3 reasons why Manitu’s Shoe has never been funny

As is well known, humor can be debated. But he always reaches his limits when other people are harmed by it. With The Shoe of Manitu Michael “Bully” Herbig not only brought the most successful German film to the cinema since the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also caused a lot of pain in people. Because The Shoe of Manitu has contributed to the maintenance or even reinforcement of stereotypes of certain groups of people. Even though the world looked different 23 years ago than it does today, this humor wasn’t funny back then.

How one came up with the idea of ​​continuing this film decades later leaves a number of question marks. The children’s film The Young Chief Winnetou proved three years ago that rehashing Karl May’s Winnetou stories ends in controversy these days. Now, of course, nothing can be assumed about Bully that hasn’t already happened, because The Manitu’s Canoe may be completely different and more contemporary than its predecessor – especially since Bully himself has already vowed that the film needs to be adapted to the spirit of the times. That’s why we have dug up the folding chair from 2001 again and took a closer look at it.

Criticism No. 1: In The Shoe of Manitu, indigenous people are not only white, but also backward

The debate about which actors are allowed to play which roles has only really gained momentum in recent years. At the beginning of the 2000s, it was not yet in the general public’s consciousness. Now opinions differ: On the one hand, some people are of the opinion that it is in the nature of acting to slip into any role in a flexible manner. On the other hand, there is the opinion that culture as a costume reinforces discriminatory stereotypes and deprives marginalized groups of the opportunity to be themselves to take place authentically in film and television.

This is what Indigenous author Crystal Echo Hawk writes in a guest article for Variety about authentic representation in Hollywood cinema:

Having negative and inaccurate stereotypes and themes and systematic erasure false perceptions, attitudes and behaviors towards indigenous people promoted. […] The stories Hollywood chooses to tell play a huge role in how people understand and perceive important social issues and diverse communities. That’s why we need to promote authentic representation of Indigenous people and the inclusion of diverse storytelling.

While films like Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon have recently shown what an authentic cast can look like in front of the camera, acclaimed series like Reservation Dogs take this one step further Authenticity behind the scenes to appear. Indigenous people produce the series, take a seat in the director’s chair and are involved in the script. This means they have a huge influence on the portrayal of the characters and how stories are told.

The fact that Bully, as a white man, embodies two indigenous people in The Shoe of Manitu is just the beginning. Even more problematic is how he stages his characters. Winnetou’s replacement Abahachi is compared to Ranger (Christian Tramitz), who represents the cowboy Old Shatterhand from Karl May’s stories clumsy and stupid read. Abahachi is caught in the ways of his people. Reading tracks and lying in wait: Ranger sees this as backwards. In this gradient, he represents the viewer’s identification figure, who stands above Abahachi and his culture. The fact that Uschi (inherently a different problem – more on that later) decides for Ranger in the end finally puts the crown on this disparity.

Just like with Abahachi and Ranger, the Shoshone tribe is pitted against the cowboys around Santa Maria (Sky du Mont). Bully criticizes both groups and largely plays Santa Maria’s crew for fools. Nevertheless, they are presented as more progressive, civilized and clever than the Shoshone, who pose absolutely no danger on their broken-in pony with war cries. They don’t look any better on a stroller either. Instead of these clichés about white settlers and indigenous peoples to break up and turn around as a parodythe stereotypes in The Shoe of Manitu are only reinforced.

Criticism No. 2: In The Shoe of Manitu, the only female character is extremely sexualized

Admittedly, Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy cannot pass the Bechdel test either. This means that at least two women must appear in a film by name and talk to each other about something other than men. Arwen, Eowyn and Rosie can’t do that. That in The Shoe of Manitu in 2001 just a central female figure (another one with Anke Engleke can only be seen for about 5 seconds) could somehow be forgiven and blamed on the time – or on the no less womanless Winnetou films that this joke parodies.

But when this one woman just by her name, Uschi (Marie Bäumer), so sexualized and the joke consists of hiding her clothes in the moonlight and taking a photo of her naked torso without a face, then that is unforgivable for 2001 either. In addition, Uschi can be seen as a pure love interest – first from Abahachi, later from Ranger – without his own agenda in Manitu’s Shoe. At the time, other films had actually already managed to give women a character and appropriate clothing and still be funny.

Criticism No. 3: In The Shoe of Manitu, queer people are jokes

Winnitouch combines all the clichés that were circulating about gay men in the early 2000s: pink clothes, bent wrists, high voice, interest in art and fashion, lascivious looks towards other men. Showing a man with more feminine features is not in itself the problem. Only Winnitouch will specifically used as a source of humor, which rangers and spectators can make fun of. The way Ranger stares at Winneiouch in shock and disbelief for minutes at their first meeting once again reflects the view that is supposed to prevail in the audience.

What remains is the impression that homosexual people are jokers arethat cannot be taken seriously. The character still triggers discomfort and painful memories for many queer people to this day. At the announcement of The Canoe of Manitu, some shared their experiences of how they suffered from this public portrayal of queerness.

In the podcast Galerie Assgeweih, queer people talk about The Shoe of Manitu. This includes sentences like: “It’s the first time I’ve had something like this Shame on myself felt” and “I already sensed back then that these jokes could be aimed at me if I behaved in a way that was read as feminine.”

However, a user on Instagram commented under Bully’s announcement post:

At that time, Manitu’s shoe, together with Traumschiff Surpirse, was the reason why I was made fun of as a queer child, I was aped and called Winnitouch – bullying was definitely part of the program. I can’t understand the glorification of this film to this day with all the anti-queer and racist portrayals.

Maybe Bully should just bury the folding chair and come up with something new instead of rehashing this outdated parody. After all, humor has more to offer than just trolling minorities. But who knows, maybe Manitu’s Canoe will surprise us when the film is released August 14, 2025 is coming to German cinemas. A parody can also be funny without hurting people.