.jpg)
Image courtesy of Roadside AttractionsDuring a trip to Iolani Palace, the former home of Hawaii’s royal family in Honolulu, movie producer Mark Forby found the subject for his next film hanging on the wall. A portrait of Princess Ka’iulani, the last heir to Hawaii’s throne, inspired Forby to investigate her story at the Hawaiian state archives where he obtained the majority of his research on the princess. In January 2004, Forby sat down to write his screenplay. Four years later, Forby is finally releasing his directorial debut, Princess Ka’iulani, a very romanticized and somewhat misleading tale about the annexation of our 50th state.
The movie starts with a few of the events leading up to the Bayonet Constitution, wherein the Hawaiian monarchy was stripped of its power and the land given to American, European, and native Hawaiian elites. Shortly after being forced to sign the new constitution, Hawaii’s King Kalākaua (Ocean Kaowili) dies, leaving Queen Lili’uokalani (Leo Anderson Akana) what’s left of the royal throne. Shortly after naming Princess Ka’iulani (Q’Orianka Kilcher) her heir, the queen promptly ships the princess off to boarding school in England to be formally educated.
Once Princess Ka’iulani arrives in Britain, the entire second act of the film wallows in her time abroad, especially her romance with Clive Davies (Shaun Evans). Forby spends so much time on this insignificant romance between the princess and Davies that you almost forget Hawaii is in upheaval halfway across the globe. Occasionally, Forby will insert brief flashes of Hawaiian turmoil, but not enough to give the viewer any kind of insightful look into the events of what really happened during the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.
Eventually, Forby gets back to the business of Hawaii being unwillingly annexed by the United States, showing how Princess Ka’iulani won over of the American media, as well as her plea to President Cleveland (Peter Banks) for his support in restoring the Hawaiian throne to its monarchy. Unfortunately for the princess, her presidential plea is too little, too late. Even with his support, Cleveland was merely a lame duck waiting for McKinley to take office in a month’s time. Princess Ka’iulani did manage to make it back to her beloved island in time to witness its annexation, but died one year later at the age of 23. According to the film, she supposedly died from a broken heart over the loss of her country.
At best, Princess Ka’iulani might be considered a somewhat informative film for those who aren’t very familiar with Hawaiian history. But, for those audience members who are at least willing to do their own fact checking, Forby’s film is nothing more than a vague history lesson seen through rose-colored glasses. Most of this stems from the fact that Forby chose to research personal letters instead of textbooks. Yes, letters are more likely to provide better insight to the characters; however, it is rather misleading for filmmakers to rely on subjective opinion over objective facts if they’re trying to pass off their film as an accurate biopic.
Another problem with Forby’s subjective storytelling is that he omitted quite a few details about what really happened in Hawaii during its annexation. Granted, he does show how the European business community conspired against the king in order to convert most of Hawaii into their own private plantations. Yet, he completely overshadows these important fragmented facts with the romance between Ka’iulani and Davies. Did their romance really exist? If so, it’s never mentioned in any textbook of Hawaiian history. Ironically, what Forby makes no mention of is the princess’ official engagement to Prince David Kawananakoa that made by the queen to secure the royal Hawaiian bloodline.[1]
Even more ridiculous is the film’s claim that Princess Ka’iulani died of a broken heart over the loss of her country. Of course, all of the princess’ travelling between tropical Hawaii and cold, dank England had no impact on her health. Nor, is it possible for the princess to have come down with any illness after being caught in a storm while horseback riding shortly before her death.[2] Apparently, that’s the conclusion Forby came to after consulting all those unbiased Hawaiian linguistic, historic, and cultural experts and reading his assortment of personal letters.
What the film does have going for it is Q’Orianka Kilcher. Unfortunately, it’s the same actress in the same story we saw in Terrence Malick’s The New World, in which a native princess sees the European takeover of her homeland, gets sent to England, formally educated, and falls in love with a Brit. Only this time, Kilcher’s performance is trapped within a lame version of “Masterpiece Theatre” instead of a real movie. Forby is clueless when it comes to composing truly compelling scenes; and, his lack of directorial experience shows in the film’s flattened dialogue, overabundance of pretty landscapes, and onslaught of classical music. If you squint your eyes hard enough, it could even pass for a Disney film (minus the musical numbers).
At times, it seems like all of Forby’s emphasis on researching subjective personal views over objective textbook facts clouded his cinematic version. But, maybe that’s what he wanted? Maybe he was trying to distract us from the ugly Americans’ annexation of Hawaii with a bunch of pretty pictures about a fabricated romance? Hell, why not? Most people don’t want the ugly truth. Or, do they? If you’re in the minority who’d rather hear the truth, you’ll definitely want to brush up on your Hawaiian history before viewing Princess Ka’iulani. However, if you’re in the vast majority of American audiences who don’t, you’ll probably like Forby’s rose-colored version of history.
