{"id":4532,"date":"2018-09-23T06:51:52","date_gmt":"2018-09-23T01:21:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/?p=4532"},"modified":"2018-09-23T10:17:36","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T04:47:36","slug":"taika-waititi-boy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/taika-waititi-boy\/","title":{"rendered":"Taika Waititi\u2019s Boy: Exploring Masculinity from an Indigenous Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Taika Waititi\u2019s comedy-drama \u2018Boy\u2019 (2010)<\/p><\/div>\n

Academy award nominated New Zealand filmmaker Taika Waititi\u2019s comedy-drama Boy <\/em>(2010) explores a myriad of complex and multi-dimensional themes, as the coming-of-age narrative follows a non-conventional 1980s M\u0101ori family in the midst of poverty. The M\u0101ori have typically been under-represented and\/or misrepresented in cinema. Waititi, of M\u0101ori ancestry himself, effectively conceptualises familial dysfunction and other stereotypes of M\u0101ori culture, employing satirical nuances to convey the evolution of M\u0101ori portrayal on-screen, whilst analysing the subsequent interplay of gender within these ideas. The comedy-drama genre tends to appeal to a wider demographic, and hence is characterised by conforming to dominant gender discourse. Nonetheless, Waititi employs elements of humour to explore the complexities and tribulations of flawed family dynamics, providing a commentary on the deep-rooted stereotypes associated with M\u0101ori culture, seen largely through interactions between the protagonist Boy, and his father Alamein. This altered approach allows the exploration of the tension between non-conventional gender roles and dominant ideology.<\/p>\n

From an internationally situated perspective, Sergio Huarcaya, specialising in contemporary Indigenous representation affirms that Boy<\/em> reflects contemporary M\u0101ori lives, by contextualising the social problems and discrepancies experienced by Indigenous people, whilst simultaneously respecting Indigenous culture. M\u0101ori representation has conventionally been male-dominated, and portrayed individuals through the standard lens of \u201cwarrior masculinity\u201d in a tribal setting e.g. Rewi\u2019s Last Stand (1939)<\/em>. Indigenous media studies academics Smith and Mercier highlight that in a society fostering \u201ca global increase in Indigenous film and media scholarship\u201d, Boy <\/em>effectively explores M\u0101ori issues in contemporary society without conforming to Indigenous stereotypes.<\/p>\n

Familial dysfunction underpins the development of the narrative and is the ultimate impetus for Boy\u2019s coming-of-age characterisation. \u00a0The mise-en-sc\u00e8ne and various shots around the family home and shed connote the haphazard lifestyle and neglect often associated with a dysfunctional family. The shed is messy and unclean, reflecting the disorderly and chaotic circumstances of a non-traditional household restricted by their means. This further contextualises the premise of the film, which largely focuses on the economic and social disadvantages faced by M\u0101ori during this era. Critics affirm that Boy <\/em>accurately explores the \u201canatomy of social forces that produce dysfunction in M\u0101ori families\u201d, an argument valid largely because the film can be categorised as \u201cFourth Cinema\u201d., In \u2018Introduction to the Special Issue on Taika Waititi’s Boy<\/em>\u2019, Jo Smith and O. Ripeka Mercier explained in details the implications of \u201cFourth Cinema\u201d, a<\/em> genre conceived by renowned filmmaker Barry Barclay when characterising media made about Indigenous people by<\/em> indigenous people.<\/p>\n

\"Taika

Alamein on his throne in the shed wearing the \u201cSh\u014dgun\u201d helmet<\/p><\/div>\n

