NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

This is a short post about the recent Karate Kid movie. 

Cross-media relationship must be really improving, because C4 (TV channel in New Zealand - Niu Sila) had a re-run of the original Karate Kid movies a few weeks back.  Good ol Mr Miagi and Daniel-san.  I loved those movies!  I’m sure every Samoan kid back in the days begged their parents to buy them karate shoes.  I remember balancing on a tree stump at the school playground trying to perfect the crane kick.  I thought I was the man!

Anyway, back to the re-runs… but is it me, or do we sensationalise and romanticise our childhood memories.  Coz watching the re-run of the original Karate Kid was cool… all until the fighting scenes.  The fighting scenes seemed… well seemed boring!  It looked too rehearsed, too fake, and not enough action.  I think through the years action movies have progressed so far, technologically, visually and choreography-wise, that we have high expectations when we watch the next action movie.  The same for when we watch previous movies, we expect so much but don’t realise how basic the old movies were until we watch them, and then are sorely let down.  Still the original Karate Kid movies were a good trip down memory lane.

As I’m sure a lot of you have already seen the re-make of Karate Kid (starring Jaden Smith - Will Smith’s son - and Jackie Chan) I won’t go too much into it, other than to say I enjoyed it.  I hadn’t heard much about the story line before I watched it, so could only really go by the brief trailers I had seen of it.  I knew Jackie Chan was in it, so thought either the movie is set in China and/or Jackie Chan was acting as a Japanese (ie Mr Miagi).

I was pleasantly surprised that the movie generally followed the story-line of the original movie - although there were big differences.  For example, while the movies were about a boy moving cities with his solo-mum, the original movie had the boy moving from one American city to another American city.  In the new movie, they move from one American city to a Chinese city!  Another example is while the teacher in both movies taught the boys how to fight by getting the boys to unknowingly do repeated actions, in the original movie Mr Miagi got Daniel-san to do chores around his house - in the new movie, a lot of it was around picking up and dropping Jaden’s jacket on the ground.

But in general, the movie was close to the original movie with the feel good victory at the championship at the end while severely disabled by a member of the competing School/Dojo.

However, if there was one thing that annoyed me while watching the new movie, it was the fact that the name had nothing to do with the movie!  As mentioned above I was curious to see if Jackie Chan was going to act as a Japanese martial arts teacher (ie like Mr Miagi) as the name of the movie suggested Karate was going still be part of it.  But as the movie went on, it became apparent there was nothing Japanese about the new movie.  It was set in China, the bullies were Chinese, the girlfriend was Chinese, the competing martial arts school was kung-fu (Chinese) and Jackie Chan played a Chinese who taught Jaden kung-fu not karate!

I guess there would’ve been a lit confusion if they had called it Kung-Fu Kid but the story line was so similar to the original Karate Kid movie.  Either way, the movie was good.

Now only if I could find that shop in Otahuhu that sells those karate shoes… in adult sizes hahaha!

Survivor has been named the television programme that has defined a decade.  Arguably other reality TV shows (such as American Idol) would not be far behind.  But these shows are hugely popular for a reason.  It’s real people, putting themselves before the world, revealing human frailties and strengths; the weaknesses and triumphs of humanity.  Pretty good for the producers too.  But there’s no denying there is so much intensity in these programmes because we are seeing the familiar.

(Reality TV is a fascinating area to blog about, but I’ll leave my critique of it for another time - in terms of subjecting indigenous cultures into the ‘exotic’ for economic gain.)

Survivor Samoa was no different.  And man was it intense.  Not sure how it was aired elsewhere, but in Niu Sila/New Zealand, TV3 screened the last three days of the Survivor Samoa competition.

I had only been watching the show sporadically, but last night’s finale was exhilarating!  For those not familiar with the contestants, the most controversial and polarising finalist was Russell Hantz - an oil company owner and self-confessed millionaire.  He is the man!  He masterminded his way to the finals, whether by making various alliances, making promises, breaking promises, lying, manipulating his team, tough playing in challenges, and finding immunity idols with no clues!  He is probably the best Survivor contestant in the history of the show.

