JOHNNY DEPP'S GOT PAPERS NOW, HE'S BEEN GIVEN CREDENTIALS
So, word has spread across the Internet like a wildfire in the southwest, but the Apache 8 aren't there to comment on this absurdity. If you haven't guessed, Johnny Depp is officially a Comanche. He can now ignore his Cherokee ancestry he so steadfastly clung to while being vetted of his "Nativeness." Or was it Creek? Well that doesn't matter any longer because the Comanche adopted him. I guess he'll be selling his estate in France and flying to Oklahoma or New Mexico (where his adoption ceremony took place):
(New Mexico Business Weekly by Megan Kamerick, Senior Reporter
Date: Monday, May 21, 2012, 5:09pm MDT)
In the above article, LaDonna Harris mentions,
It seemed like a natural fit to officially welcome him into our Comanche family. I reached out, and Johnny was very receptive to the idea. He seemed proud to receive the invitation, and we were honored that he so enthusiastically agreed.I'm a little lost for words that by PLAYING INDIAN (a phenomenon coined by Phillip DeLoria), specifically Tonto, more specifically a Comanche, makes it "a natural fit" to adopt Depp into the Comanche Nation. Thousands of little kids play "Cowboys and Indians" all the time, some kids are Lakota, some are Pawnee, some are Apache. It makes sense that Depp would be "receptive to the idea . . ." while enthusiastically agreeing to do so, it's nearly every kid's fantasy to be NDN--and it's been no different for Depp, claiming different tribal ties in various interviews as well as directing a film in which for the first time he PLAYED INDIAN, The Brave (1997). Unfortunately, what Depp is doing isn't catapulting Indigenous culture into the 21st century, nor is his pretending combatting negative stereotypes surrounding NDNs.* On the contrary, his actions are perpetuating stereotypes that continue to diminish who We are by the cinematic mode.
Depp's portrayal, the actual act of taking a role away from a Native actor (playing red face), not his acting, is insidious. He is perpetuating myths about Native people in a medium that is so disseminated and more often than not in America--Americans educate themselves with popular culture--Americans believe, or at least get their information from what they see on the screen, the portrayals by actors (you know pretending to be NDN) as historically accurate and acceptable. These manifestations are so damaging that they hinder Us from moving forward in the 21st century because We are being relegated to anachronistic versions of Ourselves making Our present all the more difficult to negotiate.
Now, whatever the Comanche Nation wants to do is their business, but I'm not sure how Johnny Depp's "acting" role as Tonto in The Lone Ranger has anything to do with adopting a movie star into a tribe. Maybe I'm missing something? Comanche Nation Tribal Chairman, Johnny Wauqua commented about Depp in a news release that,
He's a very thoughtful human being, and throughout his life and career, he has exhibited traits that are aligned with the values and worldview that indigenous people share.Really? I'm a bit perplexed in regards to Depp's "exhibited traits" aligning him with Indigenous people. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he gives money to worthy causes, and he's probably a very nice guy. But just why didn't his directorial debut film, The Brave (1997) ever hit a screen in North America? Was it really because of the negative reception it received at the Canne Film Festival? Was he hurt because his moment of make-believe wasn't believable (that no one could believe he was Native, onscreen or off)? The Brave (1997) didn't receive rave reviews, and therefore by association Johnny Depp wasn't validated as BEING INDIAN, which negated his fantasy of BECOMING INDIAN. I think these particular acts speak volumes when it comes to "exhibited traits."
In my opinion, this is a simple case of someone being starstruck, "it seemed a natural fit to officially welcome him into our Comanche family." Is that what "IT" is? Never is "it" elaborated upon, unless you assume Depp's role as a fictional Comanche is "IT."
________________________________________________
* To add to my argument I reference my earlier post, Johnny Depp to Play Tonto, Once Again Depp Has Some Degree of NDN Blood? Perfect Timing!
and elaborate that Depp mentions in an interview (Linthicum, Albuquerque Journal, 3/8/2012) how he'll handle the years of stereotyped portrayals of Natives in film. Apparently, through his performance he imagines he will somehow combat these stereotypes by not acting like the stereotypes, but what he fails to comprehend is no matter how good his intentions, the mere fact of him portraying an Indigenous persona, real or fictional, is what will contribute to the damage toll of Indigenous representation in film. One of the most problematic issues of Native Representation in film was and continues to be non-Natives playing the role of Natives. This has got to stop. It's 2012 and there are enough Native actors to play these parts, but it's Hollywood's lack of vision and bottom line that perpetuates the utilization of non-Native movie stars in the roles of Native characters.
Posts
As a Kanien'kehaka I should be angry. Silverheels was also a Mohawk.
ReplyDeleteTonto was a joke, I think it means just that, something silly. So why would any native in his right mind want to play a red sambo role anyway? Depp
was the perfect actor for this part, he's a overpaid joker as far as Im concerned. The Comanches on the other hand play the patsy to the "pink"
Ndn. Its like a dumbell whom receives an honorary degree. The Cherokees
wouldn't give recognition to "freedman" although the had proof of
blood, so they wouldn't recognize Depp. Many nations are guilty of selling
out to money for the destruction of their own land, so why are you surprised the Comanche nation sold out to the cheap trinkets of Hollywood.