© Left From Hollywood 6/11/2010
[1]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C04E3DA1638E433A25751C1A9649C94699ED7CF
[2] http://www.hawaii-nation.org/hawaiis-own1.html
The movie starts with a few of the events leading up to the Bayonet Constitution, wherein the Hawaiian monarchy was stripped of its power and the land given to American, European, and native Hawaiian elites. Shortly after being forced to sign the new constitution, Hawaii’s King Kalākaua (Ocean Kaowili) dies, leaving Queen Lili’uokalani (Leo Anderson Akana) what’s left of the royal throne. Shortly after naming Princess Ka’iulani (Q’Orianka Kilcher) her heir, the queen promptly ships the princess off to boarding school in England to be formally educated.
Once Princess Ka’iulani arrives in Britain, the entire second act of the film wallows in her time abroad, especially her romance with Clive Davies (Shaun Evans). Forby spends so much time on this insignificant romance between the princess and Davies that you almost forget Hawaii is in upheaval halfway across the globe. Occasionally, Forby will insert brief flashes of Hawaiian turmoil, but not enough to give the viewer any kind of insightful look into the events of what really happened during the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.
Eventually, Forby gets back to the business of Hawaii being unwillingly annexed by the United States, showing how Princess Ka’iulani won over of the American media, as well as her plea to President Cleveland (Peter Banks) for his support in restoring the Hawaiian throne to its monarchy. Unfortunately for the princess, her presidential plea is too little, too late. Even with his support, Cleveland was merely a lame duck waiting for McKinley to take office in a month’s time. Princess Ka’iulani did manage to make it back to her beloved island in time to witness its annexation, but died one year later at the age of 23. According to the film, she supposedly died from a broken heart over the loss of her country.
At best, Princess Ka’iulani might be considered a somewhat informative film for those who aren’t very familiar with Hawaiian history. But, for those audience members who are at least willing to do their own fact checking, Forby’s film is nothing more than a vague history lesson seen through rose-colored glasses. Most of this stems from the fact that Forby chose to research personal letters instead of textbooks. Yes, letters are more likely to provide better insight to the characters; however, it is rather misleading for filmmakers to rely on subjective opinion over objective facts if they’re trying to pass off their film as an accurate biopic.
Another problem with Forby’s subjective storytelling is that he omitted quite a few details about what really happened in Hawaii during its annexation. Granted, he does show how the European business community conspired against the king in order to convert most of Hawaii into their own private plantations. Yet, he completely overshadows these important fragmented facts with the romance between Ka’iulani and Davies. Did their romance really exist? If so, it’s never mentioned in any textbook of Hawaiian history. Ironically, what Forby makes no mention of is the princess’ official engagement to Prince David Kawananakoa that made by the queen to secure the royal Hawaiian bloodline.[1]
Even more ridiculous is the film’s claim that Princess Ka’iulani died of a broken heart over the loss of her country. Of course, all of the princess’ travelling between tropical Hawaii and cold, dank England had no impact on her health. Nor, is it possible for the princess to have come down with any illness after being caught in a storm while horseback riding shortly before her death.[2] Apparently, that’s the conclusion Forby came to after consulting all those unbiased Hawaiian linguistic, historic, and cultural experts and reading his assortment of personal letters.
What the film does have going for it is Q’Orianka Kilcher. Unfortunately, it’s the same actress in the same story we saw in Terrence Malick’s The New World, in which a native princess sees the European takeover of her homeland, gets sent to England, formally educated, and falls in love with a Brit. Only this time, Kilcher’s performance is trapped within a lame version of “Masterpiece Theatre” instead of a real movie. Forby is clueless when it comes to composing truly compelling scenes; and, his lack of directorial experience shows in the film’s flattened dialogue, overabundance of pretty landscapes, and onslaught of classical music. If you squint your eyes hard enough, it could even pass for a Disney film (minus the musical numbers).
At times, it seems like all of Forby’s emphasis on researching subjective personal views over objective textbook facts clouded his cinematic version. But, maybe that’s what he wanted? Maybe he was trying to distract us from the ugly Americans’ annexation of Hawaii with a bunch of pretty pictures about a fabricated romance? Hell, why not? Most people don’t want the ugly truth. Or, do they? If you’re in the minority who’d rather hear the truth, you’ll definitely want to brush up on your Hawaiian history before viewing Princess Ka’iulani. However, if you’re in the vast majority of American audiences who don’t, you’ll probably like Forby’s rose-colored version of history.
© Left From Hollywood 6/11/2010
[1]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C04E3DA1638E433A25751C1A9649C94699ED7CF
[2] http://www.hawaii-nation.org/hawaiis-own1.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment