Johnny Depp's Got Papers. It's Official He's Comanche.

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):

Johnny Depp adopted into the Comanche Nation

(New Mexico Business Weekly by Megan Kamerick, Senior Reporter

Date: Monday, May 21, 2012, 5:09pm MDT) 

I'm a little dismayed that he would forgo his Cherokee-ness to become Comanche. You know, deny who you say you are to become who you want to be. But that's not unlike what his entire life has been up to this point, maybe this is an apex moment. I mean he has lived a life of lies acting, not literal lies, but pretend lies. He has pretended to be a pirate, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, an undercover cop in high schools, a scissor-fingered gothic Frankenstein creation, a Public Enemy, a Mad Hatter, an undercover FBI agent, just to name a few, and now his resume will include an Indian and no longer only the kind played on the silver screen, or by young boys with brightly colored feathers in some ridiculous looking headdress. Nope, he has finally realized his dream of becoming Indigenous. I'm not sure but I believe his condition exists somewhere within the pages of the DSM-IV.

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.

Johnny Depp as Tonto, Postscript

After posting the Johnny Depp as Tonto blog, I was thinking how coincidental it was that Depp decided to adapt a novel about an Indigenous person after having starred two years earlier as William Blake, beside Indigenous actor, comedian, musician; Gary Farmer (Exaybachay, a.k.a Nobody) in Jim Jarmusch's, Dead Man? It seems to have been a logical chain of events for Depp. First, you play a role next to an Indigenous actor, who is playing a character that is Indigenous. Secondly, you find a novel centered on an Indigenous character and all the strife of Indigenous culture, adapt it for the screen and then star in said adaptation. I never mentioned that the author of the novel, The Brave, is also the author of the Fletch and Flynn series of novels. Therefore, The Brave is quite a departure from the cultural content he was used to depicting or even knowing about.

Round Up - Museum of Contemporary Native Arts, Santa Fe, NM

NAICA—the remnants of a wonderful online world

I received an email from my good friend about a website we were involved with, NAICA online (NAICA), which is an acronym for Native American Indigenous Cinema and Arts. Apparently someone is interested in replicating the content and idea behind this wonderfully constructed and conceptually based online site.

The sad part of this situation is the particular individual interested in practically duplicating what once was done, and completely funded by those involved is an educated person teaching at the university level, but seemingly incapable of conceptualizing a blog style site centered on Indigenous Arts.

Now, we never received funding of any kind in constructing the site, although, we as a group—and almost a complete non-profit entity—did receive discounts at film festivals so we could provide our unique brand of coverage. My friend wasn't happy that someone would contact them and ask for assistance when they were going to replicate the site in a university classroom environment, and I told them they have every right to be unhappy.

What irritates me, as probably does my friend, is they asked for our contact list of individuals that we worked tirelessly obtaining through creating trusting relationships over time, enduring various film festivals to meet and request interviews from individuals, cold calling and emailing people regarding their work. It's rather aggravatingly apparent this individual has no comprehension of what it takes to utilize web-based technology, let alone create a blog where one would interview an individual to utilize the content online.

Why do some people jump in before testing the waters? You might suggest that they are contacting my friend for assistance, so actually they are testing the waters. Au contraire. Assistance is one thing when you are coding html and cannot figure out how to center a "div" tag once you've coded the CSS. But it's an entirely different creature when you ask of an organization, that faded out way before its time, to provide their coveted contact list so you can virtually duplicate what we had to stop doing because we had to earn a living and time was too precious and too little for us to forge ahead.

What is obvious is that someone wants to recreate what we have already done—the majority of which my friend lost countless hours of sleep, time and money over. Sure that's flattering, but it's also insulting to contact the founder to request information that was entrusted to our organization, as well as, for the most part, ask how we did it—that shows lack of effort and capability on the part of the individual and it makes me question how they got to the university level to teach.

Critiquing 101: a Poorly Written Bad Critique is Worse Than a Bad Critique

http://www.uptownmag.com/2009-10-22/page4737.aspx

The above link is from Uptown Magazine Online - Winnipeg's Online Source for Arts Entertainment & News (10/22/09), an e-zine in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada. It is within that URL where I received an extremely anemic and poorly written, bad review of my solo art video exhibition, RoundUP by self-proclaimed "inter-media artist" & critic, Sandee Moore.

I'm not one to hold grudges against someone critiquing my work. But, when that critique suffers from possessing any critical analysis of the available work, I tend to feel slighted that my name is even mentioned, in this case almost as an afterthought—the proof is in the pudding here—not even one title of my works were mentioned in her so called "critique," of which four sentences were devoted to my exhibit. It's apparent that Ms. Moore lacks any understanding of intertextuality or semiotics, but this is not to blame Ms. Moore for her shortcomings, only to warn others when critiquing work make sure you understand and analyze that work before you attempt to write about it. Where Ms. Moore is anemic in analyzing my work is in her lack or inability to negotiate notions of stereotypes, power structures and how representations work within notions of power. Supposedly in Ms. Moore's world, everyone knows about these stereotypes and her analysis of my work consists of "his seizure-inducing, rapid editing does little, if anything, to provide a new context for his source material." The editing is only the re-presentation of the "stereotypes." It is within the juxtapositions of the imagery, their relationships and the "re-presentations" where the context exists, intertextuality; not to mention only three of my works include rapid editing.

This particular blog is not to slander Ms. Moore, only heed warning to individuals who proclaim they are "critiquing" art when in fact, they have only offered an opinion (obviously Ms. Moore was capable of critiquing David Garneau's work in the text above the four sentences she proffered her opinion where she scrutinized my works). Without sufficient analysis a critique is simply an opinion. So, Ms. Moore and any other self-proclaimed, critic out there, when dealing with imagery be sure you fully comprehend how images work when placed or inserted next to another image, also know the original context of that imagery before you attempt to criticize it.

I have no problem accepting a bad critique/review, that is well-written, which didn't seem to exist as an after-thought or because my exhibit was one of two showing concurrently.

So having said all that, here is an example of an analytically written critique of Kemosabe version 1.0 one of my "seizure-inducing" pieces (which can be found at the—Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival website):

Kemosabe version 1.0 disrupts the colonial racial logic of the "American Frontier" by recalibrating the relationship between Tonto and the Lone Ranger. Through syncopated beats of dialogue and music, Mendoza reworks an offensive stereotype for Native Americans whose history in U.S. cultural production begins with the dime novels of Zane Grey and continues through radio shows, comic books, serial movies, and television series, where the characters were portrayed by actors Jay Silverheels and Clayton Moore. Here, the ambiguous meaning of "kemosabe," Tonto’s name for the Lone Ranger, foregrounds the productive possibilities for repurposing the toxins of cultural artefacts.

—curators’ essay by Dale Hudson and Sharon Lin Tay

AN UPDATE to the traveling and vastly growing Round-UP (Santa Fe) exhibit, another view from an academic's perspective: Blog Review of Round-UP Santa Fe, by Bill Adams.