Unfortunately, getting to the finals is just not enough in Survivor, something Russell failed to appreciate.  While he was successful in getting to the finals, there is the social element that he either was too cocky about and took for granted, or misread the impact of his actions on the contestants that eventually became his jurors. 

So who did the greatest Survivor contestant lose to?  Natalie White, a 25-year-old pharmaceutical sales rep from Arkansas.  Her strategy, many would say, was to ride on the coat tails of Russell’s master plan.  Natalie said aligning with stronger players was a necessity to make it to the end. “There were a lot of things to my game that I did right, starting off by assessing the cast right,” she said.

“I built really strong personal relationships, and they were genuine. I will be friends with these people for the rest of my life.”  Staying “humble” was also the key to winning, Natalie said. “In this game if you get overconfident it’s a huge mistake, especially this season. Any time anyone was overly cocky and arrogant it seems like it didn’t work out for them.”

If being the passive member gets you to the final and the jury is more sympathetic to you, then yes, Natalie did outwit, outplay and outlast Russell.

And it wasn’t all a one way road in this allegiance of Russell and Natalie.  He needed her, because as he calculated, Russell needed a “weaker” player as oppose to Brett who was voted off Survivor just before the finals.  Russell believed people would respect him for his ruthless tactics.  Unfortunately either hated those tactics, or they did respect Russell, but respected Natalie even more.

When the winner was announced, Russell was visibly upset.  Russell even tried to buy Natalie’s title of Sole Survivor from her during the reunion show for $10,000, but she refused.  It was clear how much the title of “Sole Survivor” meant to him.  It appeared as though the motive was not about money.  At that point I thought to myself, hmmm perhaps he did deserve to win.  He’s a millionaire, so perhaps he wasn’t doing it for the money.  Russell was adamant his personality on the show was not the same as that in the real world.

However there is a consolation prize for the person who receives the most votes from the American public.  The three finalists were Brett Clouser, t-shirt designer (who almost toppled Russell’s master plan by winning the immunity challenge), Russell, and Shannon Waters aka ‘Shambo’.  Shambo served her country for five years, and went onto become a chef before changing gears to be a sales representative for a food service company.  Russell won the consolation prize of $100,000.

What would’ve confirmed to me that Russell was only in it for the title, and money was not a goal, would’ve been if he had offered that $100,000 to either the popular young Brett to help him with his t-shirt business, or the equally popular Shambo, a sales representative, both a long way from being an oil millionaire.  Then I would agree with the millions of Russell fans, that he truly did deserve to win the competition.

Yip, this is human drama in the 21st century, broadcast to millions who only want more.

There’s something about Michael Jackson that made us look up when the news first broke out about his death.  For some it was his great music, for others it was the mystery of his skin colour.  Some were fascinated by the developments in the life of this child superstar to adult superstar.  And for many others it was all the allegations swirling about him.  Other people were interested in the not-so-normal life this man led, creating a fantasy world around him.  But even more intriguing, for many, was that he has always been there.

Michael Jackson, whether it’s his name, his music or his infamousy, was as global as Coca Cola.  Everyone knew or heard of Michael Jackson.  Even in Samoan culture, schools performing at PolyFests can always rely on the “lua pati ma le Michael Jackson” call (followed by the fua taimi doing either the moonwalk or turn and “awww” move while groping the groin with one hand) to get the crowd laughing… no matter what age.

Apparently, Filipino prisoners were walking around singing “We are the world” holding up a picture of Michael Jackson, as a tribute to his life (I’ll have to YouTube that).  A bit over the top but an illustration of his global reach.

Unlike Farrah Fawcett where her time had long gone, Michael Jackson was always in the wings, and people were always ready for another (attempted) hit.  After all he was preparing for his tour performing at 50 concerts.

On the otherhand, he was not like Heath Ledger, where his death came too early.  Michael Jackson had already made it, he was already a superstar.

And so many of us greeted Michael Jackson’s death with as much grief for a star who has achieved so much, but still shocked that he has suddenly left this world.