Dear kanien'kehaka,
ReplyDeleteI'm actually not really surprised. I am just surprised at their reasoning, or at least what was printed in the article.
If Johnny Depp said he was part Irish and explained that his grandmother was from Ireland there would be no question and he would be accepted as such. In the case of Native Americans however, in order to be considered as part of a tribe, a person has to be papered like a dog. Adam Beach is a talented Canadian Indian actor but he plays many different types of Indians. By this logic he should only play Saulteaux rolls and not "pretend" to be Navajo or Spokane Indian which by the way are completely seperate nations of people. They speak different languages, have different customs, and even have different facial and body types. They are not even from the same country. They are American Indians while Beach is from Canada. While were on that subject maybe Depp shouldn't play ANY rolls that aren't directed toward his specific nationality. Maybe this should apply to all actors. Lets not stop there either. People with dwarfism should only play rolls of leprachauns but only if they are of Irish decent. My point is that Natives are the only people who are papered like animals and this shouldn't keep good actors from doing their job which is to entertain us. I am Cheyenne, Crow, Laguna Pueblo, and Irish. This means I can play Irish rolls, right?
ReplyDeleteSean Connery who is Scottish was James Bond, a British character.
ReplyDeleteHugh Jackman, an Australian, portrayed the Canadian character Wolverine.
Chris Hemsworth, also Australian, portrayed the Norse god Thor.
Russell Crowe, yet another Australian, as Roman general Maximus.
Gerard Butler, a Scott, played King Leonidas of Sparta in 300.
Christopher Lambert, played the starring role in Highlander, he is French but born in NY.
Jason Scott Lee, who is a Native Hawaiian, played Bruce Lee in Dragon The Bruce Lee Story.
Ritchie Valens was a Mexican-American singer, songwriter and guitarist. In La Bamba he was played by Lou Diamond Phillips. Phillips' father was an American of Scots-Irish and one-quarter Cherokee descent, and his mother, a native of Candelaria, is a Filipino of Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Hawaiian descent. note: not Mexican.
how many iconic characters would we not have enjoyed, if movie roles were only given to actors who were ethnically the same as the character?
Batman is currently played by Welsh actor Christian Bale. Lets count the money those movies have made and see if people care where Bale was born rather than how he owns the character.
ReplyDeleteHenry Cavill, a British actor is the new Superman.... a character who stands for truth, justice, and the AMERICAN way? Woops, i forgot. Superman is from Krypton. Is that close to the UK?
Andrew Garfield, also from the UK is the new Spider-man. They couldn't cast someone from NY?
Should white Americans be pissed off that white American superheros are being played by foreigners?
By the same token, should only gay actors play gay characters? I Love You Phillip Morris, starred Ewan Mcgregor and Jim Carrey. Both are straight, playing gay. But that is an actor's job by definition isn't it? To become something they are not?
If Johnny Depp, who has at least some indigenous blood, plays a Native American role, is he not being the most true to himself out of every actor i named in this and the previous post?
The point is, actors are cast according to talent, and by the fact that they have the look to fit a role. They must be compatible with the other actors in the film, and the director as well.
I've seen Depp's The Brave. Johnny plays an American Indian, but i don't think its ever mentioned what tribe he is from, or where the story takes place even. It is a deep, thoughtful performance and quite a poetic story. While you see him playing a stereotype, I see an honest performance that Johnny hasn't come close to in years. Who gives a shit if he only has 8% or 16% native blood. That is enough, because if it weren't for his grandmother, who was native, he wouldn't even exist. You are closed minded, and dare I say racist, if you cannot see beyond the color of an actor's skin.
It could be said that Depp's "The Brave" actually provided jobs for Native actors. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you all for commenting on my blog. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and perspectives, which is what provides for great dialogue. I mean no disrespect, but let’s keep the argument grounded in the possibility of real, although fictional, characters and dispense with the comic book superhero characters, like Superman or Spiderman. More than not the argument that counters accurate representation in media often follows: “then only this should play this and that should play that.” There is no merit in those arguments and they are baseless. To argue in that manner simply diminishes the importance of the issue, infantilizes your perspective, and provides no evidence of a logical comprehension to the matter at hand.
ReplyDeleteLaNada Smith pointed out a distinct phenomenon in NDN country, which is the papered status that often defines who We are, as Native people from sovereign nations negotiating life, both inside and outside Our nation’s borders—which is based on the relationship Our particular Nations hold with the United States now rooted in Federal Indian Law and Tribal Law, but that’s a whole other discussion.
