The Architecture of Erasure: Marie Clements’ ‘How We Stand’ Reclaims Indigenous History Through a Generational Lens
By [Journalist Name]
The landscape of contemporary Indigenous cinema is undergoing a profound transformation, moving beyond the peripheral narratives of the past to center on the complex, often harrowing intersections of personal memory and state-sponsored policy. At the forefront of this movement is Métis writer-director Marie Clements. Following her critically acclaimed generational epic Bones of Crows, which illuminated the dark history of Canada’s residential schools, Clements has returned with How We Stand. Premiering at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), the film is an ambitious, multi-generational exploration of systemic violence, forced relocation, and the enduring resilience of the Indigenous spirit.
How We Stand is not merely a period piece; it is a cinematic excavation. By weaving together the lives of three sisters across two decades, Clements examines the traumatic echoes of the 1956 Indian Relocation Act, the clandestine mass sterilization of Native women in the 1970s, and the psychological toll of Hollywood’s "Vanishing Indian" mythos.
Main Facts: A Narrative Built on Rupture and Reunion
At its core, How We Stand is the story of the orphaned sisters Jessie (Amber Midthunder), Miranda (Alyssa Wapanatâhk), and Janey (Isabel DeRoy-Olson). The film functions as a triptych, tracing their journey from the parched earth of post-Dust Bowl Oklahoma to the neon-lit, politically charged streets of 1973 Los Angeles.
The film’s primary objective is to illustrate how federal policies—often framed as benevolent "opportunities"—acted as mechanisms of erasure. Clements utilizes the specific experiences of these three women to personify broader sociopolitical atrocities. The cast is anchored by Amber Midthunder, whose rising stardom (following her breakout in Prey) provides a formidable emotional center. Supported by Cara Jade Myers as their mother, Angela, and a cast of characters representing the spectrum of white institutional power, the film navigates the treacherous waters of assimilation, activism, and trauma-induced psychosis.
Chronology: From the Dust Bowl to the L.A. River
The 1950s: The False Promise of Relocation
The film opens in 1950s Oklahoma, a landscape defined by "Grapes of Wrath" desolation. Angela, a widow struggling to provide for her three daughters, sees a federal flyer for the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. The program promises vocational training, housing assistance, and a "new life" in the city.
The reality, however, is a bait-and-switch. Upon arriving in Los Angeles, the family is relegated to a dilapidated shack. The promised employment vanishes, and the "safety net" is revealed to be a single month of rent. The family’s attempt to maintain their cultural identity culminates in a tragedy at a secret community dance in the tunnels beneath the L.A. River. A violent police raid leads to Angela’s death, and the three sisters are forcibly separated by a foster care system designed to sever their ties to their heritage.
1973: Three Paths Through a Fractured America
The narrative jumps to 1973, a year of peak political upheaval for the American Indian Movement (AIM) and a time of "funky" aesthetic surfaces masking deep systemic rot.
- Jessie (The Assimilated): Now a doctor, Jessie has been raised by a white Canadian family. She represents the "success story" of assimilation, yet she moves through her world with a "Teflon" exterior that begins to crack under the weight of casual racism from her colleagues and her white husband’s parents.
- Miranda (The Activist): A fierce defender of her identity, Miranda navigates the exploitative world of Hollywood. She auditions for Bob Stills (Eric Johnson), a director who claims to "revere" Native culture while churning out racist Westerns.
- Janey (The Visionary/Traumatized): The youngest sister, Janey, carries the most visible scars. Suffering from an "unknown medical trauma" (later revealed to be forced sterilization), she wanders the streets of L.A., haunted by visions of the "Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island."
Supporting Data: The Historical Foundations of the Script
Clements’ script is heavily researched, grounding its dramatic beats in historical data that remains largely unknown to the general public.