For me, it was a surprise and served as a warning of our human existence.  It doesn’t matter how rich or famous you are, how eternal your music maybe, how pervasive your have been to pop culture, we all meet the same end.  Maybe it was all the plastic surgery, maybe it’s a testament to his universal music, or maybe I’m just younger than I think, but Michael Jackson’s death was a surprise.

As many people have done and will do for many months to come, there will be a reflection on his life.  And as we look at his life we will see an ugliness that we will try to cover up with out pours of sorrow for the life that has been.

Not an ugliness of Michael Jackson himself, but that his life is a reflection of our own humanity, an ugliness that created this great artist, but strange human.  From a young age, his parents forced him before the international spot light.  From there the music industry, the media and pop cultural vultures have never let go.  We created his popularity for our own consumption.  We also created his demise, and we all took part in ravaging his life as gleefully as we listened to his music.

He never had a normal life, a normal childhood.  His life was under the public eye.  Is it any wonder that he created his own fantasy world in Never-neverland?  Is it any wonder that we made him so popular and worshipped him as a pop god, that he felt compelled to “recreate” his nose and change his skin colour (coz he wasn’t happy with what the real God gave him)?  Is it any wonder that with such money and power that he felt invincible enough to think it is ok to sleep with little boys in his bed?  Is it any wonder that we would happily spend our dollars on him, and at the same time love to see a star fall?

So as the millions go out to buy anything to do with his name, we try to hide our own hatred and despise for the man that was ridiculed by the very world that created him.  We all wanted to be as rich and famous as he was, but in the same breath would say we are glad we aren’t because of what we created.

In the movie Three Kings there is an exchange between the Iraqi torturer, and the American prisoner played by Mark Wahlberg.  “What is the problem with Michael Jackson?” the Iraqi asks quietly, insistently.  “Why did America make him chop up his face?”  “No, we didn’t make him,” Wahlberg protests, “he did it to himself.”  “Bullshit”, the Iraqi maintains.  “America made blacks hate themselves, made them want to whiten their skin, straighten their hair and chop their face, just as Americans hate the Arabs, here and now.” “Michael Jackson is Pop King of sick f*cking country…” the Iraqi concludes.

He reflected the artistic talent that humanity can achieve, yet at the same time he showed us a life that was screwed up since he first took the public spotlight, revealing the ugliness of our humanity.  He was everything we wanted to be, and everything we didn’t want to be.

Michael Jackson was our man in the mirror.

Manuia le malaga.

I’ve never really liked the story of the ugly duckling.  Not because the ugly duckling eventually becomes accepted, but because the only reason why the ugly duckling is accepted is because it no longer is an ugly duckling, but a beautiful white swan.  For me, the moral of that story was about maintaining the status quo, that you can’t be who you are, that you must change to conform to the norms of society.

Maybe a lil too much analysis read into a bedtime story, but I write this because of the phenomenon that is Susan Boyle.

The “never been kissed” Scottish sensation wowed Britains Got Talent show judges and critics Cowell, Morgan, and blonde beauty Amanda Holden, after sustaining jeers and leers due to low expectations from the judges and audience based on her age, persona, and dowdy appearance.  But low and behold, she shocked and touched everyone who heard her voice while she gave an emotional performance of “I Dream a Dream” from Les Miserables.  There were very few dry eyes in the house following that audition.

Since then Susan Boyle has been on CNN’s “Larry King Live” with Britains Got Talent judge Piers Morgan, has been swept up into Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter race, is invited to sit with Oprah, and has now hit upwards of 50-million views on YouTube since she debuted April 11.

There are a multiple of reasons why Susan Boyle has made such an impact in the last few days around the world, why she has become so popular in cheesy Amelika / America, why people can’t get enough of her.

Firstly I think it’s the economy.  It is a time of doom and gloom.  Much like the hope that Obama promised in the lead up to his victory at the polls, people the world over love the story of hope, in these dark times.  With a back drop of economic turbulence, the looming greatest depression the world has seen, job security leading on to other social issues; the Obama / Boyle storyline is what makes us think the world is going to be all right.  It’s a bit more than the feel-good news story about rescuing cats from trees, but about a normal Jane Doe tasting success, the success we all cling to hope for.

