In our reading this week regarding the film, La Ultima Cena, directed by Tomas Gutierrez, was pleasantly surprising when compared to the derogatory article last week over The Mission. In his article, Recasting Cuban Slavery, John Mraz, writes in a respectful tone about the direction and flow of the movie. Mraz points out to the reader that the film parallels the construct behind the Moreno Fraginals book, The Sugarmill and integrates other historical attributes found in researching the subject of Cuban slavery. He also apparently rightfully argues that movies must either directly or indirectly engage in the subject matter of history being portrayed. Mraz also agrees that the film accurately depicts life on a Cuban plantation; though the film’s storyline and actual events were about one hundred years in reality. Some of the themes running throughout the film included: Christianity, violence in the spread of Christianity through witnessing, Jesus and his slaves, parallels between slavery and Christian parables and the convenience of being a Christian, only when it does not interfere with profits. There also seems to be an underlying theme running through the discourse of the political scene of the 1970’s which parallels the historical issues during Cuban slavery.
Gutierrez brings several interesting themes into play. The plantation owner is portrayed as symbolic image of Jesus; though it should be noted the image of Jesus was through the mind of the plantation owner’s mind. He decides that he will use the parables of the Christian gospels to “re-educate” the slaves so that they understand their place and how benevolent their master. His statements about Jesus‘s disciples’ actually being his slaves rather than his contemporizes was just plain hilarious; even the slaves were perplexed by such a contradiction. The film could also be used as great propaganda for not preaching and drinking at the same time (an idea that might be very useful in the Bible belt of the south), since the owner commits several societal offenses during his drunken binge at his recreation of the last supper while intoxicated. The master is being condescending to the slaves and the slaves are making fun of him while he is doing it. However, all the Christian benevolence is thrown out the door when it comes to the welfare of the slaves. Profits from increasing sugar production are more important than God. Putting slaves in their place is more important that God. Social hierarchy is more important than God (Gutierrez also has a running theme of repetitious dialogue). God’s message is misused to keep society’s lower classes in their places rather than uplifting them. There is also a hidden theme in the film that Mraz never addresses, though the subtle hints run, much like the character of Sebastian, throughout the entirety of the movie… freedom. Who is free? Is freedom spiritual or physical? Who decides which is right? Who defines it? In reality, the plantation owner was not exaggerating when he sat the slaves down to eat with him as equals, for he was as tied to the slaves as they were to him. He was indebted to money, shackled to capitalism and greed. The slaves, while physically tortured and abused, mentally retained their freedom and dreamed of a day when their bondage was broken regardless of the manner, like suicide or receiving documented freedom papers as Kristen Schultz addressed in her article, in which their freedom was obtained. The owner, like that of the overseer, were tied to a social hierarchy for which they could only escape if they, ironically, thwarted the social expectations of the time and took up a socialist lifestyle similar to that attributed to Christ himself. The eleven slaves, whose heads end up on pikes, were freed. The overseer, who was justifiably murdered for his brutal, but authorized behavior, was physically freed at death. Sebastian, took his chance and ran for freedom, Don Gaspar, the craftsman over the actual sugar production, left the plantation as the slaves were hunted and killed; owing only a debt to his soul. All of the scenes simply reinforce the master’s statement that freedom was only truly obtainable in ones physical death.
The only negatives found in this film were the minuet roles which women played, domestic slaves who were subservient to their men, and the manner in which they were dressed; or rather how they were not dressed. Why is it that both of the films we have watched so far depict the indigenous or slave women as constantly baring their breasts? In La Ultima Cena, it seems this was a mere afterthought of the director; reminding us of boob baring natives from the pages of a National Geographic magazine. It appears that women, regardless of their status as slave or non-slave, are treated as social pariah and deemed lesser subjects of interest then the male character. One has to wonder if the usage of the pig (which a kosher Jew like Jesus would have never eaten), really symbolizes the male chauvinistic behavior found during both the colonial period in Cuba and the time period of the 1970’s…
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
I don't like to watch my own movies - I fall asleep in my own movies.
~ Robert De Niro
When most people hear that Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons are in a movie together, the first thing that springs to mind is that the story line should fall between Raging Bull and Die Hard with a Vengeance. Instead, we are given a serious historical drama about Jesuit priests in eighteenth century South America; the storyline behind Roland Joffe’s The Mission. While movie critics claimed it to be an amazing work of art, James Schoefield Saeger’s article, “The Mission and Historical Missions” does the opposite. First, he lets the reader know that Joffe's vision fails to be completely historically accurate. Second, he seems offended by the themes and character that Joffe chose to pursue. Some of Saeger’s complaints about Joffe’s direction and the movie itself include:
- Though historically the events did occur, Saeger finds fault with nearly every part of the movie
- The location was not exact
- The Guarani Indians were actually farmers who hunted
- Relatively few Jesuits were martyred by indigenous populations during the 1700’s
- Presents the reason for opposition as a moral one, rather than showing the economic ones that both the Guarani and Jesuits had
- Indians had a limited capacity as characters (no crap, who did the crowds come to see De Niro or the actors portraying the Indians)
- Shows that the savages were modernized by the pure, good intentioned whites
- The Indians were naked and the women showed their boobs
- Most Guarani rejected Christianity
- Jesuits hated infanticide
- Realities of life at the mission
- Guarani led resistance
- Jesuits surrendered to the church, they were not slaughtered
