Fase 1: Análisis de los efectos ambientales generados por los contaminantes presentes en

Well, she didn’t quite say it like that, she said it in Niuean.

I must of [sic] been able to speak my Niue language at some pointed. I must ask her next time we speak

(Urale & Fuemana, 2004, p. 42)

Language choice is named in research as a post-colonial dilemma; incorporating indigenous languages is a sign of resistance, and English allows a wider audience to be reached. There is a growing trend in Pasifika theatre to use Pacific languages, but the majority of the plays are still in English. Nevertheless, Pasifika theatre practitioners consider Pacific languages important and language is associated with revival of Pacific cultures, heritage, authenticity, and loss.

Pasifika theatre in the beginning was predominantly in English, and contained only a few words from Pacific languages. Along with the growing importance of different ethnicities in Pasifika theatre,

192

Pacific languages were incorporated more often, for example in The Songmaker’s Chair, Angels, and TauTai. Carter identified the increase of Pasifika languages as ‘the next level from introducing theatre as a genre, to tell your own stories about Niueans, Cook Islanders, and being in your own language’ (CAR_A). Other practitioners, such as Wendt, Kightley, Muagututi’a, and Lees, also

mentioned that indigenous languages were important, but they did not elaborate on how they were of import.

Languages can create a divide between Pasifika and non-Pasifika audience, and between different Pasifika ethnicities, such as Tongan, Samoan. Thus, a Pacific language may be understood by one ethnicity only. Thus, plays in Pacific languages could result in excluding a large number of potential audience members and speaking only to the select few who understand. In addition, use of Pacific languages could highlight divisions within the Pan-Pasifika identity and potentially lead to a breach, as specific ethnicities become stronger. However, on a practical level, at this point there are only a few non-Samoan practitioners who create in their languages, and so speculations remain tentative. Declining language proficiency also limits the audience who can understand a language. The ‘lost generation’, children of those first-generation migrants who arrived to New Zealand between the 1950s and 1970s, were urged to speak English rather than their parent’s native language (LEE). In Fuemana’s Falemalama experiences of the lost generation are described as: ‘in those early years of Fale being in New Zealand, and as soon as I could speak, I was her voice and ears. I was never allowed to speak Niuean or Samoan. Only English’ (Fuemana, 2008, p. 71). As these children could not pass on Pacific languages to the next generation, further significant language loss occurred. Wendt, however, distinguished between understanding and being able to speak, and emphasised that even Pasifika youth has a passive knowledge of Pacific languages: ‘a lot of New Zealand-born can’t speak the language anymore, so they reply in English while the parents talk to them in Samoan. […] It’s nothing new’ (WEN). Nevertheless, Lees argued that there was a significant language loss among younger adults, and therefore they might not understand Pacific languages spoken in theatre.

Using Pacific languages may be a form of resistance against the language of the dominant European community. Pacific languages in theatre may resist Pan-Pacific ideology, because they promote diversification of Pasifika communities in New Zealand, and they can break down the coloniser’s generalising gaze. Historically, as Crow pointed out, the use of an indigenous language itself is a symbol or resistance, as the coloniser’s language was by no means neutral (Crow & Banfield, 1996, p. 7). Both indigenous and colonisers’ language can be used as resistance. Language choice, as Ngugi wa Thiong emphasised, was not only a form of resistance, but it signalled the intended audience.

193

Wendt acknowledged that language had a potential to create a divide in the audience, but he affirmed that it is not the case in The Songmaker’s chair. He argued that because theatre is a combination of different elements and languages, such as embodiment, vocalization, and visual languages, audience members were able to follow his play:

The audience is not stupid; they work out from the context. What is the meaning? Plus I don’t pick up anything even though I’m very good at English. When we see an English play we pick up different things. There is an assumption that that audience is stupid, or not intelligent, and it’s very insulting to the audience. (WEN)

Wendt disregarded that language can be a problem for the audience because audience’s familiarity with genre and their ability to derive meaning from the context allows the audience to follow the plot. However, other practitioners explained that there are different levels of understanding, describing a pyramid model of understanding in which the more levels one understands, the more satisfaction one gains from a theatre experience. Therefore, the less one understands, the more excluded one can get from the experience. Thus the main question is not whether one can follow the plot but whether one’s experience is reduced to trying to follow the plot in theatre.