Another reason Boyle is such a phenomenon is because we think there has been a reassessment of our measure of beauty.  Of course the show manufactured, or at least maximised the Cinderalla story, but watching her audition we find comfort in knowing that she was no Beyonce or Mariah Carey, but she was just as talented. 

It is an uncomfortable reason, because many of us possessed the same sneering judgemental opinions the judges and the audience had when we first saw Boyle enter our views.  We have come accustomed to having the rather entertaining candidates for the various reality TV shows, who have all the charisma and personality, but deep down we know they won’t make it, but we applaud their efforts.  And so it was easy for many of us to fall into that trap and dismiss Boyle straight off the bat… until she sang.  At that point we either deny that we every thought badly of her, or we over-zealously grasp the Cinderella story to make us feel better about making such a bad initial judgement call on her.

A more cynical view is that by up holding Boyle as a ‘rags to riches’ story, it maintains the status quo by reassuring the masses that the goal is still attainable.  It’s like the continuing perpetuation of the “American dream” - that it is available to everyone.  We all know of personal and Hollywood stories of people making it in this new world: through hard work and perseverence.  Now I’m a believer in encouraging and manifesting such attributes such as hard work and perseverence into the next generation.  But let’s not gloss over the realities.  Not everyone will make it. 

The current structure of the socio-economic society we live in depends on inequalities between people.  We can’t all be millionaires in this free market capitalist society, even if we all did work hard and persevered.  Unfortunately, some people “make it” for a multitude of reasons other than hard work, while those that work hard never make it.  Some are blessed with being born into a situation that afford them privileges, not based on their hard work, but the hard work of their parents (or grandparents).  I’m not saying children should not benefit from the efforts of their parents, but let’s not begin to deny that some people are born into a better life than others.  There are other societal, personal and structural reasons too.

Therefore it’s important to those who control society to maintain the status quo by pointing to the Boyle’s of this world to further keep us in that delusion that we can ALL make it.

I’m not willing in this post at the least, to launch into a whole article about “raging against the machine” at a macro level.  But I do want to point out that the Boyle story does not need to be hijacked by Hollywood to maintain the delusion that one day we can all be white swans.  Rather we the masses can use Boyle as the ugly duckling who was accepted because she wasn’t a white swan, but just a normal ugly duckling.

Already I’ve read articles saying that once the Boyle sensation has died out, we will revert to our normal ‘natural’ beings, and sit down and cast those judgemental calls as we have always done.  However, I think that is flawed thinking.  To believe that it is “natural” and of human nature to pick beauty, is to deny a critique of the definition of beauty.  We are being conned into believing the “ugly” in the ugly duckling.  We are being persuaded to believe that beauty has already been defined for us and we should accept it.

But it wasn’t long ago when Palagi, blue eyed, blondes were the normal definition of beauty (and to some extent it still is), but there has been a steady re-evaluation of that definition, and we have super models of every hue, race and ethnicity gracing our magazines and TV’s.  That came through social and academic pressure.  What’s to say such a re-evaluation can’t be done again with Susan Boyle?  Why must we revert to our pre-Boyle prejudices?

Here in Niu Sila / New Zealand, Polynesians have dominated many of the reality talent shows on TV.  But Rosita Vai, winner of New Zealand Idol, caused the most controversy.  Some commentators believed she would not win because she was too fat, she would perpetuate obesity in Pacific communities, she did not have the look.  But win she did.  While her career since winning New Zealand Idol hasn’t blossomed, neither has any other New Zealand Idol winner or contestant.  Yet media commentators have been all too quick to point to her looks as her demise, as I’m sure people will do with Boyle if she were to meet the same fate.

But I think Rosita and Boyle are merely stepping stones to breaking down our prejudices.  The more people get beyond the superficial and look at the talent, the further we get to dismantling the delusion of the “American dream” and assess people not on their looks, but their merits.

I hope Boyle doesn’t change under such popularity.  She won us over because she could sing.  She doesn’t need to change herself into a white swan.  She’s also very popular because we actually realise she’s one of us, an ugly duckling.

