The Business of Fancydancing (2002) User Reviews

A Meditation on Roots

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 30 October 2005]

While we as a country are discovering/acknowledging the struggles of the different sects within the Middle East, tribal differences that are longstanding and divisive and painful, along comes another sensitive story about Native Americans in this country and how the scars of past and ongoing abuses of our 'reservation resolution' have affected the original peoples of this land. Sherman Alexie, a fine poet and novelist, has transformed his written works into a film that showers the viewer with insights into a problem about which few are cognizant - intratribal differences that provide schisms within the only root that binds.

Seymour Poltakin (the very talented Evan Adams) is a famous poet who happens to be both Native American and gay. He is called back to his Reservation in Spokane, Washington for the funeral of his childhood friend Mouse (Swil Kanim) only to confront all of the reasons he has left the Reservation for the 'white man's world' where he has found both financial and emotional success. Seymour's best friend Aristotle (Gene Tagaban) had originally left the Reservation to go to college with Seymour, but quickly soured to the prejudiced outside world and returned to his Reservation and to an unfortunate life of alcoholism and drug abuse. The bulk of the storyline revolves around how these two once devoted friends parted ways, the philosophies of each are explored, and though Seymour finds moments of love in his home space, he is still content to return to his white man lover and his life he has chosen.

There are many very tender and moving moments in this film: when Seymour is in conversation with Agnes (Michelle St. John) and when Agnes intones the Indian chants and songs at the funeral; Seymour's dialogues with his lover; scenes of quiet while Aristotle abuses himself with drugs; the weaving in and out of the beautiful dancing that flows through the film. The problem with the movie is the disparity of approaches in telling the story: an interview situation between Rebecca Carroll and Evan Adams is well written but breaks the mood of the poetic form of the story. The film is obviously low budget and in this case, for this viewer, the rough hand-held camera technique adds a quality of reality to what we are watching.

The overall effect at the end of the film is a pang of pain in the heart having witnessed the generations of 'isolation' and the segregation of the Native Americans into spaces both geographical and sociological that have undermined a tremendously valuable asset to our history. That role of shame is one that will never leave us, and it is a gift that artists like Sherman Alexie can bring this to the public's attention. Recommended. Grady Harp

The Business of Writing

[Polaris_DiB · 8/10 · 3 October 2005]

Sherman Alexie is simply an amazing writer. His poems are amazing, his movies are amazing... and yet I'm a white guy. How do I know how true they are to The Rez? Besides, how do Native Americans feel about his portrayal of them? After all, that's a very difficult matter to contend with. Some of the few Native Americans filmmakers that deal with this issue are often forced to purposefully make their movies self-conscious (including cameras in them, etc.) just to show that they recognize that their portrayal is still through a popular, Anglo ethnocentric medium. Besides that, Native Americans aren't just one group, one ethnicity... each tribe is a nation, and they all have separate constructions of their identity. One Indian nation may be represented well in a film, and it confuses the white viewer as to how Indians "really are" because other nations "aren't like that." Thus, this film. Sherman Alexie has bound to have suffered criticism for making Indians portray-able to white folk, and this movie shows a Native American writer who has forsaken his tribe in order to write all about it, keeping in mind that the pop culture needs a tragic Indian, one that's half-white in order to relate to the white community, one that's attracted to white people as well. The entire film is a series of mirrors reflecting it's own problem of identity, which most of the time becomes really tedious but this time is actually really well done.

One of the ways he succeeds is in admitting the simple truth: writers are frauds. Their writing stems from real pain, but in the end they are all just pathological liars. They make up stories either to make themselves seem more interesting, or to pretend their pain is okay.

And the pop culture eats it up while the ones that feel that pain are ignored.

--PolarisDiB

In Your Face. Indians Will Enjoy This & Whites Need to See This.

