Is Storytelling An Act of Theft? – A Response to Two Criticisms of Moana

(A quick note before I start: In previous articles on Moana, I have been unsure of what Polynesia actually entails, and used the term “Oceanic/Pacific” to refer to the Polynesian region. However, as I now understand that the term Polynesia refers to the 14 Polynesian islands, including Hawaii, New Zealand, Samoa and Easter Island, I will now use the term “Polynesian” to describe the area and the culture which unites it)

I am really excited for Disney’s new film Moana, which will finally arrive in cinemas in two months. It looks like an enjoyable adventure movie which will feature interesting characters and wonderful animation. Most importantly of all, it will shine a light upon Polynesian culture, introducing many people to a way of life and a mythology which has generally been neglected by the Western World. The film features a Polynesian writer (Taika Waititi), a Polynesian songwriter (Opetaia Foa’i) and a mostly Polynesian cast (With Dwayne Johnson and Nicole Sherzinger the two most prominent stars). In addition, numerous experts in Polynesian culture contributed to the movie’s development, ensuring that it will depict the culture as respectfully as possible.

However, not everyone from Polynesia is enthusiastic about Moana. Honolulu Civil Beat, a passionately left-wing website focusing on Hawaiian issues, has published not one but two articles attacking the movie. They are written by Tina Ngata and Anne Keala Kelly, both experts in Polynesian history and Polynesian issues (especially those concerning Hawaii), and accuse Disney of exploiting their native culture in order to make a profit, presenting a simplified and stereotyped view of it which will reinforce negative perceptions of Polynesia and exacerbate many of the problems facing the region. In this article, I will respond to the criticisms raised by Ngata, Keala Kelly, and others opposed to the film, by looking at various areas of concern which they mention.

Popular Culture as a Colonising Force

Both Ngata and Keala Kelly focus on attacking Disney, who they accuse of “stealing” Polynesian culture in order to gain money. The idea of Disney, a quintessentially American corporation, depicting Polynesian culture, has worried those who are reminded of the history of colonialism in Polynesian areas. As major powers such as USA, Britain and (to a lesser extent) Germany sought to impose control in the region, they oppressed Polynesian natives and their culture. The loss of Polynesian culture was reinforced by the Western perception that they were “Savages”, which was perpetuated by many works of art and literature at the time. This negative stereotype often resurfaces in modern media, especially in the field of advertising (the use of Polynesian deities to sell alcohol is particularly unpleasant), so Polynesian people have a good reason to be worried about whether depictions of their culture will continue to dehumanise them.

Focusing solely on Moana for the moment, I understand why many Polynesian people would be anxious about the effects of the film on their culture. First of all, Disney’s animated films have an annoying habit of overshadowing their source material, particularly if that source material is very obscure, or has not been depicted in a major film before. As far as I can tell, Moana is the first movie to depict Maui in any way, so it will probably have a huge impact on the numerous viewers who are unfamiliar with his stories. If that leads to them seeking more information on Polynesian mythology, that is a good thing, but if they watch Moana without understanding the culture which inspired it, it could be very problematic.

Secondly, the Polynesian areas lack representation in today’s political culture. This is especially apparent in Hawaii, which is controlled by the USA and subject to many dubious American actions which have a negative effect on the Island and its culture. This is why the perceived errors with Moana (e.g the merchandising, the controversy over Maui’s weight) have had such an impact. If Chinese or Japanese culture is “whitewashed” by a Hollywood movie, it is very annoying, but China and Japan have enough independence and influence to set the record straight and counter any problematic narratives. The Polynesian areas don’t have this, so people depicting them need to be extremely vigilant in order to avoid spreading negative stereotypes which could have a corrosive effect.

However, I disagree passionately with a central point made by Ngata and Keala Kelly, that any American depiction of Polynesia represents a form of theft. Today’s world is focused on promoting diversity and multiculturalism, and many Americans, including numerous filmmakers, are opposed to the excesses of the US government. Therefore, they are inclined to depict Polynesia positively, and this should be encouraged. In addition, Keala Kelly’s claim that “native collaboration” with American filmmakers legitimises oppression is problematic. For many, such as the Hawaiian independence campaigner "Bumpy" Kanahele (Who appeared in the widely-criticised 2015 film Aloha) American films represent an especially powerful platform for Polynesian causes. In addition to combatting any negative portrayals of their culture, Polynesian people need to encourage positive portrayals, even if these aren’t from Polynesian filmmakers. These could help play an invaluable part in giving Polynesian people a voice and a positive narrative which they can use to combat the mistreatment they have suffered. For many Polynesian people, especially those involved in its production, Moana represents a major opportunity to provide an enlightening portrayal of Polynesian culture. As one member of the Oceanic Story Trust said to Moana’s director, Ron Clements, “We’ve been swallowed by your culture. One time, can you be swallowed by our culture?” If Moana provides a sufficiently faithful portrayal of Polynesian culture, it could encourage millions, and even billions of people, to develop a positive perception of it, fuelling a new mind-set could which prove invaluable for Polynesian culture.