Because in all reality, the world is full of ugly ducklings, in fact the majority of us are all ugly ducklings.  But we have been conditioned to think that we all want to be white swans in order to be accepted.  Once we realise that’s false, we can begin to be a lot more self secure about ourselves, and not have to go after every facial cream or botox product on the market to be “beautiful”. 

Because that’s the secret they don’t want us to know: ugly ducklings are already beautiful.

I have to confess that I haven’t gone to the PolyFest in the last few years.  I think it’s probably old age, but I’ve begun to dislike going to big festivals where it’s a hassle to find a car park, where you’re jostling for a space to sit amongst the masses, where the prices of (fatty) food and (sugary) drink are over the top, so there’s an added hassle of making lunch at home, getting the kids ready, making sure they’re well clothed for the weather, taking a mat to sit on, an umbrella for shade etc.  The list goes on.

But this year I made the effort to go, to support my younger cousins who were performing for various schools.  Luckily for me, the schools were all scheduled one after another in the morning, so I was able to leave before the hot afternoon sun beat down and before it became too crowded that you had to wait in line for everything (for the toilets, for food, to enter, to exit, walking to the toilets, walking to get food, walking to the entrance, walking to the exit etc).

But I think the biggest reason why I’ve grown to dislike going to events such as PolyFest are all the lil moepipi (literal translation: bed-wetter) FFT’s that also go.

The ASB Polyfest, or it’s proper name: the Auckland Secondary Schools Maori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival, has been running for 33 years, and is the largest festial of it’s kind in the world.  This year there were over 90,000 spectators, 9000 students performing from over 60 schools (including a Samoan group from Ueligitone / Wellington, and a Niuean school from Niue).

The 2009 Theme was “Many Cultures, One World” - “Nga tikanga-a-iwi o te ao whanui” - “E tele aganu’u ae tasi lava le lalolagi” -” ‘Oku tau taha pe neongo ‘oku tau kau ki he ngaahi matakali kehekehe” - “ Kehekehe e tau aga Faka-Motu, ka e taha e lalolagi”  - “E mànganui te àkono’anga, ‘okota’i rai ao”.

However the Samoan stage must’ve missed the memo because the theme there was about ACC (state owned Accident Compensation Corporation - everyone in Niu Sila / New Zealand is covered by ACC).  Typical Samoans always wanting to be different.

And so PolyFest has grown from it’s humble beginnings in Aukilani Saute / South Auckland 33 years ago between four high schools, into this internationally famous event.  Somehow I think the FFT’s were around back in the 70’s just as they are around today, probably just in a different form.

For those of you who don’t know what FFT stands for, it isn’t a youth gang or a dance crew.  In fact it’s a term my younger cousins told me about not long ago, to which I couldn’t stop laughing about, and now use it all the time.  FFT stands for “Fia Fai To’alua”!  In a nice clean way this roughly means ‘out to look for a boyfriend/girlfriend’ or wanting to hook up.

And PolyFest is full of FFT’s!

Sure there’s the cultural performances, but there’s also the roaming mobs of youth who probably never sit down for five minutes to watch a performance, but walk around checking out the opposite sex.  My aunty and uncle met me at at the Samoan stage on Saturday morning and I asked them where their boys were.  “Gone walking around.”  And sure enough the only times they came to sit down with us at the Samoan stage was to get food or money off their parents.  FFT’s!

And it’s easy to see who is an FFT or not, by the way they dress.  They’ve usually got their best clothes on, their blings, and the latest hairdo (guys and girls).  They (try to) dress to impress.

Yet come Sunday, I’ll see them at church in their Sunday whites getting whacked over the head by aunty Peka for being tautalaitiiti and talking during the sermon.

PolyFest is a great display of our cultural heritage.  It’s too bad that of the 90,000 visitors, a huge chunk of them are FFT’s who have other things on their mind rather than the performances. 

My suggestion for future events, perhaps we need more “aunty Peka’s” at these festivals to whack these moepipi’s into place.

Yesterday over 200,000 people attended the 17th Pasifika Festival, held at Western Springs in Aukilani / Auckland.  It is the largest cultural festival of its kind in the world, and aptly hosted in the worlds largest Polynesian city.

(Note: Pasifika is a pan-Pacific transliteration of Pacific, whereas the Samoan transliteration is Pasefika.  Slight difference, but often Samoans are accused of dominating all things Pacific in Niu Sila / New Zealand by other Pacific Islands peoples - but I’ll leave that for another post.)

This year’s theme was the frigate bird.  Pasifika Festival director Ole Maiava says this year’s theme is a tribute to the bird that many have come to love - and respectfully fear - within the Pacific.

“It means many things to different islands. It’s known as a long-distance traveller who helps with navigation - to see how far from land you are,” Mr Maiava said.  “In other islands, like Samoa, it’s an omen. When you see an atafa [frigate bird] you know a storm is coming.”

And so the frigate bird has brought mixed blessings to the 2009 Pasifika Festival.  The last few festivals were blessed with great summer weather, and with the Festival villages spread around the lake at Western Springs, brown faces for as far as the eye could see, and the flapping of jandals and the bright colours of the ie lavalava’s, you could mistake yourself for being back in the tropical islands.  But just as the Samoans believed, this year as the sculptures of the frigate bird went up, down came the rain.

Issues around funding also plagued the Festival before it began.  With budget cuts being made by private sponsors and Government agencies (due to the deteriorating economic climate), the Pasifika Festival had to downgrade from a two day event to just the Saturday, pulling the plug on the Friday night opening ceremony.  The Auckland City Council (now dominated by the right-wing Citizens and Raterpayers Association) was all too keen to not top up the Pasifika Festival in the name of cost-cutting (yet approved nearly $2million for the two elephants living at the Auckland Zoo, right nextdoor to Western Springs).  This funding shortfall put the whole future of the Festival in jeopardy.

The frigate bird was flying low, warning of this impending afa / cyclone.  And just as it is in the islands, the Pacific community came together to ensure the community survived from the effects of the afa.  The Pacific Island Board Auckland City (PIBAC), volunteered, donated, fundraised money within the community to save the opening ceremony.

But this exposed an underlying tension between the Festival organisers and many people in the community.  By rescuing the opening ceremony, PIBAC and supporters asked why had the Festival organisers cut an integral and most important element to any Pacific event, the opening.  While Ole Maiava rightly pointed out there was a lack of cash, the prioritisation between the organisers and PIBAC was glaringly different.

However, this gave PIBAC an opportunity to organise and plan an opening ceremony that they believed truly reflected the Pacific, as previous ceremonies had become too glamorised / commercialised / celebrity-ised (and all the other “ised” words).  With no strings attached, the opening ceremony was by the Pacific, for the Pacific.  But the criticisms of previous opening ceremonies was also being aimed at the Festival at large.

PIBAC board chairman Bruce McCarthy commented on Tagata Pasefika (the state-funded Pacific current affairs programme aired on TV1) how the traditional Pacific culture had over the years become neglected.  And I think it’s true.  From it’s early days, the Festival has been a success.  But with this popularity the corporate sponsorship dollar has boosted some aspects of the Festival over others.  The traditional cultures were conveniently tucked away in little villages, where as the contemporary Pacific culture got five massive stages with lighting, sound systems and the largest green areas for audiences.

Countless times I’ve had to walk to the furtherest corner of the Western Springs park to get to the Samoan village, and it is always packed out.  Not enough room, not a big enough stage, not enough access in to and out of the village.  Yet some of the contemporary stages had nice rolling banks for people to lie down on, road-side access, and the technical support on their large stages.

I’m not saying we should stop celebrating our contemporary cultures, but the same level of support should be shown to our traditional cultures.  For a growing number of Pacific children, the Festival is becoming their only interaction with their culture.  Through all the vibrancy and depth of talent, the younger generations are the one’s who need a balanced Festival more than anyone else.  Who cares about what the Palagi tourist enjoys, or the commercial success of this band or that, the Pasifika Festival should stay true to its roots.  Coz the more that is compromised and cut back, the less Pacific the Festival becomes, and the more ‘Big Day Out concert’ it will be.