[HistoryFilmBuff · 8/10 · 23 July 2010]

I actually agree with the person saying "Don't expect another Smoke Signals." SS in its own way deliberately tried to steer away from issues which might offend white sensibilities. This one doesn't. In fact it confronts them head on. It deals directly with colonialism, misdirected anger against whites, well meaning but clueless white liberals, and other minorities turning on each other. It's final message at the end, "As hopeless as things seem, keep singing," won't satisfy anyone expecting either a Hollywood happy-redemptive ending, or a throw your fist in the air pseudo revolutionary cliché. But it is more honest.

Gorgeous Poetry

[jonie v. · 9/10 · 29 November 2003]

At cost of risking the authorial fallacy, I'll say that I took this film to be autobiographical. One advantage of having a talented writer do a film about a talented writer is that, when the protagonist reads his writing, you don't cringe (we should also have first-rate musicians write the score in movies about fictional musicians). In "The Business of Fancydancing" the writing is gorgeous and is what gives the film substance and shining power. Seymour Polatkin/Sherman Alexie's poetry makes up the bulk of the screenplay, whether in the form of actual poems (read by the protagonist or other characters, printed on still frames, or rendered in song), or as part of the dialogue. The film is non-linear and non-realistic: people don't always speak like real people and events don't follow one another in chronological fashion. But Alexie is brutally honest in his portrayal of the truth of his characters, and the film finally feels much more authentic than most made-to-look-realistic, traditional movies. It is one of the paradoxes of fiction that realism is frequently better achieved through non-realistic means.

"Fancydancing" is a wrenching and angry movie about identity, belonging, and race. Leading one's life as a Native American is clearly no easy job, and Alexie takes a very unsentimental look at the ordeals and dilemmas that come with a Native heritage. His characters are not especially likeable, and all make questionable choices. As Alexie makes clear, however, there are no "right" choices. Whether you stay or go, conform or depart, life's going to getcha and people are going to be mad at you.

The poetry beautifully depicts the pain of this dilemma while at the same time showing the redemption that comes with living the dilemma, sticking with it, not giving in. The images are occasionally hokey, and some sequences could have been cut without any loss to the overall effect of the film. But this is a brave film with a brave, unsparing vision, and it deserves a wide viewership.

A colorful and interesting collage

[davidl-7 · 12 February 2002]

I saw this at the Portland International Film Festival on Feb. 10, 2002. Writer-director Alexie said they were still tinkering with it and might add in some scenes we did not see.

The "plot" is fairly sketchy. Seymour Polatkin, a young and successful gay poet who left the Spokane Reservation to go to college and settle in Seattle, returns to the res for the funeral of a close friend, a violinist named "Mouse" who committed suicide. Also present are their childhood buddy Aristotle Joseph (the rather stereotypical "fierce Indian") and Agnes, a half-Indian, half-Jewish woman with whom Seymour had a passionate college affair before accepting his homosexuality, who has returned to the res to teach.

Alexie regulars Cynthia Geary and Elaine Miles, familiar from "Northern Exposure" and Alexie's last film project, "Smoke Signals," are on hand in cameos.

The movie is a sort of collage, with many flashbacks, scenes of various characters dancing in colorful costumes on a black stage, and cheap video footage the characters ostensibly shot of each other. The acting is mostly okay, though rarely inspired; the writing much the same. Camerawork is rather dull, though Alexie chooses lovely landscapes, moods, and colors for his shots.

A narrative trick of questionable utility is "The Interviewer": a young black female journalist pinions several of the characters (particularly Seymour and Aristotle) with tough, condescending, and sometimes obvious questions in that same no-space of black stage. The writing for these scenes is decent, but I wasn't convinced of the need for them.

Alexie readily admits to doing much improvisation and gutwork -- the film was shot in 14 days with 6 additional days of fill-in shooting -- and he likes to leave plenty of questions unanswered, from the Russian origins of his protagonist's name to the meaning of the dancing sequences, the reasons for Mouse's suicide, or a rather brutal scene where Ari beats up a stranded white motorist and insists Mouse join him. This is fine, and I had no problem with most of it; in fact, it was the more obvious imagery, such as Seymour slowly and dispiritedly doffing his dance outfit toward the end of the story when he leaves the res again, presumably forever, that I found irritating.