The Environmental Impact

There is one aspect of Ngata’s article with which I completely agree, and that is her claim that the merchandise which is accompanying the film is going to have a negative impact upon the environment. In her article, she points out that many pieces of merchandise end up in the ocean, with plastic products having a particularly devastating effect upon marine life. With many aspects of Polynesian life being centred around the sea, and many islands threatened by rising water levels, we all need to make an effort to combat the threat posed by pollution in this area.

For Disney, merchandise is, at the very least, a necessary evil. It generates increased revenue for the company, and creates publicity for their films which endures years after their initial release. However, whilst merchandise is a key factor in Disney’s success and influence, they should be doing a lot more for the environment, especially when promoting a film where the ocean itself is a central character. Reducing the amount of plastic packaging they use, or making large donations to environmental causes, will help Disney do their bit in combatting the destruction caused by pollution. I think that Moana will raise a lot of awareness for the Ocean and its importance, but in order for the film to make a difference, Disney need to take action in order to combat pollution, and so should everyone else.

The Oceanic Story Trust

Both Ngata and Keala Kelley regard The Oceanic Story Trust, a team of experts in Polynesian culture designed to ensure that Moana depicts it faithfully, as a proverbial “figleaf” to provide legitimacy to Disney’s attempt to steal Polynesian culture. However, I think that this perception is false. Moana’s Oceanic Story Trust includes academics, historians, linguists and even tattoo artists. Disney’s in-house screenwriter Jared Bush has talked about how lines from the film were vetted by writers from Fiji and Hawaii as they were being recorded, with several being cut because they have negative connotations in some of the Polynesian islands. With the Trust having such a prominent effect on so many of the little details, I think it’s inconceivable that they would allow anything which would cause offence to the majority of Polynesian people.

In addition, it’s evident that the writers and producers of Moana are genuinely fascinated by Polynesian Mythology. In spite of Disney’s status as a corporation, its films are the work of numerous individuals, all of whom seem to have a great deal of interest in Polynesian culture. Producer Osnat Shurer has talked about how the Oceanic Story Trust “enriched the story” by adding details from their culture. Moana’s two directors, Ron Clements and John Musker, have talked about how they aimed to avert the westernised focus of most works set in Polynesia, and have talked about how Maui’s “bigger-than-life exploits and personality” would be “rich to see in animation”. In fact, Maui was originally supposed to be the protagonist, until Clements and Musker decided to make the titular heroine Moana into the central character. Overall, I have a feeling that these people would never set out to make a work which perpetuates negative stereotypes of Polynesian culture.  I acknowledge that there are probably going to be mistakes and issues with the finished film, I think that their decision to set up the Oceanic Story Trust was based on a respect for Polynesian culture and a desire to depict it as accurately as possible.  

The Characterisation of Maui

Much of the criticism surrounding Moana has focused on the perception that it will depict the revered Demigod Maui as (using Keala Kelly’s words) “a ridiculous, clowning sidekick”. The film seems to be depicting Maui as a washed-up figure whose great exploits (such as controlling the sun, or making the islands of New Zealand rise from the sea) occurred in the distant past. Based on the trailers and plot descriptions, it seems like a central aspect of the film will be about Maui rediscovering his strength and heroism.

Given that Maui is such an important figure for many Polynesian people, Disney are under a lot of pressure to depict him with sufficient respect, and many are worried that he is not being taken seriously enough. The trailers place a lot of focus on his overconfident nature, with many scenes being played for comedy. Let’s face it, some of the lines from the trailer, such as “blow-dart in my buttcheek!” do not make Maui seem like the hero he’s meant to be.