Pacific languages can increase the play’s historical authenticity. The Songmaker’s Chair had Samoan dialogues and the show’s producers were hesitant whether audience members would understand. As Wendt remembered: ‘that was a big worry we had in the beginning. The dramaturg and the other people, they said: “there is too much Samoan in the play” and I said “I am sorry we are going to keep it there” ’ (WEN). Wendt argued that Samoan must be kept for authenticity because Pasifika families often mix languages: ‘that’s the way Samoan families, especially first-generation families and New Zealand-born kids talk to each other’ (WEN). Wendt, though, was adamant that the goal was historical rather than cultural authenticity: ‘I am not making it Samoan by using Samoan’ (WEN). Nevertheless, Pacific languages are sometime cut in order to make plays more enjoyable for European audience members. During Angels, the director cut out Samoan because the show was aimed at a European audience. As one cast member remembered: ‘We had a lot of Samoan in Angels, and had to cut out a lot so that the Palangi audience would understand it. They don’t cut Shakespeare so we can understand it’ (ANO1). The cast member considered the cuts a result of uneven power balance between European and Pasifika people, and compared Pacific languages to Shakespeare’s language, which in turn excludes Pasifika people. However, she did not contemplate whether the contemporary European audience understands Shakespeare’s original at all, even though English in Shakespeare’s time was very different from contemporary New Zealand English, and she reasserted Shakespeare as a symbol of European culture and dominance that kept Pasifika people outsiders. Practitioners objected against ways languages are filed as problematic in

194

contemporary monolingual Anglo-Saxon cultures: ‘when they see dance shows do they understand what’s it about or should we stop and translate it for them?’ (ANO1). Thus everyone thinks they understand dance, even though they do not understand the nuances and choreography, yet

languages are seen as unknown and problematic in New Zealand society. Lees, however, argued that languages were not always problematic, for instance most people do not understand German or Italian operas, but enjoyed it nevertheless. Thus for bilingual practitioners like Lees, languages are not difficult even if they do not understand them, but for the European audience in New Zealand, who only speak English language is a serious issue. Because New Zealand theatre is dominated by monolingual Europeans, their expectations limit what Pasifika theatre makers can do in the mainstream, in particular they restrict the way practitioners can express their cultural identity in their work if they want to perform it to a European audience. Whether such limitations will lead to Pasifika theatre practitioners changing their work so that European audience members are satisfied, or whether their wish to express their cultural identity will lead to inclusion of Pasifika languages and consequent split between mainstream European theatre and Pasifika theatre is however too early to tell.

Works from the Western canon were used in numerous Pasifika plays, such as in Othello and Romeo and Juliet by Pacific Theatre, Bare by Toa Fraser, and Romeo and Tusi by Pacific Underground. Romeo and Tusi took Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and adapted it to a Samoan-Maori

neighbourhood. The characters rehearsed Romeo and Juliet for a school production. The characters’ attempts to understand the play’s language are mostly humorous. The prologue drew attention to the tension between Shakespeare’s text and the students’ lives. When Ruby, a fa’fafine in charge of the play, started to recite ‘two households, both alike in dignity’, he was interrupted by Tusi’s mother, who urged him to ‘hurry up’. Tusi, as Juliet, then explained to Ruby that: ‘the audience can’t understand what your [sic] saying’. Ruby’s answer indicates that understanding was not her

purpose: ‘It’s Shakespeare, some things you aren’t supposed to understand’ (Kightley et al., 2000, p. 1). The dialogue revealed that language has power to include or exclude audience members, and shape their understanding and experience of a play. It was also a criticism of the dominant culture, from which Pasifika people often felt excluded. Through discussing, interpreting, and altering Shakespeare’s text, Pasifika theatre practitioners made it accessible for Pasifika audience members, whilst also criticising the dominant discourse that excludes Pasifika people.

However, most Pasifika plays are in English, and only include a few words in Pacific languages, a possible result of language loss among Pasifika people, but equally possibly due to Pasifika theatre practitioners wanting to attract an European audience. Pan-Pasifika self-determination developed

195

since the beginning of Pasifika theatre. However languages seem to pose an obstacle to self- determination of Pasifika ethnicities, such as Tongan, Fijian, and Samoan, because languages are specific to ethnicities, and the number of those who create in these specific minority languages is minor. Exceptions are Samoan theatre makers, who create the majority of Pasifika plays, and often incorporate Samoan in their plays. Nevertheless, practitioners’ emphasis on the importance of language suggests that it is becoming increasingly important.

7.3 Conclusions

Migration and its aftermath are still powerful themes in Pasifika theatre. Second-generation practitioners focused on migration stories and faced increased pressures from first-generation Pasifika people to pioneer and do their best. Second-generation practitioners learned to navigate the boundaries between New Zealand and Pasifika cultures, which for third-generation practitioners came naturally. Third-generation practitioners considered migration a historical reference but emphasised that it was still relevant because Pasifika people still face migration’s consequences, described as the lack of improvement in Pasifika people’s socioeconomic conditions. Pacific languages are still rarely used in Pasifika theatre, with the exception of Samoan. Pacific languages are exotic and authentic, but their use may be problematic for audience members from other ethnicities as well as Pasifika audiences affected by language loss. With this in mind, the next chapter explores who the demographic structure of Pasifika theatre us makes up the audience of Pasifika theatre.

196