Alexie said he was extremely annoyed by such films as "Finding Forrester," where a writer's talents (both the veteran's and the rookie's) are ballyhooed but never actually shown, so Seymour reads a number of his poems on the soundtrack over the visual action.

In sum, this is a fair, promising independent feature that is hardly outstanding but takes some laudable risks and provides further welcome exposure to Native American culture, actors, and ideas.

A beautiful profound movie with a truly powerful and subtle ending

[leengeo · 10/10 · 24 March 2004]

I was impressed with "The Business of Fancydancing. " I thought it was very well made, with beautiful cinematography, excellent development of several believable key characters and a sensitive treatment of a tragic but important personal story with profound socal implications. The movie was complemented with a wonderful soundtrack and the juxtaposition of conflicting styles of music that helped to tell this paradoxical story. The ending was particularly poignant and extremely well done. Certain plot subtleties and finely nuanced multi-layered scences were evident during my second viewing. It offered moments of exquisite irony and heartfelt soul-searching. It was an intelligent treatment of the interaction of several layers of delicate personal issues. I was deeply moved by this film.

Fear and Loathing in Seattle/Spokane

[brianowatkins · 5/10 · 23 January 2004]

Those expecting another Smoke Signals should avoid this one. I was a big fan of Smoke Signals. Although the acting was fine, particularly from the star, Evan Adams and Michelle St. John, the film generally wanders around with a paper thin plot, leaving the actors without much to work with. While the movie has been heralded as innovative in allowing the actors to improvise, from my perspective it was disjointed and too heavily laden with flashbacks. The movie also ends abruptly, leaving the audience (here anyway) feeling cheated out of a story. It isn't bad enough to take anything away from Sherman Alexie's immense talent as a writer, but it shows that not all of his ideas translate well to film. Better luck next time.

The Business Of Shakespearing

[TemporaryOne-1 · 10/10 · 20 February 2017]

In his poems, Sherman Alexie alludes to the fancydance, or Shawl Dance (a dance of mourning), as being a recent and flashy invention, a dance designed to generate larger tourist audiences, and thus a sell-out dance. Seymour, a sell-out, but not really a sell-out, an irreversibly hurt boy who cannot live his life on the reservation because that life chained him down with things he did not want to be chained down with, he needed freedom, but in his freedom he allowed himself to be sold in order to survive. Selling-out for self-preservation. The movements of the dance emulate a woman mourning (for her husband lost in battle), she covers herself in shawl to symbolize taking refuge. Seymour does the opposite - he sheds his identity and walks away from his heritage for good. Seymour dancing also transgresses traditional gender roles (homosexuality and its persecution thereof in Native American culture)

I want my father to be your father / I want my father's sins to be all sins / Because father's sins, children must forgive

Seymour is Hamlet. Hamlet is interpolated throughout, interpenetrating the film - cultural colonialism. Hamlet the White European versus Seymour the Native American. Caliban articulates indigenous grievances against oppositional colonial power, Seymour deployed against. Hamlet/Shakespeare to articulate Native American literary consciousness but Seymour has more in common with Hamlet than their differences. Colour of skin only difference. I don't think Sherman Alexie is using Shakespeare as a weapon against Native American self-articulation or identity or sovereignty. Invoking Shakespeare is an act of war. Difference between "smart" and "ignoramus". Invoking Shakespeare in the film's sense is to invoke the enemy's language. The language of the White European Colonialist Anglophone invoked and reinterpreted/reinvented by the Colonialized, the Victim. At least 35 lines are mined from Hamlet. Plot and themes and concrete dialogue, not a coincidence. Shakespeare the enemy, White Teachers, White Man, the oppressor's language engaged by the oppressed and transformed (thus breaking through colonial structures) by the oppressed into new language, new literature, new meanings. Hamlet/Shakespeare and Seymour/NativeAmerican, parallel yet distant and distinct worlds, both seemingly difficult to penetrate.

