Whale Rider

Whale Rider is an interesting film.  It's beautifully shot, well acted (especially by its star, Keisha Castle-Hughes, who was nominated for an Oscar) and a wonderful story about change, tradition, and community.

The most obvious example of deconstruction and de-centering in the film is the binary gender roles that are central to the film's conflict.  Paikea, having been born a female, cannot inherit the role of chief, even though it is her right as one of the original Paikea's descendants.  This conflict allows us to think about the role that gender plays in our own lives.  Does it make sense for opportunities and advancements to be denied to someone because of their gender? Is it okay to go against obvious signs of destiny and tradition simply because it goes against your idea of what a leader should be? The film argues no, and even shows that Paikea has a connection to her ancestors and even whales, which the original Paikea famously rode on (hence the, uh, title).

Nobly pictured here.

Paikea does everything that tradition says she shouldn't do.  She fights with a taiaha.  She rides whales.  She gives amazing speeches.  Her every step contradicts and fights against the patriarchal standard, and by the end of the film, her actions are finally recognized by her grandfather Koro.  By isolating the role of gender in terms of leadership, the film is able to boldly state that gender should not be an issue when it comes to who gets to rule, and challenges the traditional patriarchal construct of not only her culture, but all cultures as well.

It's interesting to note that while the film in many ways subverts tradition and fights against the patriarchal society presented in the film, in many ways, it also upholds these same ideals.  Having Paikea fight to be the leader of the tribe is seen as progressive (and in terms of the culture and story being presented, it is), but traditional concepts such as "right to rule" and leadership through birthright are not questioned.  Paikea's ability to rule the tribe is never brought up on issues of age, credentials, or experience, only on her gender being the only obstacle.  The film never truly challenges the concepts of destiny or predestination (and honestly, that's not the film's purpose, but I digress) True, the chief does train and teach the other boys of the tribe to see who will become the next chief, but the conclusion of the movie suggests that he was doing this in spite of all the evidence that Paikea should be the chief.  He was, in actuality, fighting against tradition and his ancestors by not having the firstborn descendant of their first chief, Paikea, become the chief of the tribe, even if she is a female. So the film does a really good job of analyzing and evaluating gender biases that are present in culture and society, but other biases and traditional ideas are upheld.  This suggests to me that traditions are not changed all at once in a radical revolution, but slowly over time.  Progress does not happen in a day.  In reality, it is by both looking into the past for strength and inspiration that we can truly change the future, one steep at a time.

I'm just gonna leave this here. Try not to cry too hard.