to the fore but we'll just see how our people react to it."

So if you have seen it what did you think? (no spoilers please)

But more broadly what do you think about Temuera's reservations concerning Cultural appropriation and Creative licence. Should 'storytellers' be allowed to take elements of cultures they don't belong to or understand - and in particular 'spiritual elements' - and tell stories of that culture? How much flexibility is fair? does the presence of cultural advisors change the principle?

(Mazer Rackham of Enders Game features a Maori Ta Moko (facial Tattoo) but its generally low key enough to not be an issue)

Also was it hypocritical for Tem to make the movie and raise his concerns afterwards?

and finally given the Aloha Movie and the upcoming Disneys Moana, is Polynesia making a comeback as the new exotic....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv ... ries-tatau

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatau_(TV_series)

[United Marxist Nations]

Directors make plenty of movies and shows based on cultures they don't have much understanding of; see: most movies set in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Eastern Europe in general, and much of the Middle East. I don't see how this is much different.

[Scomagia]

Commodification, simplification, and exploitation are pretty basic facets of capitalism. This is nothing new, just another culture in a long line of cultures that have been simplified, mocked, and watered down for Western audiences in order to make money.

[Imperializt Russia]

It'd be pretty ridiculous if directors were suddenly not allowed to use elements of cultures they don't belong to or understand, because the logical end of that is literally segregated culture.
You would have a white director with an all-white cast and some very "white" cultural themes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of thing isn't "in" these days, and for years has been complained about for lack of diversity.

I dislike the stance of "cultural appropriation" on many levels, because all it seems to achieve is the ringfencing of cultures apart - which is surely not what we should be doing in a multicultural society.
"Cultural appropriation" is a valid concern where cultures are taken without regard for their meaning and then butchered, that is an entirely fair complaint.

When it comes to articles in relatively mainstream left-wing media pieces like "white women can't do yoga" or "white women bellydancing is wrong" that's just... what.

What should really happen, in the case of media, is that a director should have the gumption to get some description of advisor for something he doesn't understand. Games and movies for decades have featured military and historical advisers, though in much of them they've been utterly ignored it seems.
A cultural adviser should be listened to and his presence appreciated, but like how white directors must not be forced to avoid using themes unfamiliar to them by birth, directors should not be forced to use advisers either. The mark of a good director would be how closely he listens to his advisers (on any topic) and how he is willing to bend the vision to accommodate them, as much as creating an enticing piece of media.

[MERIZoC]

Hm, having not seen it, and not being Maori, I don't think I can accurately comment on this, but I'll trust Morrison on this.

Also was it hypocritical for Tem to make the movie and raise his concerns afterwards?

Certainly not. Being in the filming itself is what allows people to get a closer look at it.

[Scomagia]

It'd be pretty ridiculous if directors were suddenly not allowed to use elements of cultures they don't belong to or understand, because the logical end of that is literally segregated culture.
You would have a white director with an all-white cast and some very "white" cultural themes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of thing isn't "in" these days, and for years has been complained about for lack of diversity.

I dislike the stance of "cultural appropriation" on many levels, because all it seems to achieve is the ringfencing of cultures apart - which is surely not what we should be doing in a multicultural society.
"Cultural appropriation" is a valid concern where cultures are taken without regard for their meaning and then butchered, that is an entirely fair complaint.

When it comes to articles in relatively mainstream left-wing media pieces like "white women can't do yoga" or "white women bellydancing is wrong" that's just... what.

What should really happen, in the case of media, is that a director should have the gumption to get some description of advisor for something he doesn't understand. Games and movies for decades have featured military and historical advisers, though in much of them they've been utterly ignored it seems.
A cultural adviser should be listened to and his presence appreciated, but like how white directors must not be forced to avoid using themes unfamiliar to them by birth, directors should not be forced to use advisers either. The mark of a good director would be how closely he listens to his advisers (on any topic) and how he is willing to bend the vision to accommodate them, as much as creating an enticing piece of media.

You do know that there is a difference between presenting other cultures and presenting a theme-park version of those cultures, right?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

[Imperializt Russia]

Obviously.

[United Marxist Nations]

It'd be pretty ridiculous if directors were suddenly not allowed to use elements of cultures they don't belong to or understand, because the logical end of that is literally segregated culture.
You would have a white director with an all-white cast and some very "white" cultural themes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of thing isn't "in" these days, and for years has been complained about for lack of diversity.

I dislike the stance of "cultural appropriation" on many levels, because all it seems to achieve is the ringfencing of cultures apart - which is surely not what we should be doing in a multicultural society.
"Cultural appropriation" is a valid concern where cultures are taken without regard for their meaning and then butchered, that is an entirely fair complaint.

When it comes to articles in relatively mainstream left-wing media pieces like "white women can't do yoga" or "white women bellydancing is wrong" that's just... what.

What should really happen, in the case of media, is that a director should have the gumption to get some description of advisor for something he doesn't understand. Games and movies for decades have featured military and historical advisers, though in much of them they've been utterly ignored it seems.
A cultural adviser should be listened to and his presence appreciated, but like how white directors must not be forced to avoid using themes unfamiliar to them by birth, directors should not be forced to use advisers either. The mark of a good director would be how closely he listens to his advisers (on any topic) and how he is willing to bend the vision to accommodate them, as much as creating an enticing piece of media.

You do know that there is a difference between presenting other cultures and presenting a theme-park version of those cultures, right?

Not sure what you mean by "theme-park" version, but it would be nearly impossible to present anything about a culture if you have to explain every last detail about it. Especially if it is a culture that isn't wholly understood at all. If people are interested in the culture, then hopefully they would be willing to research into it and find out about the culture as a whole after seeing it.