Mouse's death, Seymour returns to reservation. Hamlet's The Mousetrap (play within play), to catch the conscience of the king. Hamlet alters a play entitled "The Murder of Gonzago" for his purposes, making sure the play mirrors Claudius' fratricide. Renames play The Mousetrap. A play staging the murder of his father. And he revises the play-within-the-play to create a new play in the middle of a play that is not only Hamlet-centric, but is also called Hamlet. The main character, a creation of X, also a victim of X, limited to X's designs, yet main character "takes control" and using the "weapon" of a play re-writes a play right back and retitles it to boot. Like Sherman Alexie taking control of Shakespeare/Whites to write something that gets even with Shakespeare/Whites. Play within a play, and in the film, viewers watching a poetry audience watching a poetry reading. Poems are open and free but the content traps our conscience and the audience-in-the-film's conscience, and Seymour's, too. And kills our consciences.

Mouse - "O L-rd remember. O do remember me"--It's all lies, Ari. Those are my kittens. He took my life, man. All My Relations, it says. All my relations. It's all lies, man. . . . It's like I'm not even alive. It's like I'm dead."

The Ghost Hamlet's Father to Hamlet, "Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me" (Act 1, Scene 5, Line 91).

Hamlet was at college and returned to castle. Hamlet was out in the free world, enjoying the arts and theatre and music, perhaps full of the ego and pride and lust that attends individual, communal freedom. Much like Seymour living freely in Seattle, attending college and commencing with his literary career and sexual trials. Hamlet returns home to medieval rigid enclosed world. He must fall in line to authority. Returns home for father's funeral. Seymour returns home for friend Mouse's funeral, Mouse definitely a father-figure/wisdom-figure for him that he smashes and destroys because the truth hurts. Seymour and Hamlet, both victimized, confused, internally split, buffeted from all sides, both trapped by power structures that have obliterated their identities, both men contemplating a course of action that will almost certainly result in their respective deaths. Hamlet, dead for real, Seymour, death of his soul. Perhaps Sherman Alexie going for the Passion of the Messiah theme, another White Colonialist theme, pervasive in western philosophy and literature and the arts and culture, making Seymour the Jesus figure.

Seymour drives home to the funeral, Shakespeare's most famous line appears at the reservation sign - "To be or not to be," and the phrase is sung Indian-style as the scene unfolds, with Indian musicality - looping pentatonic melodies spiralling over a steady pulsing drumbeat. The sign, "Welcome to the Spokane Indian Reservation." Seymour stoops down to brush away some branches covering the bottom corner of the sign, revealing two hand-written phrases - "Home of Seymour Polatkin"(his writing) and "Not anymore." (someone else's). Seymour's existence, a foundational paradox, just as Hamlet's speech, a foundational paradox. A second Seymour - the Ghost of Seymour - appears, two Seymours, Shakespeare's well-known and popular duality themes. Home but not home. But aren't intellectually talented individuals often forced to leave home in order to live how they need to live and succeed?

Agnes/Rosencratz - then the whole world is a prison. Seymour/Hamlet - the whole world is a prison, with a million confines and wards and dungeons. The reservation's just the worst. Agnes/Rosencratz/Guildenstern - I don't think so. Seymour/Hamlet - You can think what you want. To me it's a prison. Agnes - Well, you've wanted to leave here since you were six years old. It's your ambition that made the rez a prison - slight deviation from play, but then

Word for word, slightly modernized syntax but word for word. Alexie owns Shakespeare.

A good idea, but poorly directed

[joaquinortiz2004 · 4/10 · 21 April 2006]

I really like Sherman Alexie. He is a great writer. That said, he is still a writer, and that does not mean he is a good director. The other successful film he was tied to was written by him, but directed by someone else. It shows in this film.

The movie has a great idea behind it, but in the end it is just people talking. A lot of talking. Endless talking. Scenes go on and on and on and on... How people feel. Why they did this, why they did that. At times it is hard to watch, especially considering the low production value. It really does not look that great.