The Indian Relocation Act (1956)
Between 1952 and 1972, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) relocated an estimated 100,000 Native Americans to urban centers like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Denver. While the program was marketed as a path to the middle class, statistics show that it often led to increased poverty and cultural isolation. By 1960, nearly 30% of those relocated had returned to their reservations, while those who stayed faced discriminatory housing and employment practices—realities depicted vividly in the film’s first act.
Forced Sterilization (1970–1976)
One of the film’s most harrowing subplots involves the medical abuse of Native women. According to a 1976 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, the Indian Health Service (IHS) sterilized at least 3,406 Native American women between 1973 and 1976 alone. Other estimates by historians like Jane Lawrence suggest the number could be as high as 25% to 50% of Native women of childbearing age during that decade. Many were coerced into "consent" during labor or told the procedure was reversible. Clements uses Janey’s character to give a face to this silent genocide.
Hollywood and the "Vanishing Indian"
The film’s critique of cinema is exemplified by the character of Bob Stills. During the 1970s, "Revisionist Westerns" often claimed to be sympathetic to Native Americans while still relying on the "Noble Savage" or "Vanishing Indian" tropes. Clements highlights the irony of white creators seeking to "play the Indian" to feel "free," while simultaneously profiting from narratives that justify Indigenous displacement.
Official Responses and Industry Reception
While How We Stand has been praised for its ambition and the strength of its performances, it has also sparked a dialogue about the "didactic" nature of historical truth-telling in film.
Critical Consensus:
Reviewers have largely lauded the film’s visual language, particularly its use of magical realism in the final act. IndieWire gave the film a Grade: B+, noting that while the dialogue can occasionally feel clunky or overly instructional, the emotional resonance of the performances—particularly Midthunder’s—carries the narrative through its more melodramatic stretches.
The Director’s Intent:
In interviews surrounding the TIFF premiere, Marie Clements has emphasized that her work is an attempt to "reoccupy" spaces where Indigenous stories were previously erased. She has noted that for many Indigenous viewers, the "didactic" elements of the film are not stylistic choices but necessary corrections to a history that has been systematically suppressed in North American education.
Market Reaction:
The film is currently seeking U.S. distribution. Industry insiders suggest that the success of projects like Killers of the Flower Moon and Reservation Dogs has created a more robust market for Indigenous-led stories, though How We Stand’s uncompromising look at sterilization and police violence may make it a "challenging" sell for mainstream streamers.
Implications: Reclaiming the L.A. River
The climax of the film serves as a powerful metaphor for restorative justice. By utilizing magical realism, Clements brings to life the "Indian Room" of a police psychiatrist—a collection of stolen artifacts that represent the "Indian Wars" of the past.
In a striking visual sequence, the L.A. River—a site of cinematic history (seen in Drive, Grease, and Terminator 2)—is reclaimed. Instead of being a backdrop for white masculine grit, it becomes a vessel for the "tears of generations." The flood that washes away the psychiatrist’s collection symbolizes the purging of colonial archives and the beginning of a new era where the three sisters can "stand" together.
The Future of Indigenous Cinema
How We Stand signals a shift in how Indigenous filmmakers approach the "period piece." Rather than focusing on the distant 19th-century past, Clements focuses on the recent past—the 1950s and 70s—reminding audiences that the policies of erasure are not ancient history, but lived experiences for many people still alive today.
The film’s implications for the industry are clear: there is a growing demand for "unfiltered" history. By combining the aesthetics of 1970s "New Hollywood" with Indigenous cosmology, Clements has created a new template for the historical drama—one that does not ask for permission to tell its truth, but rather demands that the audience catch up.
As How We Stand moves toward a wider release, it stands as a testament to the power of the female gaze in Indigenous storytelling. Through Jessie, Miranda, and Janey, Marie Clements reminds us that while the state may attempt to relocate, sterilize, or erase a people, the bond of blood and the weight of ancestral memory are forces that cannot be so easily contained.
Grade: B+
“How We Stand” premiered at TIFF 2024. It is currently seeking U.S. and international distribution.
