| |
|
Archive for April, 2007
Sunday, April 29th, 2007
welcome back to another edition of Longviews, brought to you by NAICA online.
this week: tales of films watched at both Cine Las Americas from Austin Texas and Tribeca International Film Festival in the NYC (can you say “cluster fuck?” we can!):
Maria monologues about Cine’s Weaving Worlds by director Bennie Klain, and
Who Killed the White Llama by director Rodrigo Bellott
NAICA contributing writer, Torry Mendoza, gives his insightful reading on Descent by director Talia Lugacy,
and Katie waxes lovely about Maldeamores from Puerto Rican director Carlos Ruiz Ruiz
Of course, missed phone interviews and rambles galore. What would Longviews be with out those, right?
 The truly indie film edition [39:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Saturday, April 28th, 2007
Well boys and girls, it’s that time again. Misinformed Capitol Hill Scandal Time.
Several months ago, NAICA staff was discussing how to further expand and challenge our modes of coverage when we decided we should get some Congressional politicians to talk to us. Native American politicians of course. Of the three or so we have to choose from in the constituency, we chose Rep. Rick Renzi, of Arizona. This is because one of us heard him in an interview with Terri Gross and figured he’d be down.
Representative Renzi was contacted and contacted yet again, but to no avail. Maybe he was just busy? I mean, who wouldn’t want to talk to NAICA, right?
Yea, he must have been busy. Or under investigation.
According to the Phoenix Business Journal, Renzi “could soon step down in the wake of a federal investigation into his involvement in a federal land swap deal and FBI raids of an insurance agency owned by his wife.”
An Indian involved in a land swap deal??? C’est scandleaux!!!
More from CBS News, “Law enforcement officials confirmed in October that they were scrutinizing a land deal that benefited a Renzi friend and business associate who was also a campaign donor. According to state records and officials involved in the land deal, Renzi helped promote the sale of land that netted his former business partner, James Sandlin, $4.5 million.
The property eventually was to be part of a swap in which potential buyers could exchange it for land owned by the federal government. Such deals are common in the West, where the government owns vast tracts. Renzi had said he wanted to prevent encroaching development near the Fort Huachuca Army post and to protect the environmentally threatened San Pedro River.”
Hmmm, so Renzi, Congressman and Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, was arranging to regain vast tracts of land owned by the government for “conservation” reasons? Can’t really blame him for that, right? And it would be an easy explanation, but unfortunately (or fortunately?) this muddled controversy does not stop there.
Renzi and his Chief of Staff are also under investigation for allegedly being party to le scandal du jour: the US attorney firings. In October 2006, Renzi learned that he was being investigated for the land-swap deal, among other things. The district attorney conducting the investigation was relieved of his duties a few months later.
The irony of this sweeping investigation continues, as apparently Renzi’s earlier campaign for office received funds from none other than Jack Abramoff, the best Indian arm-twister east of the Mississippi.
So what exactly does this all mean? NAICA has nary a clue. But when it was learned that Abramoff was linked, we just knew something was amiss.
Our (mis)interpretation: Renzi, one of three-ish token Indians in Congress received swindled money from other Native American tribes to further his campaign for office via a sell-your-soul deal with Little Jack Abramoff. Upon obtaining the coveted position (a congressional seat that chairs the largest amount of Native Americans in the country, including large portions of the Navajo nation) he furtively arranges to take back large government-owned tracts of land. (Perhaps to build more casinos for Abramoff to swindle money from?) He then foolishly and overtly fires the DA investigating his office’s actions. If none of this makes sense to you, we’ll assert one more confusing note to the mix: Renzi is a Republican.
What in the sam-hell is going on here?? At least with Abramoff, we knew what motivations belonged to who, and for which reasons. With Renzi, we are starting to think that he may suffer from a personality disorder or something.
“I am humbled to be elected co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus,” Renzi said in a statement after his appointment earlier this year. “During the last four years, I’ve been honored to represent thousands of Native Americans in the House of Representatives, and now I’m pleased to play an even greater role in improving the quality of life for many more First Americans throughout the country.”
The “best laid plans,” right?
One can’t help but feel sorry for this Honest-Abe-faced Congressman from Arizona. And maybe one can’t blame him for his seemingly confused decision-making process, as it must be hard to be a Republican and a Native American in a governmental role. Add some land deals, casino money and partisan agendas to the mix and you have a sure-fire formula for failure.
Stay tuned to NAICA for more misinformed updates on this ongoing investigation. We promise we will do our best to make this whole fiasco as confusing as possible.
(p.s. upon googling “Rick Renzi Native American” for an entire Saturday morning, NAICA has yet to determine which Indian nation he is actually affiliated with. Fishy, verrrry fishy.)
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007
“The mission of Cine Las Americas is to promote cross-cultural understanding and growth by educating, entertaining and challenging the diverse Central Texas community through film and media arts.”
These words are like samba music to the ears of NAICA. Maybe that is because the words “promote cross-cultural understanding and growth by educating” are tattooed on our arms. Literally. Just wait till short-sleeve weather starts breaking through the rain. (Maria also has a tat of Val Kilmer ’s face - but that’s another story.)
What makes the Austin-based Latin American film festival, Cine Las Americas, so unique? For starters, it is not simply a “Latin American” film festival. The indigenous component of Cine does not only reflect the intrinsic ties between Latin American countries and their indigenous populations but has grown to encompass US and Canadian aboriginal films as well with this year’s roster including Zacharias Kunuk’s much-lauded film, The Journals of Knud Rasmussen
Although Cine has been called a “highly politicized” film festival, NAICA likes to think of it as timely response to not only the dynamics of Latin American societies here in the US and abroad, but also the role that Indigenous cultures play in the ever-changing cultural climates that are our Americas.
What started out as a retrospective on Cuban filmmaking ten years ago has blossomed into a multi-faceted non-profit organization which not only cultivates an intimate and intricately programmed film festival each year but also facilitates filmmaking and educational programs throughout Austin and its surrounding communities.
Cine Las Americas gracefully negotiates the sometimes tight spaces between Latin, Anglo and Indigenous cultures in the Americas and reminds us all that a little cross-cultural dialogue never hurt anybody.
photo Maria ColonWant to learn more about Cine Las Americas? Check out the following podcast with the Executive Director, Eugenio Del Bosque (above photo). And visit their website at www.cinelasamericas.org.
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007
We will return next weekend when we will feature an interview with director Bennie Klain, regale you with tales from Tribeca (and Austin), discuss censorship, iconoclasm, and Indian princesses with several surprise guests.
Katie will return with Ask an Indian and the Dallas Gick report will become the Gick Repoire.
Stay tuned!
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007
Dear NAICA compatriots,
I am writing to you from an overcast and semi-chilly Texas town. Actually it’s the capital. Of Texas, which was once (pompously) it’s own independent nation. A whole other county. Sure, if you say so.
Anyway, NAICA is here to check out the super-indie latino and indigenous inflected film festival Cine Las Americas. We’ve met a few cool new people: like some guy named Dave who is the Mexican-German Nathan Arcand (pictures are forthcoming as proof) and the festival director, Eugenio del Bosque-a very nice man whom we will have a sit down interview with tomorrow.
It’s an intimate affair here at Cine, small and welcoming with plenty of unknown films from all over Latin America, the U.S. and Canada. So far we have seen many short films of excellent quality and one documentary by Navajo filmmaker to watch-Bennie Klain. You will see more of him here in the (web) pages of NAICA. We will post reviews, interviews and more thoughts in the next day or so so stay tuned.
Sunday, April 15th, 2007
Shenanigans abound in this our sixth installment of Longviews, brought to you by NAICA online.
Heather Locklear is not Native yet has received awards for being Native
mixed-Cherokees may no longer be included on the federally recognized roll but they can always apply to be a Cherokilmer
Cody Lightning speaks ’til dawn
Russell Means offers herbal advice for infected cooters (though Longviews and NAICA do not support the use of the suggested herb)
Nathan Arcand’s character in Black Cloud really didn’t die
Katie shows her age and her latent Viking roots
(and much, much more)
Sunday, April 15th, 2007
Dearest Longviews Listener,
if you’re thinking of going to see this film because you’re excited to see your favorite Native actor, or you’re simply interested in seeing how a mainstream film will depict a largly unidentified Native tribe, save your time and your money. It’s not worth it. All you need to do is listen to the following interviews with Jay Tavare and Russell Means to know that your time need not be wasted nor your eyeballs seared with too fast action, poor blocking, cloying musical orchestration, simpy dialogue, poorly lit fight scenes, and the sight of a ruddy skinned and lumbering Karl Urban. How anyone thought this guy could carry a film is beyond me. Worse still, is employing a cast of (actually) talented actors (save the Maxim chick) and not doing anything with them.
Tsk tsk. Now let this be a lesson, for no studio should give a music video director free reign over thirty million for any kind of feature length movie, especially not a music video director whose list of credits includes the name, Amy Grant. No really, I kid you not. But the film’s release did offer us the opportunity to speak with the ever gracious Jay Tavare and the original wandering bear, Russell Means.
Jay Tavare: the Jesus Christ of Indians [39:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Wandering Bear [10:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Saturday, April 14th, 2007
Until very recently, like last Monday, I had no idea who Aby Rosen was or how very important he is to mid-town Manhattan, but thanks to a little photo spread of power house New Yorker’s offices in, what else, New York Magazine, now I do. As I was to find out Aby Rosen not only has his main office in the Lever House on Park Avenue, he owns it as well. He also owns the Seagram and is co-owner of the Gramercy Park Hotel-a hotel none of us will ever stay at, including Russell Means. Rosen is very very very wealthy. Like, unbelievably wealthy. He can afford to stay at his Gramercy and buy all sorts of cool stuff, which includes a sizable 60s pop art collection, focusing mostly on original Warhols, Rosen’s favorite artist of that era. In fact, two rather large Warhol panels hang in his office in the Lever House.
After contacting his office on behalf of NAICA and Russell Means, who may or may not find the idea of a fantastically rich German dude owning his Warholian mugshot interesting, I managed to get a few minutes with Rosen to ask him of all the many Warhols to be had why this one?
Read on.
Maria: So, out of all the Andy Warhols you could have, why this one?
Aby Rosen: Love his face. Love his history. A minority man but still very strong, very dignified.
Maria: Did you know before putting the (Warhol) Gun opposite Means’ portrait that he is known for pistol-whipping the shit out of people he doesn’t like?
Rosen: No I didn’t , but I always thought the gun and the Russell go together.
Maria: Well you are correct, guns and Russell do go together. Do you know the history of this painting? Why Warhol chose to make a portrait of Russell Means?
Rosen: No, but I do have a book at home and now that you are doing this Russell Means story I will look it up.
Maria: Yeah I’m curious to know because I couldn’t find any information about it.
Rosen: I just loved this image, I loved his strength. You see when Andy was doing the work and if he liked somebody a lot he worked really strong with the colors and the handpainting on the painting. Most of the time he worked with simple silkscreens rather than the paint on top of it, but he really painted him (Means) really deep and really hard out of respect and the liking of him.
Maria: Of Russell Means’ (painting) personally?
Rosen: Yes, of Russell personally.
Maria: One last question. This is the original correct?
Rosen: Yes, it is.
Maria: If Russell wanted to come and see the painting would you invite him?
Rosen: Yes, of course I would love to show it to him. Please invite him up.
Maria: Yeah he might like that (to self: mmmmm questionable)
Rosen: You know I was just speaking to someone today, another gentleman, who says he has the same exact Russell Means painting, same size, behind his desk.
Maria: Really? Maybe he copied you?
Rosen: No, no I think it is pure coincidence, but I can’t remember his name.
Maria: Actually, one last question. Have you ever heard of the German Indian movement?
Rosen: No I don’t think so.
Maria: Well (photographer) Max Bescher did a series of images on them.
Rosen: Oh yes, now I know. The ones who dress up like plains Indians with tepees?
Maria: Yeah, those are the ones. They do a festival every year.
Rosen: They are parasites.
Maria: (to self) Couldn’t have said it better!
(all photos by Maria Colon, editor of NAICA online.)
To give some context regarding Warhol’s portrait of Russell I did a little more searching and found the following from a website called “Art in Context”
Andy Warhol has been credited with reviving the tradition of grand portraiture from the moribund state it had fallen into during the 20th century. Warhol’s interest in portraiture began in the early 1960s when he began to make drawings and paintings from publicity photographs of celebrities such as Troy Donahue, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis Presley. These images, which he collected from books and magazines, appealed to Warhol due to their simple, straightforward presentation of the subject. By using a photograph from a magazine or his own Polaroid of the subject, Warhol distances the portrait from its subject, thus allowing him to explore the relationship between the genuine and the fake, the real and the simulated. Like many of Warhol’s portraits, Russell Means was done as a multiple. Warhol would often display these multiple images in decorative rows or grids-a device that further distanced the unique reality of the person from the image. The process of making his portraits was also journalistic and impersonal: Warhol would send the snapshot or Polaroid to a laboratory where it was enlarged in black and white and then transferred to a silkscreen. From the silkscreen, the image was printed on canvas and embellished with touches of artist-applied paint.Russell Means, an Oglala Sioux, gained wide visibility in 1973 when he led a group of Native Americans in a symbolic takeover of Wounded Knee. The siege lasted 71 days. Warhol’s image presents Means as a giant celebrity whose noble features have been softened and glamorized. In Warhol’s portrait, Means’ status as celebrity hero takes precedence over his actuality as a person and his political importance.Marianne Lorenz
SUGGESTED READINGS:
McShine, Kynaston, ed. Andy Warhol: A Retrospective. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1989.
Whitney, David, ed. Andy Warhol: Portraits of the 70s. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1989.
Tuesday, April 10th, 2007
A review of the review:
a favorable, though mildly dismissive, review of indie feature by director Michael Linn. Actress Tonantzin Carmelo receives positive notice for her strong and consistent lead performance while the rest of the cast is largely ignored. On the other hand, their parts were written to move the story along which is solely that of the lead character, Shayla Stonefeather. On the other hand, this reviewer writes as if he has seen a million films exactly like this one, including those will all-Native casts (save but one villanous whitey). I think not, good reviewer. It is clear he doesn’t understand the cultural significance of a Native actress taking the lead in a film, even a play-by-numbers ghost story like this one, for if he did he would have mentioned it. Surely. Or perhaps we’re all deluded?
Either case, Tonantzin Carmelo is the winner in this one.
Good for her!
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933229.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
Monday, April 9th, 2007
I like beer and I like brautwurst,
but some of the remarks made by this guy are borderline discrimanatory.
Then again, Puerto Ricans do love them some guns and drugs, and are in need of some ethnic cleansing via their friendly white neighbors.
Read on:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_205/germanbeergardenowner.html
BTW though this blog is mostly related to Indigenous art and film I, as the founder and editor of NAICA, have taken liberties to offer glimpses into my life and times in the NYC. I can also says as a non-Native Puerto Rican beer and bratwurst taste just as good as tostones and beer. HA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
