Emancipation

Working as a filmmaker towards human emancipation

There are many forms of oppression experienced by people in all walks of life, both in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere too.

Concerning oppression and my own journey of training as a filmmaker, I became conditioned to be aware of issues around me and to point my camera towards some of those issues that could manifest themselves before the camera. But I was also taught not to allow my particular camera perspective to become overly obsessed with details of an oppression or to try to brow beat an audience by fabricating scenes of oppression simply because I was inspired or driven by one example or by the total effect of the various forms of oppression in my neighborhood or on the earth in general. 

In other words, I became trained not to carry the multitude of frustrations of the society in which I lived into the midst of social circles where I was about to place myself as a filmmaker and then from there to project the multiplication of these - perhaps my own original issues, back towards the audiences. Carrying my issues and questions into a new social environment was considered in my particular film area of discipline as "loading the scene with my own imported issues". This was seen as an imposition upon film characters by those who brought me up as a filmmaker.

On the set of Tinpis Run, Waliya Village, Mount Hagen 1990, 

So we became formed and trained to look at crucial details of the human condition by looking and living with people for a bit until issues revealed themselves.

When the actual filming would begin - there are many ways to make this part collaborative as well so that the film characters are well aware of the nature of the film and at the end are also helping with its construction - it was assumed that by various means and processes, you knew the film and most of its parts already and you were now striving to get those particular scenes or their equivalent filmed and put away.

You could start a filming process with some previous knowledge about a particular social situation or without much previous awareness, but regardless of your starting point, you would proceed to construct the film together with your film subjects over a period of time that was convenient for everyone.

One would know that the community being filmed had taken some ownership of the film and its tools (including the filmmaker) when they would begin to think of things on their normal agenda and would begin to inform the filmmakers of these situations, like they would start to propose other possibilities and directions for the film. In other words your film subjects have become filmmakers too and the filmmaker naturally, also begins to have a sense of belonging to the place where they are filming. Each filmmaker has to feel whatever is right for oneself in terms of how deep they can immerse themselves into the social situations which are the subject of films.

The filmmaker is still director and producer, and you are still choosing what scenes to accept into the final film but the energy of the filmed community would at that point already flow with the filmmaker so one just went with that spirit. Scene by scene, one went uncovering pieces of a puzzle and through the building of film scenes finally a truthful representation of the reality of a human existence. These would later become apparent on the picture screen through the particular ways and choices of people's own story telling and by the demonstration of their own force of existence and will to survive.

The fabrication of facts inspired by my own political view of the way the earth was supposed to function was banned in the earlier part of my formation as a filmmaker.

Film scenes were meant to become empirical experiences for an audience, some of whom had never been at the places where I was filming. The evidence of such human condition, was to be brought to an audience by the mere honesty of an interaction and the fair and direct collaboration between filmmaker and film subject.

It was supposed to be the responsibility of a filmmaker to be respectful of an audience. A responsible filmmaker was not to seek to cheaply invoke the spirit of public rage or outrage through the skills we had acquired. We had to be respectful of our audiences and to allow them to form their own judgement as much as possible from the evidence that we were able to outline before them on a cinema screen.

What does any of that have to do with Emancipation?

"Whatever you do, do not think about Elephants". This is a saying from contemporary wisdom which teaches that if you do not want an "elephant in the room", then you would have to contrive to avoid the invocation of the spirit of the elephant.

For filmmakers, this is an important consideration when we are working towards human emancipation. The dangers of the filmmaker that lie in tampering with the chains that encumber human freedom is that while it may be correct to "create awareness" for a certain sector of society about the absence of freedom in their own lives, it would also be unfair to those same people if we had no answers or alternatives to offer them in return for disabusing them of their naïveté about their own lack of freedom.

The first problematic thing in dealing with human emancipation is in the cultural definition of freedom itself and the identification of the chains of oppression from the perspective of the speaker.

Once that barrier has been crossed and it has been established that an injustice exists in the lives of fellow humans, there lies in wait the still more problematic of issues - that of framing the matter and identifying the ideal processes towards a solution.

