The original Moana: Did the 1926 documentary lead to one of the blockbuster Disney films of the 21st century? | film

nNext week will see the release of Moana, the live-action remake of the 2016 Disney animated film – starring Dwayne Johnson once again. But this wasn’t the original Moana. That honor goes to Moana, released a full century ago: a glimpse into Polynesian life that is now largely forgotten but nonetheless offers some inspiration for the makers of today’s version.

“Someone at Disney picked up the bones of 1926 Moana to make his movie,” says film historian Bruce Posner.

Moana was a 1926 silent documentary by American director Robert Flaherty, who had cemented his reputation a few years earlier with Nanook of the North, a groundbreaking portrait of Inuit civilization. Its epic sequences of walrus hunting and kayaking in icy waters have lit up the box office. So, for his next film, Flaherty had carte blanche to go anywhere. Choose Samoa.

“He had a vision for this great sea monster story,” says Posner, who oversaw the digital restoration of Flaherty’s “Moana” in 2014. “But when he arrived, there was no sea monster. There was island life where everyone was happy.”

With no danger in taking the picture, Flaherty instead crafted a pastoral portrait of Samoan life, centered around a young man named Moana and his family. He spent over a year filming, in a pioneering example of on-location filmmaking.

“This remains a major accomplishment,” says Posner, noting the challenges Flaherty faced with his primitive equipment in Samoa’s tropical climate. To process his film, Flaherty had to set up a laboratory in a freshwater cave. When he drank the water, he accidentally poisoned himself. “He spent several months on the verge of death,” Posner says.

When Flaherty finally brought his film home, it wasn’t what the studio was expecting. Instead of terrifying sea monsters, there were harmless sea turtles. There was no plot either – just cute scenes of Moana and his family gathering taro roots and coconuts.

Despite this, Moana broke box office records during test screenings in New York. But when the film was released more widely, it failed. “Instead of entertaining, it’s fun,” one reviewer summed it up.

Although the film was not a huge success, its legacy was secured by another reviewer. Critic John Grierson stated that the film had “documentary value”, coining a new word for an emerging genre. Moana has therefore earned a place in the history of cinema as the first film to be classified as a “documentary”. But this classification is also responsible for the controversies that still exist today.

“A lot of the elements that Flaherty photographed are not practiced anymore,” says Dr. Dion Fonote, a senior lecturer at the National University of Samoa. “By the 1920s, Samoan clothing and ideas about modesty had evolved significantly,” Flaherty explains, noting that women appear topless throughout the film.

In fact, Flaherty’s entire documentary was screened. Moana and his family were not related to each other, with Flaherty casting each role based on appearance and acting abilities. Even the name Moana was chosen by Flaherty.

Although Flaherty has been criticized for his flexibility with the truth, Posner says he was working before the rules of documentary filmmaking were established. “For better or worse, the word ‘documentary’ has been pinned on Flaherty. But to me, he is a film poet, not a documentary filmmaker.”

Likewise, the film attracted postcolonial criticism for its idealized image of island society “uncorrupted by the falsehood of civilization.” But Funoti says the film is not considered controversial in Samoa today.

“In academia, we have conversations about this film being shown. But most people here don’t really care about it. Most Samoans appreciate it for what it is, a snapshot of the past.”

The daughter of one of the film’s stars offered her perspective in a 2011 documentary. “In my opinion, there was nothing wrong with the movie,” she said. Another person from the village where the film was filmed echoed this view. “This movie is our movie,” he said. “She belongs to this village.”

Indeed, although Moana unfolds through Flaherty’s Western lens, its theatrical scenes were produced in collaboration with local people. Instead of taking over Samoa as it was in the 1920s, they deliberately tried to recreate an ancient way of life before it disappeared from memory.

Flaherty’s wife Frances (who was also a co-producer of Moana) later explained how the community was “making the movie with us.” She described showing the rushing animals to village elders “who still remember the old forgotten ways and can help us restore them and tell us whether our film is right.”

In this way, Fonotti sees an “important connection” between Flaherty’s film and the Disney franchise. Before Moana, many Disney productions drew on indigenous and non-Western cultures without consultation. This led to such infamous scenes as What Made the Red Man Red? The musical number in Peter Pan. But for Moana, the company has brought together experts from across the Pacific Islands to advise on all aspects of the film.

“It’s been a good experience,” says Fonotti, who has been a member of the advisory group since the franchise’s inception. “Pacific Islanders have been part of the history of Western cinema from the beginning. So to see it evolve into what it is today is amazing.”

Fonotti suggests that Flaherty’s film served as a stepping stone on the journey of representing Samoa on screen. “There is a thread that runs from Moana in 1926 to where we are now as active participants in crafting these stories.”

As for any other connections between the Disney films and Flaherty, Posner remains convinced that the silent film was an inspiration. “It’s not just an accident,” he says, referring to the shared setting and title of the Pacific island (although it was moved from male in Flaherty’s film to female in the Disney franchise).

In any case, Posner hopes that Disney’s upcoming remake can bring more attention to the silent original while he prepares a new 35mm negative for its 100th anniversary. “For me, this film is about beauty, grace and humanity,” he concludes. “It’s a gem.”