[MERIZoC]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Be pretty hard for a major filmmaker to misrepresent American culture. Since it's everywhere. I disagree that it isn't worthwhile. If a director is concerned about integrity, quality work, and accuracy, then they absolutely should. If they're only concerned with making money, they can go fuck themselves anyway, for all I care.

[Scomagia]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

[MERIZoC]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

Indeed. Criticism over historical and cultural inaccuracies are proof that it pays to do your homework.

[United Marxist Nations]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

So, you think that understanding a whole culture is something you can knock out in a few afternoons? Some cultures aren't understood by historians whose job it is to study them, what do filmmakers do about them? And even if the filmmaker knows about the culture, how can he or she possibly convey it all?

[The Grim Reaper]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Because there is a /fuckload/ of media showing American culture in positive or neutral lights. A lot of developing nations or net-emigration nations don't really have that. It's this or the high road, and they can't really be faulted for wanting 'this' to be as accurate as possible. That doesn't make this sort of cultural appropriation bad or good, but it does mean there is a real difference between how you can compare the dominant West-Anglosphere culture, which does own or influence most international media, and nations within the Pacific Islander 'sphere'.

Also, I'm not sure how OP can fault Temuara for not raising concerns about the movie's direction before he, you know, signed the contract and started participating in the movie.

[Scomagia]

You do know that there is a difference between presenting other cultures and presenting a theme-park version of those cultures, right?

Not sure what you mean by "theme-park" version, but it would be nearly impossible to present anything about a culture if you have to explain every last detail about it. Especially if it is a culture that isn't wholly understood at all. If people are interested in the culture, then hopefully they would be willing to research into it and find out about the culture as a whole after seeing it.

This is what I mean: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... arkVersion

[MERIZoC]

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

So, you think that understanding a whole culture is something you can knock out in a few afternoons? Some cultures aren't understood by historians whose job it is to study them, what do filmmakers do about them? And even if the filmmaker knows about the culture, how can he or she possibly convey it all?

If a director is making a movie in a few afternoons, I think the quality of the final product is somewhat dubious. Need help understanding a culture? Hire an expert on it.

[Scomagia]

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

So, you think that understanding a whole culture is something you can knock out in a few afternoons? Some cultures aren't understood by historians whose job it is to study them, what do filmmakers do about them? And even if the filmmaker knows about the culture, how can he or she possibly convey it all?

You don't need to understand the whole culture. You do need to understand every aspect of the culture you are incorporating into your work.

[Scomagia]

So, you think that understanding a whole culture is something you can knock out in a few afternoons? Some cultures aren't understood by historians whose job it is to study them, what do filmmakers do about them? And even if the filmmaker knows about the culture, how can he or she possibly convey it all?

If a director is making a movie in a few afternoons, I think the quality of the final product is somewhat dubious. Need help understanding a culture? Hire an expert on it.

Exactly. Consultants exist so that, even if a writer or director is too lazy to actually do research, the finished product doesn't seem like a collection of stereotypes and made up crap.

[The Grim Reaper]

So, you think that understanding a whole culture is something you can knock out in a few afternoons? Some cultures aren't understood by historians whose job it is to study them, what do filmmakers do about them? And even if the filmmaker knows about the culture, how can he or she possibly convey it all?

If a director is making a movie in a few afternoons, I think the quality of the final product is somewhat dubious. Need help understanding a culture? Hire an expert on it.

Or hire an actor who is from that culture, perhaps. One assumes they would have enlightening remarks, and any good director would presumably listen to them and take their advice on-board when said actor has a proven track record in reconciling between cultural considerations and creative license.

[MERIZoC]

If a director is making a movie in a few afternoons, I think the quality of the final product is somewhat dubious. Need help understanding a culture? Hire an expert on it.

Or hire an actor who is from that culture, perhaps. One assumes they would have enlightening remarks, and any good director would presumably listen to them and take their advice on-board when said actor has a proven track record in reconciling between cultural considerations and creative license.

Well, interestingly enough, that didn't really work here, though I have my doubts as to how much advice the directors asked for.

[Geilinor]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Be pretty hard for a major filmmaker to misrepresent American culture.

It happens all the time, don't you think?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

For a director or writer to fully comprehend a culture before using it in production would take vast resources and far too much time for it to be worthwhile. It honestly doesn't really matter what they do with it. I wouldn't care if someone messed up or stereotyped American culture.

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

Okay, calm down. I'm not saying research is hard. I'm saying that research to the point of cultural mastery is hard. And a waste of time.

[MERIZoC]

Be pretty hard for a major filmmaker to misrepresent American culture.

It happens all the time, don't you think?

When it isn't deliberately satirical? No, I don't think so.

[Scomagia]

Bullshit. Don't try to excuse shit writing and shit directing by saying that research is too hard. It isn't.

Okay, calm down. I'm not saying research is hard. I'm saying that research to the point of cultural mastery is hard. And a waste of time.

I'm plenty calm. No one said cultural master is required or expected. What is (or should be) expected is mastery of the cultural bits you choose to put in. You should understand the bits of the culture you are using, as well as at least a little more of the culture that you don't use. It avoids stereotyping and, most importantly, makes the work feel more authentic.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Okay, calm down. I'm not saying research is hard. I'm saying that research to the point of cultural mastery is hard. And a waste of time.

I'm plenty calm. No one said cultural master is required or expected. What is (or should be) expected is mastery of the cultural bits you choose to put in. You should understand the bits of the culture you are using, as well as at least a little more of the culture that you don't use. It avoids stereotyping and, most importantly, makes the work feel more authentic.

If one's work pretty much revolves around a certain culture (which this seems to), then you're using pretty much everything. So by your logic, they should understand everything about this culture, which is virtually impossible.