Again the solution has to be defined and a differentiation has to be made between solutions from an observer of injustice and the solutions from the victims of oppression themselves. To that effect there are again no easy answers and possibly a lot of new disappointments and perhaps even new injuries that may be unwittingly created by rushed solutions to perhaps quite complex and deep rooted causes of issues.

Surprisingly for some, there are also solutions to some oppressive situations which are offered by oppressors who may themselves want to be free from a cycle of oppression or violence. The filmmaker looks for them too because these are also possible solutions that help to repair the social fabric of broken lives and may help affected people to become able to live side by side again.

Left to right - Trisha, Francis and Hitch

 Again a filmmaker not trained in conflict resolution is advised not to set in motion processes beyond their own capacity to oversee. It is safer and less hurtful to film characters if the filmmaker might seek instead to inspire common respect amongst the people we film and maybe also seek to create some amount of respect for the craft that we practice.

So if domestic violence be the issue and we have come into a place to film and to deal with this issue which we the filmmakers do not support, it is important to remember now especially, that as filmmakers we may have to be in the company of some humans, usually men that we may actually have no respect for, due to the way they hurt other people. That we also have to frame these men in our pictures as we would frame any other human beings and that we would offer them the same forum as those that they oppress.

But where should we frame them and offer them forum and where should we deny them the forum to glorify their own oppression of other humans? And while we seek to be political in our effort to end a certain kind of oppression how articulate are we when we are in the situation so that in fact we do not end up shortening the horizons of those that we seek to set free?

Uncle Tuaimi and Hitch

Therein lies the dilemma for those who aspire to be "responsible" filmmakers. This is by no means an excuse for filmmakers to take no action or to be allowed into neglecting the use of their own craft and skills against oppression. But there are tried and tested methods of action which other filmmakers have followed and which can allow us to participate in seeking to serve human emancipation through various disciplines within our own profession.

Allowing the elephant to run amok

Sensationalism, through the use of imagery or other fictions and fabrications that create a cringing or maybe a shocking feeling in the audience about other societies, may not actually solve a human condition which a filmmaker may be aiming to improve. Sensationalism is also disrespectful to the society that is filmed for such purpose because it regards the people filmed simply as objects or figures for an ulterior illustration.

In film, the elephant is already waiting for us in our cameras. If we allow the elephant to behave in there as it pleases, or to run amok due to our own lack of application, then somehow we risk becoming tools of oppression and not for the emancipation of the human spirit. Further, if such elephant is then allowed to dominate the way we think and approach our collaboration with our film subjects then we may not be acting for human freedom.

Emancipation itself may mean the restoration of human dignity, which in itself, is not a promise of total human freedom.

Note: This article does not purport to cover outright human perversion, slavery or war.

Where Private Goes Public

Resignation of a Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea

"Ailing PNG leader Somare retiring: family". So reads an article headline in an Australian online Newspaper, ABC News, which goes on to report:

"The family of Papua New Guinea's prime minister Sir Michael Somare says the veteran leader is retiring because of ill health.

The 75-year-old underwent heart surgery earlier this year in Singapore and remains in hospital.

Sir Michael's son, Arthur Somare, said Sir Michael remained in intensive care and was "not in a good enough condition" to discuss retirement, so the family took the decision on his behalf.

In a statement, Arthur Somare said complications from his father's heart surgery "further delayed the anticipated time in which Sir Michael was expected to recover and return to Papua New Guinea".

"Therefore, on behalf of [his wife] Lady Veronica, I wish to announce that it is our family's collective desire that Sir Michael be allowed to recover at his own pace and therefore retire," he said.

"In our considered decision to do this we believe PNG should have a level of certainty with regard to political stability and leadership well into the future.

"This has not been an easy decision to take without full and proper consultation with Sir Michael."

Other newspapers carried similar versions of the story.

Legal experts have deemed this public announcement, unconstitutional, stating that the only way a Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea can resign is by notice in writing to the Head of State. Only after that would the Governor General upon accepting this resignation, proceed with the appropriate processes towards appointing a new Prime Minister.

Sir Michael and Lady Somare in younger days

The Prime Minister and Grand Chief is ill somewhere in Singapore and he probably does want to resign from his office as Prime Minister. It would be fitting that this reality be treated and approached properly by those that are able to act. Arthur Somare, upon assessing his father's health could seek assistance from the Prime Minister's staff so that they would be able to take appropriate actions according to protocol. 

Public Announcements and Accountability

Sir Michael is Arthur Somare's father. But as a national leader himself, Mr. Somare, son of our chief, needs to recognise the definition between Sir Michael, father of Arthur and Sir Michael, father of Papua New Guinea. Accordingly it would be inappropriate that he would regard the Grand Chief simply as his own father while making public representations or when making public statements regarding the office that his father holds. 

Mr. Somare should conduct himself in such a way, so that also, when there are allegations of corruption or any other allegations of crime committed in high office, leveled against the Prime Minister, that these are clearly separate from any that are level against Arthur Somare himself.  In this way, both holders of public office could be perceived separately by the public according to their innocence or their guilt. Of course the law sees them separately and under law they would be charged and tried separately even though each may be called as witnesses to give evidence in one another's trials.

But this article is merely concerned with Arthur's handling of his father's image in the hearts and minds of Papua New Guineans. It aims to reestablish the public claim to their part of the heritage from a leader.

It would be a pity if a scenario of family interest and allegations of corruption were allowed to cloud the great investments in public interest that the grand chief spent so much time and energy in struggling for.

People close to the Chief should allow the ordinary people of Papua New Guinea the possibility to hold Sir Michael in the original regard of the early years during the young country's age of idealism.

In his tribute to the late "Mr Grassroots", cartoonist Bob Brown, David Ingram refers to the idealism of that period:

"It was an exciting, optimistic period in PNG, with the peaceful transition to independence from Australia and the handover of the nation to mainly young indigenous men and women. What they lacked in skills and experience, they made up for in energy and youthful idealism. Even their first Prime Minister, Michael Somare, was only 39 at Independence. The national watch cry was “Go ahead strong!” and as the expatriates withdrew south of the Torres Straits, many were replaced by volunteers from around the world, mainly from Australia, Britain, Canada, the US and – through various religious or political organisations – Western Europe. We all knew our jobs were only meant to be temporary and most of us left when our time finished, but others, such as Browne, were seduced by the country, its climate, its natural beauty, exotic cultures and, most of all, by its friendly and welcoming people."

Sirs, Michael, Yambakey and Tei

Leaders as Part of the Public Heritage

Whoever we are, or what ever we have become as a country of people, we deserve our public heritage in all its forms and conditions.

Sir Michael, Sir Yambakey Okuk, Sir Tei Abal, they are all members of a group of people who are part of the heritage of Papua New Guineans. They are considered public property.

We can still sense this respect for Sir Michael, in the writings of many Papua New Guineans. In his award winning blog site, Malum Nalu once featured a story reflecting the actions of Sir Michael in moving Papua New Guinea towards its Independence.

There are millions of Papua New Guineans who in spite of the many struggles and the shifting tides of nationhood, still regard Sir Michael as the hero of PNG's achievement of independence. In fact, in the mid to late 1980s, when rural people were asked about their political system by filmmakers, not many politicians were widely known to the grassroots people. Sir Michael's name "Somare" remained and probably still remains the only household name in the political knowledge of a majority of the public. Many people from all over the country cried for him the first time he lost his Prime Ministerial post in a vote of no confidence. I asked some of them why they were sad for him when they had a new PM in Sir Julius Chan. They said: "He is our prime minister. He gave us independence".

Due Regard

Today, as Arthur Somare, perhaps motivated by his own aspirations and political positioning, fails to separate family from public office or to care about or recognise his father's place in the hearts of millions of Papua New Guineans, many people would urge the question: "Could we have our Chief back now please".

In that kind of idealism in the public sentiment, leaders of Papua New Guinea need to remember the wish of the ordinary people to live in the country of their dreams and by such force to be better guardians and stewards of the people's common heritage.

The Prime Minister has got his own staff including high level officers (from the Prime Minister's Department) who must have access to Sir Michael during moments where his health permits official business to be discussed and transacted. So there are people who can help the Prime Minister draft a letter of resignation to the Governor General if he is unable to do so himself at this time.

Even if it would prove detrimental to the political aspirations of the National Alliance, the chief in his moment of ill health, should not be used as political leverage for future political speculation. He has done a lot and deserves better treatment from those around him.