If anything, the frigate bird might have warned us about the afa, it has also shown us a possible path and a will to navigate in providing a true Pasifika Festival, by the Pacific, for the Pacific.

Because Niu Sila / New Zealand has large concentrations of Pacific Island communities, it has always been at the forefront of pan-Pacific Island culture.  Aukilani / Auckland, Porirua in Ueligitone / Wellington, Aranui in Kalaisitete / Christchurch, and other areas where Pacific Islanders live, have produced a fusion of Pasifika cultures with that of mainstream Niu Sila.  Ardijah, Urban Pasifika, Dawn Raids, Jamoa Jam, Aradnah, Adeaze, Fatu Feuu, Michael Tuffery, Black Grace, Laughing Samoans, Bro Town, Naked Samoans, No. 2, Siones Wedding etc and plenty more, are but a few to have come from the Pacific Island population of Niu Sila.

So it was no surprise in the recent announcements of three Pacific programmes will be aired on the Nations’ free to air television channels:  “In The Beginning There Was…. Nothing” - a sketch style comedy show to air on TV3; “Laughing Samoans at Large” is a short series following the famous comedy pair, Eteuati Ete and Tofiga Fepuleai as they tour Niu Sila and Ausetalia / Australia, screening on TV2; and “Diplomatic Immunity” a new television comedy series based around a fictitious Pacific island nation airing tonight on TV1 at 10pm.

However, there have been questions raised about the latter programme, as one of the main roles was given to Lesley-Ann Brandt as the beautiful Leilani Fa’auigaese. While she has the look of a Polynesian beauty, she is in fact South African.  Similar concerns were raised with the successful movie “No. 2″, where the matriarch of the Fijian family, Nanna Maria, wasn’t given to a Fijian but instead they flew over African-American Ruby Dee for the role.  (I heard similar protests were made against The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, playing the Hawaiian King Kamehameha.)

In her defence, Lesley-Ann Brandt’s agency said “People get picky about castings, but it shouldn’t matter because… the best performer will get picked. They searched for a long time to find the best actress for this role, because she needed to be an incredible beauty, and Lesley was the best.”

Lesley-Ann’s agency also said “You only have to look at Cliff Curtis to see how far you can make it with ‘ethnic’ looks”.  Which is very true.  Cliff Curtis is a Maori actor who has featured in films such as “Three Kings”, “Blow”, “Bringing Out the Dead”, “Sunshine” and “Training Day”, sometimes as an Arab-American, an Iraqi, a South American rebel etc.  But I often think, if I were Iraqi/Arab-American/South American etc, was there anything in Cliff Curtis’ performance that didn’t seem genuine or authentic?  Whether it’s looks, language, persona etc.

Because there are countless times where I’ve cringed when I hear a non-Samoan playing a Samoan role, yet butchers the Samoan language eg “Tattoist”, “Siones Wedding” etc.  Surely pronunciation of the words whether they are English or another language is all part of “picking the best” person.  I guess Lesley-Ann is off the hook on this point, because the new show is about a fictitious Island nation, with a fictitious Island language, so it doesn’t matter if she butchers it.

(Side note: Samoan New Zealanders are as guilty of it as well - Samoans on TV have had a shocking time pronouncing Samoan words and names too eg April Ieremia (TV Sports Anchor), Beautrice Faumuina (Tagata Pasifika presenter), and countless Samoan presenters of the PolyFest.  I’ll leave my rantings about those guys in another post.)

As for beauty, yes, Lesley-Ann is indeed beautiful, and it’s great to see something other than size 8 blonde blue eyed sticks on screen.  But as I said at the beginning of this post, Niu Sila is home to the largest concentrations of Pacific Peoples, yet they couldn’t find any Pacific women as beautiful as Lesley-Ann???  You’ve got to be kidding me.

Those times I cringed, it seemed authenticity went out the door in exchange for fairer skinned actresses/actors, or people of ‘fame’.  Which begs the questions, are these shows catering for Pacific Communities (ie a reflection), or is it a cruel business model of using sex-appeal to the wider Niu Sila audience to get the ratings and bring in the cash from advertisers?

This leads to the question then, are these programmes really Pacific Island programmes?