Film is a visual medium, not a talking medium. People always try to counteract that by saying that films are full of dialogue, and they are. A good film, though. is still made up of actions and visuals, things that we can watch. This does not do that. It just shows people talking all the time. That's it.

I really wish this one was handed off to another director who could have made the film into something more visual like "Smoke Signals." Instead we have this, and in the end it just does not hold up that well.

One of the most powerful films I have ever seen...

[mariposarosa2 · 30 December 2003]

I have been a fan of Sherman Alexie's for many years, and really wanted to see his directorial debut. FANCYDANCING did not fail to disappoint. The acting was powerful, the writing was strong and the images were beautiful and haunted me for days following my first viewing of the film. Specifically, the character of Mouse from the Spokane reservation of Polatkin's birth, with his beautiful and painful renditions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS and THE STARSPANGLED BANNER chilled me to the bone. Also, the subtle references to culture, literature and humor commonly found in Alexie's writing were done in a way unique to any film I have ever seen. I am so happy to be taking his class at the University of Washington in the Winter. Hope other people have a chance to view this beautiful and unforgettable film.

If you did not like this movie, chances are, you don't understand either Indians or being gay

[madisonwisconsinite · 10/10 · 6 March 2006]

The summary line pretty much says it all. "Indian humor" is a little hard to understand, although _I_ personally think it is easier to relate to than a lot of British humor is. But if you just don't get it, or just don't like it, it would probably be more fair to reflect on whether it is because the film is bad, or because your understanding of the American Indians and their place in a world turned upside down, is, well, inadequate. Further, in a world and (in the United States, at least) a society that presumes heterosexuality, few people, even among gay people, can really relate to and understand what it means to truly be non-heterosexual in the modern world. Sherman Alexie shows a special ability to understand and relate to how people can be inherently members of such minorities. The film is entertaining and laughable. Evan Adams is amazing in the role of Seymour Polatkin. I HIGHLY recommend you read Alexie's work.

An excellent story of conflicting identity

[MagicalPJ · 10/10 · 22 January 2009]

The Business of Fancy Dancing raises questions about native culture, both how it is viewed by natives and how it is viewed by others. Seymour, who longs to leave the reservation days behind him, cannot escape the reservation in his poetry. Mainstream America, it seems, is not interested in another poet who happens to be Indian, they want a real Indian poet. And thus the cultural struggle within Seymour is the defining theme of the film. Seymour views himself as better than the reservation. "Most smart Indians move away from the reservation," Seymour declares at one point. Using mainly literature, the film asks the question: What is an Indian?

For many whites, the film suggests, an Indian is defined by blood. "In a great Native American novel . . . all of the white people will be Indian and all of the Indians will be ghosts," Seymour tells the audience at the beginning. Throughout the film, Indian history and culture is a common topic, often discussed in the form of a poem or a story. Seymour tells a story where he is giving blood. He tells the nurse he is Crazy Horse. He is told that the United States has taken too much of his blood already, he must wait one or two generations to donate again. The film suggests that an Indian is defined by the land. Thus, an Indian who leaves the reservation, like Seymour, abandons his identity. Yet, Seymour cannot escape his past. Nearly all of his poems are inspired by events on the reservation, usually events as they were experienced by others. The film uses Seymour's identity struggle to also suggest that once an Indian does physically leave his land, he will be unable to leave it in his mind.

Seymour constantly profits from telling tales of reservation life – often passing off the experiences of others as his own. Those who remained on the reservation are resentful of Seymour. And he, in turn, is resentful of them. The film uses this tension between the characters to raise the issue of Indian identity, but it does not truly offer an answer to the question. Perhaps there is no answer. Seymour declares at one point that "The world is a prison; with wards . . . the reservation is just the worst of them." Is the reservation a prison? For Seymour it is. For him, it is the one place to which all things return. For the other Indians in the film, it is home – it is where they feel they belong.

