![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article offers a reading of the recent New Zealand omnibus film Waru, written and directed by nine Māori wāhine (women). The film is significant in that it is female-centric, but also told through a specifically indigenous lens. As such, Waru clearly resists traditional ways of looking from the hegemonic spectatorial position, historically assumed to be male and white. Instead, I suggest that the film’s status within the omnibus genre – itself an inherently disruptive genre and form – and the collaborative filmmaking process enacted here helps enable a specifically Māori perspective based on collectivity and whanaungatanga (kinship or close connections between people). Ultimately, Waru’s kaupapa (shared vision or philosophy that incorporates action or a plan) is to address the horrific rates of child abuse in New Zealand by considering ways in which we, ‘the village’, are all to some extent culpable or complicit. However, as befits Māori values, the film imagines and offers a variety of different types of intervention. In doing so, Waru presents a radical alternative to the fierce hyper-individualism of neoliberalism. Consequently, Waru is not only an example of inventive, creative, feminist film making, but also, ultimately, a political act of decolonization.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Of the eight vignettes, seven were written and directed by a Māori woman each. The final story, however, was created by a writer and director partnership. Accordingly, throughout this article I refer to nine women involved but eight directors.
2. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the Western world: in 2015 a child/young person (under the age of 20) was killed by a caregiver or family member approximately every 5 weeks (New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse [NZFVC] Citation2017).
3. Deborah Young’s review acknowledges that ‘arbitrary as they may seem, these pre-fab requirements do help glue together the multiple viewpoints from which the story is told, and the result is surprisingly homogenous’ (2017). Likewise, DP Drew Sturge identifies the one shot as a tool that helped lend consistency to the different stories (‘Waru through the lens’).
4. This adjective appears in multiple discussions and reviews: camera operator Simon Tutty describes it as ‘something as heavy as this’ (‘Waru through the lens’), television host Mike Puru labels it ‘a pretty heavy subject’ (The Cafe), and director Awanui Simich-Pene calls it ‘a heavy kaupapa to be confronted with’ (‘Paparoa marae Q&A’).
5. The critical reviews and responses to the film would indicate that the filmmakers have been largely successful in conveying this. Mark Kermode notes how the film avoids the specific details of Waru’s death, focusing instead on ‘the social, economic and cultural forces at play’ (Citation2018), while Josh Slater-Williams points out that ‘violence and abuse of the vulnerable are not actually symptomatic of a specific people’ (Citation2018). Ken Derry is even more specific and damning, arguing that ‘the killer is not so much a single person as it is a social condition, an oppressive history. The killer is colonialism, patriarchy, poverty, alcoholism; it is a struggle with self-worth, a loss of tradition and meaning’ (Citation2017, 2).
6. So Mayer’s thoughtful review for Literal, Latin American Voices (Citation2017) goes so far as to describe the camera as ‘Waru’s watchful eye’.
7. Camera operator Simon Tutty cites ‘Charm’ as his favourite episode (‘Waru through the lens’).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Rachel Williamson
Rachel Williamson is a PhD candidate in Cultural Studies at the University of Canterbury. Her current research looks at representations of motherhood in contemporary popular culture and literature.