Kumu Hina Trailer Response

  I really enjoyed both of the Kumu Hina trailers that are up on the blog as I think it looks like a very interesting and heartwarming movie although I can’t be sure of the central focus, which may be the best part.  As I was watching one of the videos again in class yesterday it struck me that the people are refusing to build a bridge to relate their story. The production seems to be made by, for, and of people who identify as Hawaiian. I enjoy being slightly confused about the context of the particular ritual dance they are performing and its significance as well as being slightly fuzzy on names, terms, and their meanings because that is as it should be. I am not a member of this elsewhere therefore I don’t understand and never truly will but I can still learn. I loved how the creators and the people featured did not feel it necessary to define all that they were interacting with for the audience’s benefit as I believe they were operating under the assumption that everyone involved would already know, to an extent. I think this is also proven during the dialogue between Kumu Hina and her (the students use the feminine pronoun) partner in the car that was not automatically translated into English for our convenience. It is clear that there is some sort of argument taking place but the specifics were unclear until I checked and turned on the official English caption option. I appreciate that this feature is available so I can correctly spell names and words to pay them the respect that they are due but I do not feel that it changes the overall community centered framework as it is simply an available function put there perhaps as a courtesy or requirement but not imposed into the actual film. Speaking of spelling, I also noted that Hawaii was spelled Hawai’i, which seems to correlate to the way that these people pronounce their homeland’s name.

The only potential issue I found between the trailers and Rabasa’s notion of elsewheres were the two text tag-lines “a love story that could only happen in Hawai’i” and “an ancient tradition comes alive.” I could easily be misunderstanding so please correct me if I am wrong but by placing their event in a linear timeline so it is “ancient” and by saying it “comes alive” implying it had died or was not functioning fully, are the producers not contradicting the idea of elsewheres? Since elsewheres are neither created nor destroyed, just merely existing outside of the bounds of time and space, is even locating the story as one that “could only happen” in a specific geographical place going against the theory? Perhaps the catch is that the elsewhere can still exist whether or not it is recognized to truly be above those set categories so maybe there is community value in creating a physical and historical space for their culture in a narrative that had generally excluded or misrepresented it? I don’t know so please tell me what you think. We should try to find a way to watch the movie together if people are interested and it is available!