Waititi effectively presents an anomalous family dynamic, lacking affection and stability evident through Alamein\u2019s inability to assume fatherly responsibility and Boy\u2019s independence and authoritative nature over his siblings. These issues incite discussion concerning the conventional gender roles in a familial dynamic, as the noticeable lack of parental figures has affected the emotional development of the children. Traditionally, fatherhood is associated with notions of responsibility and discipline. However, critics such as Bianca Daniell, taking cue from Vivien Silvey, describe the character of Alamein as a \u201cpermachild\u201d, meaning an adult who behaves like an adolescent. This characteristic is Alamein\u2019s fatal flaw, and a source of immaturity and recklessness that ultimately leads to his final setback, where Boy shows him the shredded \u201ctreasure\u201d following the violent interaction with the gang. This regressive behaviour and parental neglect is further reflected in Alamein\u2019s rejection of the title \u201cDad\u201d because \u201cit sounds weird\u201d. Instead, Alamein asks Boy to call him \u201cSh\u014dgun\u201d, in a close-up of the best-selling 1975 novel about feudal Japan by James Clavell. This inter-textual reference suggests notions of absolute power and control, ideas not instinctively associated with Alamein\u2019s flawed, facetious and immature character. Alamein\u2019s rejection of parenthood is reinforced by his violent and careless mannerisms when clearing out the shed, symbolically indicating an absence of sentiment in his characterisation.<\/p>\n

The primarily earthy colour palette throughout the film echoes the dull and subdued nature of the living situation, reflects the low socioeconomic context, and invokes emotion concerning the melancholic loss and emptiness associated with the household, that is also fundamental to Boy\u2019s character. The absence of a maternal figure is not Boy\u2019s central concern, particularly with the supporting characters of Nan and Auntie Gracie. Notably, the care-giving adults in Boy and Rocky\u2019s life are trailblazing women; as Nan is independently raising her grandchildren whilst Auntie Gracie has monopolised all the businesses in town. Hence, Boy<\/em> appears to challenge the traditional gender roles intrinsic to the family dynamics. Furthermore, films of this genre often conform to \u201csafe\u201d representations of gender roles to ensure a wide audience base. Regardless, Waititi challenges stereotypes to effectively present women in a powerful and economically independent light relative to Alamein, who embodies weakness and immaturity, which are characteristics independent of conventional masculinity.<\/p>\n

Throughout the film, Alamein constantly reaffirms his masculinity through rough body language, reference to his strength and dominance over his subordinate gang members and Boy, and by continually referring to himself as a \u201cman\u201d. Native studies professor Brendan Hokowhitu argues the character of Alamein is experiencing \u201cmasculinity in crisis\u201d, whereby there is a postmodern restructuring of the framework of typical masculinity.<\/p>\n

The concept and practice of hero worship is fundamental to the premise of the film, particularly when considering Boy\u2019s coming-of-age development to eventually accept the reality of his father\u2019s shortcomings. Meanwhile, Boy\u2019s characterisation indicates that he repeatedly rises above his age and matures to be equal with adults in order to compensate for these shortcomings.<\/p>\n

It is evident that despite Alamein\u2019s flawed character, Boy utilises his imagination to maintain a positive impression of his father. As the plot develops, Alamein\u2019s actions undermine Boy\u2019s optimistic and ambitious perception of him. Boy initially describes his father as a \u201cmaster carver\u201d, \u201cdeep sea treasure diver\u201d and \u201ccaptain of the rugby team\u201d, a heroic perception that is dissolved immediately when another student mentions his imprisonment. Despite the characterisation of Alamein defying traditional gender customs, Waititi still engages imagery of the conventional \u201cheroic father\u201d, as it is conceptualised through Boy\u2019s imagination. This reflects the impressionable nature of youth, as they become accustomed to societal gender ideals and aspire to conform to these scaffolds. Boy engages his idolisation of Michael Jackson into his imagination when Alamein reveals his immature and violent tendencies. Waititi employs elements of comedy to manoeuvre the difficult and uneasy complexities of familial tension, a reality of New Zealand society. Furthermore, these interruptions of reality in the sequence of the narrative censor the confronting violence and \u201cwarrior mentality\u201d associated with crime and loosely with masculinity.<\/p>\n

\"\"

The \u201cSamurai Alamein\u201d of Boy\u2019s Imagination<\/p><\/div>\n

Boy<\/em> explores issues of M\u0101ori poverty, gang violence, familial dysfunction\/ abandonment and drug use, all of which are realities of contemporary New Zealand. In the film, Alamein nonchalantly discloses details of his \u201cgang\u201d with Boy through humour, thus trivialising the reality of gang presence and associated violence in New Zealand. Alamein\u2019s explanation of \u201crenegades\u201d to Boy as \u201csomeone who lives outside the law, but they\u2019re still cool\u201d normalises violence and crime and associates these acts to M\u0101ori masculinity. Alamein avoids the negative connotations associated with the term by linking it with the A-team, the Hulk and Samurai. These inter-textual references are utilised by Alamein to normalise gang-related crime and position \u201crenegades\u201d as powerful and heroic individuals, as opposed to blatant criminals. Waititi characterises Alamein to adopt a comical and intellectually challenged nature, thus engaging humour and elements of the comedy genre to explore complex issues.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Alamein\u2019s casual drug and alcohol misuse is symbolic of the issue of drug abuse in New Zealand, particularly among the Indigenous population. Whilst the film reflects the dichotomy of M\u0101ori and Western civilisation, critics argue that the character of Alamein simply reinforces negative stereotypes of M\u0101ori masculinities as violent and neglecting.<\/p>\n

Certain cinematographic elements throughout the film, particularly in the opening montage contribute to the emphasis on M\u0101ori poverty, these include extended establishing shots of barren, isolated land and infrastructure. Shots of the children playing with the fence throughout the film symbolise the constrained and \u201ctrapped\u201d notions associated with poverty and social immobility. These notions are alluded to throughout the film, as Boy regularly mentions \u201cmoving to the city\u201d, wearing tuxedos regularly and purchasing dolphins for transport, all of which illustrate the pinnacle of success and masculinity to Boy, who is evidently infused with purity despite his maturity. This cinematic portrayal of inequality is a commentary on the disparity that exists across New Zealand in reality, in a non-confronting manner.<\/p>\n

\"Taika

Alamein and his gang digging for treasure in rural New Zealand.
The earthy browns and dull green in the shot convey the somewhat dismal lifestyle.<\/p><\/div>\n

Interestingly, in the past Taika Waititi has iterated that he\u2019d rather not be known as a \u201cM\u0101ori artist\u201d but rather an \u201cartist who just happens to be M\u0101ori\u201d. Waititi\u2019s oeuvre is extensive, including international blockbusters such as Thor: Ragnarok <\/em>(2017). His work is not confined to Indigenous representation. The aforementioned inter-textual references to \u201crenegades\u201d and the motif of Michael Jackson references throughout the film reflect the evolution of Indigenous cinema to intersect with global genres and culture. This holistically contextualises the film as it accounts for the heavy Western influence in M\u0101ori communities in the 1980s and in contemporary society. Furthermore, employment of such references to global popular culture allows widening of the target demographic of the film, in order for a P\u0101keh\u0101\/non-M\u0101ori audience to appreciate M\u0101ori cinema and appreciate \u201cgrowing up\u201d and the transition through adolescence as an experience that can transcend cultural borders. The inclusion of popular culture references in tandem with an emphasis on M\u0101ori culture and the rural New Zealand lifestyle effectively interpellates various niches within the wider audience pool to appreciate the semiotics of the film.<\/p>\n

Boy<\/em> explores the complexity of familial dysfunction and hero worship through a M\u0101ori perspective. Waititi employs a myriad of formal elements and cinematic techniques to convey these themes, as well as to ensure their significance in relation to M\u0101ori culture. Furthermore, the film elucidates the social and economic disparity between P\u0101keh\u0101 and M\u0101ori peoples and attempts to diversify M\u0101ori representation in popular cinema. These themes and issues are largely intertwined with gender discourse, particularly masculinity. Overall, females are largely under-represented, nonetheless, the emphasis on male characters allows a coming-of-age exploration of masculinity. Boy<\/em> challenges the conventional familial framework and questions the notions of power, intellect and responsibility that are typically associated with masculinity and fatherhood. Archetypal comedy-dramas often comply with dominant gender discourse, in order to engage a wide audience. This film utilises Boy\u2019s imagination and the character of Alamein to comically reinforce and<\/em> question dominant gender ideology.<\/p>\n