Everything culminates at the end of the film when two versions of Seymour appear at Mouse's funeral. One leaves the reservation; the other remains. No matter where Seymour goes, it seems, a part of his being will always remain on the reservation. Thus, it is his prison. But, perhaps, a greater statement is being made. For many native tribes, attachment to land is what defines them. Try as he may to leave the reservation, Seymour is forever a part of the land he once belonged to – forever connected to his people. Through his literature it becomes clear that, for Seymour, all things begin with – and return to – the land which raised him.

Avoid this movie at all costs!

[thomas-korn · 1/10 · 19 February 2022]

This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.. and I've seen "Winslow, The Christmas Bear". At least that movie had a main character and clear cut goals.

However, the script, overly written by the star and director spews out a whole lot of nothing. There's supposed to be a "Big Chill" type effect ...a funeral that re unites old friends and family...but honestly, the main character is so self absorbed and 1 dimensional.

The ONLY character in this film is the token white guy who gets beat up who generates ANY shred of empathy. Otherwise, every other character in this film is essentially a "professional victim" Not one actor can act... Then again, it may fall back on the heavy handed, inconsistent script - and possibly the "director" not knowing how to get the actors to show depth.

After the first 10 minutes into this movie, the lack of depth, self awareness and/or insight to any character in this movie had me looking at memes instead of captivating my attention.

The non-linear editing was noticeable instead of seamless. It often drew attention to itself... which is sadly the parts of the movie I was engaged in. Sadly, when it jumps from character to character.. you don't know when or where it takes place. As each scene goes on, it left me wondering what relevance does this have with...anyone else in the film? Occasionally, one or two scenes pop up and have some bearing on the characters...but not enough to keep me rivited.

PS, you can tell when the credits should start rolling...when this woman starts singing this off key "Enya-esque" melancholy song and the screen

• eventually - fades to black....

and its still black...

and its still black...

and its still black....

FINALLY THE CREDITS ROLL... THAT'S the best part of this movie.

Beautiful Film!

[mcguirejm · 9/10 · 20 June 2002]

This was my favorite of the 8 films I saw at the Florida Film Festival. It is a visually stunning film with strong emotional content. Poetic interludes punctuate the story and lend to the reality of the lead character (a poet). Behind it all, is an honesty and a truth that you do not find in the majority of films.

Innovative Filmaking

[roger_hart01 · 10/10 · 9 November 2003]

Alexie Sherman, author of Smoke Signals, directs his first film with a lot of help from his friends. Sherman cuts through the normal hierachical structure of film sets to allow the director of photography, script supervisor, and actors unprecedented freedom in improvization with the camera. One can only hope this is the beginning of a good thing.

The storyline is non-linear and, perhaps, hard to follow for those used to Hollywood films, but the result is perhaps the best example of how the cinema can be used for pure poetry without the need for standard conflict resolution storytelling.

Overblown melodrama

[jm10701 · 7 February 2013]

I'm probably not in the right demographic for this movie. Although I am gay, I am not an American Indian, and this movie depends heavily on an appreciation of their culture, their history and (if this movie is at all authentic) their overwhelming love of melodrama.

Not a single word in the very stilted and contrived screenplay sounded to me like an actual human being talking, but like a person reading a proclamation about something very profound. The many poetry readings, funeral speeches, etc - even ordinary conversations between lovers and friends - sound so forced and pretentious that they're nearly unbearable. That's probably because the movie was written by a poet about himself. When the same poet also directs the movie, the combination practically guarantees a mediocre result.

Very, very few successful movies are written and directed by people whose subject is their own lives and whose primary interest is in poetry rather than in movie-making. In fact, I can't think of a single one.

If Sherman Alexie had allowed someone else to write and direct his story, it might have worked very well, because it's not an uninteresting story - but this movie doesn't work at all, not for me. It's too unnatural, and Native Americans ought to be MORE natural than the rest of us, not less.

If you have a soft spot for overblown melodrama, stilted dialog, declamatory acting and/or Native Americans, then The Business of Fancydancing may be just right for you. But if you're looking for a good movie, keep looking.