One of the overarching themes was about people relating to their fathers. In an interview, Alexie talks about how he didn't expect that theme to cross racial/ethnic lines, but he found that it did. He told a story of a wealthy Nantucket (white) woman who was inspired to call up her father whom she hadn't spoken to for 20 years. I've heard him speak before, and I have to say, he doesn't have a lot of imagination when it comes to people different than himself. he has more than his share about indian men and sometimes indian women too, which is what powers his books. But he's kind of old to be realizing that rich white folks also have problems with their fathers. Those scenes in the flick were odd for me anyway, because they didn't ring as true. It may be that I'm too sensitized to cliche and structure or something, but that section of the swelling music and voiceover (about us and our fathers) felt overblown. I couldn't relate. (I'm still trying to pinpoint what tugs my heartstrings. I often get teary at movies --Land and Freedom, Men with Guns, Ivan and Abraham-- but none of them are traditionally made.) I think the emotional sections of Smoke Signals were the places that relied most heavily on film cliches. Alexia has talked about how much he loved the movies his whole life. I think it's different than the way I love the movies though. Perhaps that's what comes out in his movie-making. It's not very critical of -ore responsive to- the medium of film. Which is fine, he's critical of a lot of things IN the film, which aren't criticized enough elsewhere. But when straight-u p morals come up, some of the kids' dialogue and scenes of childhood felt heavyhanded enough to be an afterschool special. I realize that i'm am conflating the director with the author (usually a laughable thing to do in re: movies), and I don't know enough about the director to know whose influence won out. The tone is very true to the book, but the naivete around the medium is disappointing. I liked the open references, the constant mocking of Lone Ranger, John Wayne, and of the fetishizing of Indian Chants and 'spirituality.' A theme from his books and his talks that I've scene. He has a lot of contempt for 'dreamcatcher spirituality.' In Indian Killer he explores it a bit when he has classroom scenes with indian students and wannabe indian professors. Those scenes are great for anyone who has been driven nuts by a professor who doesn't understand that they are negating you as they sit there running off their mouth. In the movie it's a bit more in passing, but still pretty funny. The flick doesn't do so well with female characters. It feels like Alexie's lack of imagination for folks not like himself. I don't know what the director could have done, since most of the casting is great, but underused. The character of Suzy Song confused me. if anyone who has seen it can please let me know what you thought of her. hyper-sexualized, constantly smiling, dreamcatcher-having, babydoll-dress wearing, "is that true? is that true?" girl. the fact that she had a dreamcatcher was especially confusing, considering how much that symbolizes something specific to Alexie about shallow and commercialized poaching on spiritual grounds. His best move is the storyteller character, who is obnoxious and manipulative, and not in a whiteguy way like I've seen before. You can't turn him into some shaman-symbol, he reminds you that stories have uses, personal uses, that there is always a storyteller and that they have their own agenda. The movie is worth seeing, rough spots and all. For the fact that it shows stuff you don't usually get to see at the movies, and for the humor. If you like pathos, there's plenty of that as well. |