LaNada’s argument erroneously centered on nationality, though I believe she was attempting to center her argument on ethnicity. And, “Anonymous (June 9, 2012 4:37 PM)” entry below her also argued nationality, albeit partially, then introduced ethnicity in their second half of examples. Nationality is not the same as race or ethnicity. Nationality defines either the country you’re born or the country of one’s allegiance. In the case of “Anonymous (June 9, 2012 4:37 PM),” the first half of their argument focuses on nationality, which when examined argues for the same race, White. Although Sean Connery is Scottish, he could very well play a Brit because he is White, et cetera. And as for the other examples “Anonymous (June 9, 2012 4:37 PM)” provides, they also fall under the category of nationality, not ethnicity, until the introduction of Jason Scott Lee. At this point I am not interested in arguing performances, or those specific films mentioned since they aren’t concerned with Indigenous representation.
The second “Anonymous June 9, 2012 5:20 PM” also fell prey to the concept of nationality and was unable to differentiate between ethnicity and nationality. Apparently my argument was lost on this individual, because they go off topic about the money made by the particular film an actor was in where the role of the character and the nationality of the actor are not the same and whether filmgoers were able to suspend disbelief. They attempt a tongue-in-cheek diatribe regarding Superman, Krypton and the UK. “Anonymous June 9, 2012 5:20 PM” also stated, “Should white Americans be pissed off that white American superheros are being played by foreigners?” Really? An argument involving superheroes? Really? And do I sense a bit of, dare I say, xenophobia?—when you structure your words in that fashion you aren’t daring anything, you are indeed stating.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify for “Anonymous June 9, 2012 5:20 PM,” this isn't a blog that focuses on non-Native roles, it focuses on the historical and current disparity in Hollywood that misrepresents and negates Indigeneity, for one, by hiring non-Native actors to fill a perceived void that there are little if any Native actors to fill roles. This disparity has been around since the inception of cinema, it's a phenomenon called red face, or PLAYING INDIAN. In Hollywood,q where Black representation is concerned it is known as black face, et cetera. This blog is also not concerned with the craft of acting, in particular if an actor is believable or not. Non-Native roles and the craft of acting have little to do with cinema’s history of Indigenous representation and the current trends that Hollywood continues to perpetuate. Again, it is centered on representation and accuracy or authenticity of who is cast for the role, specifically Native peoples, which has been a problematic fact in Hollywood since D.W. Griffith and ethnographic filmmakers.
“Anonymous June 9, 2012 5:20 PM” attempts to argue homosexuality, and whether or not heterosexuals should play those roles, as a counter argument to Indigenous portrayals. Considering homosexuals have been playing heterosexual roles, very convincingly, since the beginning of cinema, I don’t see a problem. Although, being homosexual isn't an ethnicity. Homosexuality in America has historically been viewed as immoral and until recently in media it was a taboo subject our puritanical society did not glean. In regards to representation I direct your attention, if you're interested, to: How Homosexuals are Portrayed on Television (http://socyberty.com/gay-lesbians/how-homosexuals-are-portrayed-on-television/) as well as conversing with the LGBTQ community yourself.
I would be remiss if I didn't say Tonto is a fictional character and having someone that isn't Native play the role is possible. Unfortunately his ethnicity is not fictional and to allow Hollywood to perpetuate this mode of operation would be criminal, hence my blog. Americans educate themselves with popular culture--Americans believe, or at least get their information from what they see on the screen, the portrayals by actors (you know pretending to be NDN) as historically accurate and acceptable. These manifestations are so damaging that they hinder Us from moving forward in the 21st century because We are being relegated to anachronistic versions of Ourselves making Our present all the more difficult to negotiate.
Well, I'd like to ask Torry M what Johnny was supposed to do. Say no when the invitation came? "Oh, no, sorry, I'm going to turn down your generous offer?" That comes off as churlish too. So it seems that the least boat-rocking thing he could have done was accept it for the hospitable gift that it is and just go with it.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that many of the above comments were posted on 9 June. That's Johnny's birthday. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree, the writer of this article sounds like an ahole. My grandpa's grandmother was Cherokee. He told me the story of our family the trail of tears when I was 13. Ironicly, in male drag, I look more like Johnny Depp than his wax museum replica, and when I am bleach blond, I look like Allison Sweeny...but I supose that is to white for this author, inspite of my shovel teeth, my lack of a cusp, my inverted breast bone, my high cheek bones, my crooked fingers, heavy lobed ears, deep set eyes and my straight nose. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteTLH, sorry for taking so long getting back to your comment(s). I don't see how saying no would be considered churlish, it's not rude to say no. Am I a Native supremacist or separatist? Ha. I am far from being ethnocentric--meaning I don't think one ethnicity is better than another. Thank you for completely debasing your own attempt to debate an issue. That also goes for Jen NaVieve. Yep, I'm an ahole alright. Jen NaVieve, I'm not attempting to pretend I know your race or identity, but pointing out physical traits as the criteria that makes a race is reductive, ignorant, irresponsible and destructive.
ReplyDeleteIt's painfully obvious that neither of you comprehend the issue of Native Representation in media and how it affects the larger community. Neither of you even feign to know anything about this topic yet troll to add your half a cent.