However, before we attack Disney for making Maui seem like a fool, there are two things to consider. First of all, trailers for recent Disney animated films have placed much emphasis on the comedic aspects, at the expense of the more dramatic ones. For example, Frozen’s initial teasers placed too much focus on comic relief sidekicks Olaf and Sven, at the expense of the relationship between sisters Anna and Elsa which defined the film. The trailers for Moana have provided roughly 5 minutes of footage from a 104 minute film. Based on this, I have a feeling that Maui’s most heroic moments are being kept a secret. Once we’ve seen these, it may cause us to reassess the perception that Maui is a mere comedic sidekick.

Secondly, the portrayal of Maui seems to have much in common with some of Disney’s best male characters, such as the Genie from Aladdin and Flynn Ryder from Tangled. These characters are charming, charismatic rogues with hidden depths, and by following in this tradition, Maui seems like he could be a real scene-stealer. As important as it is to please Polynesian viewers, the majority of people seeing Moana have little to no knowledge of Polynesian culture. If viewers like Maui and find him engaging, it could inspire them to find out more about him. Ultimately, regardless of whether Maui is portrayed seriously, or as a comedic character, all that matters is that he is interesting and likeable enough for viewers to understand why he is such a significant figure in Polynesian mythology.

The Lava Monster

The promotional material for Moana has focused almost entirely on Moana and Maui, with other characters being shown very briefly. However, this hasn’t stopped Ngata and Keala Kelly from criticising a central character glimpsed briefly in these trailers – a mysterious “Lava Monster” who seems like one of the film’s central antagonists. They believe that this figure bears too much resemblance to Pele, a powerful volcano goddess who, according to Hawaiian mythology, resides on the Hawaiian Islands. The Hawaiians regard her with a great deal of respect, so the mere idea of creating a “Lava Monster” based on Pele in any way has annoyed some.

When I heard the criticisms, I did some research and read some of the stories about Pele, and she is a fascinating character. However, like the better-known Greek gods, Pele is highly flawed. She has a fiery temper, and seduces many men. Her rivalry with her sister Namakaokahai was based on her seduction of Namakaokahai’s husband. In addition, a well-known legend depicts Pele turning the character of Ohi’a into a tree for choosing to be with another woman. Based on these stories, it is not hard to see how Pele can be turned into an antagonist. This comment is not intended to denigrate Pele in any way, as her flaws make her more interesting and relatable, contributing to the connection which many Hawaiian people have with her. Even though the “Lava Monster” may not actually be Pele (I read an online article saying that the “Lava Monster” is actually a male being called Teka), the idea of dehumanising Pele in any way can seem offensive.

Personally, I don’t mind the idea of Pele inspiring an antagonist, as long as they remain interesting. A Lava Monster would provide a fascinating contrast with the water-based environment of Moana, and I would rather see a fiery villain who retains all of Pele’s compelling characteristics than a dull protagonist. Even though Disney’s 1997 film Hercules (made by Clements and Musker) received a lot of criticism for its irreverent portrayal of Greek Mythology, it actually portrays Zeus and Hera, the two primary Greek Gods, in a positive fashion. However, by cutting out many of the aspects which gave Zeus and Hera their edge (Zeus’ womanising and Hera’s jealousy are not suitable subjects for a Disney film), the film made them seem a lot less fascinating. As long as the “Lava Monster” seems like a powerful and engaging character, I am willing to accept any negative characteristics it has.

Conclusion

I have a mixed opinion on the articles published by Ngata and Keala Kelly. I wholeheartedly agree with their concerns about the environmental and social problems facing the Polynesian Islands, and I respect the significance which they attach to Polynesian mythology. However, I do not agree with the claim that Moana will contribute to the subjugation of Polynesian people. I acknowledge that the film will have a number of flaws, but I think that it’s definitely being made with noble intentions. I think that it’s too early to judge whether or not the film will treat Polynesian culture with enough respect to win over those who are sceptical of it, but I think that, at the very least, it should inspire many people to take up further interest in Polynesian mythology, which is probably the primary aim of all those involved in the production of the film.

That said, it was interesting to read these articles, even if I didn’t agree with every word they said. Regardless of one’s opinion on Moana, the film has ensured that Polynesian culture has received an unprecedented amount of attention, which seems like a triumph in itself. Hopefully, the increased publicity will allow Polynesian voices greater exposure and contribute to a greater understanding of their culture. In the long term, I believe that this will lead to the increased representation and political and social reforms which many Polynesian people are demanding.