So let’s look at his arguments. With regards to filming a movie about a historical event, no matter what, any movie based on such a topic will not be accurate. Why is that? Simple, because we were not there and even if we were, humans memories mirror themselves and shade themselves in the best possible light. Our entire culture will shape our understandings, as well as, how we use them to shape others opinions. If Joffe had directed a movie showing little brown skinned farmers dealing with Jesuit priests, with no name actors, reflecting a derogatory image of Europeans, imposing themselves and their values on these poor little farmers, would anyone have gone to see it? No, it would have bored the hell out of everyone and would have never been made. Saeger fails to recognize that The Mission was the fiftieth top grossing movie of 1986, competing with such movies as;
Top Gun – which made $177 million and had Tom Cruise in it
Platoon – which made $138 million and had a fine looking Charlie Sheen in it
Aliens – which made $85.2million and had a fine looking Michael Biehn in it
Ferris Bueller’s Day off – pulled in $70.1 million
The Color of Money – made $52.3 million, also starred Tom Cruise (but I went to watch Paul Newman)
Stand By Me – which starred River Phoenix (my favorite actor of my youth) and made $52.3 million
Heartbreak Ridge – starring Clint Eastwood (and his clusterf*@#k’s) brought in $42.7 million
Even An American Tail, which was a cartoon about an immigrant mouse, made $47.5 million that year. What did The Mission gross? $17.5 million which was less then what it had cost to make. I would hate to think about what would have happened if the boobs had been covered up. If Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons had not been in it, would anyone have gone to see it at all? Though much of Saeger’s critique may be justified, would anyone outside of those studying the history of indigenous South American Indians have gone to see the film otherwise. No. Despite its “flaws” Joffe’s version did bring the story of the events during the time of and the events leading up to the Battle of Caaibate, to the attention of mainstream media, thus allowing those who chose to, an opportunity to learn of a historical event that they could further find out about. What is even more astonishing is that a major production company even produced it. Saeger could have also pointed out the movie also showed that the church and Christianity during that time period pursued another type of “Holy War”, one against itself and its very core of beliefs. This movie should be viewed as at least showing very anti-Christian rhetoric in a very political correct time during its production and release period. Instead, he treated the film as though it were made for the history channel rather than the general public.
Again, I feel that Saeger took a very hard stance towards Joffe's work and would say if Mr. Saeger thought that movie was bad, he would die if he had to watch Pearl Harbor (which was a horrible movie and had nothing to do with the tragedy that unfolded there)...
~ Robert De Niro
When most people hear that Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons are in a movie together, the first thing that springs to mind is that the story line should fall between Raging Bull and Die Hard with a Vengeance. Instead, we are given a serious historical drama about Jesuit priests in eighteenth century South America; the storyline behind Roland Joffe’s The Mission. While movie critics claimed it to be an amazing work of art, James Schoefield Saeger’s article, “The Mission and Historical Missions” does the opposite. First, he lets the reader know that Joffe's vision fails to be completely historically accurate. Second, he seems offended by the themes and character that Joffe chose to pursue. Some of Saeger’s complaints about Joffe’s direction and the movie itself include:
- Though historically the events did occur, Saeger finds fault with nearly every part of the movie
- The location was not exact
- The Guarani Indians were actually farmers who hunted
- Relatively few Jesuits were martyred by indigenous populations during the 1700’s
- Presents the reason for opposition as a moral one, rather than showing the economic ones that both the Guarani and Jesuits had
- Indians had a limited capacity as characters (no crap, who did the crowds come to see De Niro or the actors portraying the Indians)
- Shows that the savages were modernized by the pure, good intentioned whites
- The Indians were naked and the women showed their boobs
- Most Guarani rejected Christianity
- Jesuits hated infanticide
- Realities of life at the mission
- Guarani led resistance
- Jesuits surrendered to the church, they were not slaughtered
So let’s look at his arguments. With regards to filming a movie about a historical event, no matter what, any movie based on such a topic will not be accurate. Why is that? Simple, because we were not there and even if we were, humans memories mirror themselves and shade themselves in the best possible light. Our entire culture will shape our understandings, as well as, how we use them to shape others opinions. If Joffe had directed a movie showing little brown skinned farmers dealing with Jesuit priests, with no name actors, reflecting a derogatory image of Europeans, imposing themselves and their values on these poor little farmers, would anyone have gone to see it? No, it would have bored the hell out of everyone and would have never been made. Saeger fails to recognize that The Mission was the fiftieth top grossing movie of 1986, competing with such movies as;
Top Gun – which made $177 million and had Tom Cruise in it
Platoon – which made $138 million and had a fine looking Charlie Sheen in it
Aliens – which made $85.2million and had a fine looking Michael Biehn in it
Ferris Bueller’s Day off – pulled in $70.1 million
The Color of Money – made $52.3 million, also starred Tom Cruise (but I went to watch Paul Newman)
Stand By Me – which starred River Phoenix (my favorite actor of my youth) and made $52.3 million
Heartbreak Ridge – starring Clint Eastwood (and his clusterf*@#k’s) brought in $42.7 million
Even An American Tail, which was a cartoon about an immigrant mouse, made $47.5 million that year. What did The Mission gross? $17.5 million which was less then what it had cost to make. I would hate to think about what would have happened if the boobs had been covered up. If Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons had not been in it, would anyone have gone to see it at all? Though much of Saeger’s critique may be justified, would anyone outside of those studying the history of indigenous South American Indians have gone to see the film otherwise. No. Despite its “flaws” Joffe’s version did bring the story of the events during the time of and the events leading up to the Battle of Caaibate, to the attention of mainstream media, thus allowing those who chose to, an opportunity to learn of a historical event that they could further find out about. What is even more astonishing is that a major production company even produced it. Saeger could have also pointed out the movie also showed that the church and Christianity during that time period pursued another type of “Holy War”, one against itself and its very core of beliefs. This movie should be viewed as at least showing very anti-Christian rhetoric in a very political correct time during its production and release period. Instead, he treated the film as though it were made for the history channel rather than the general public.
Again, I feel that Saeger took a very hard stance towards Joffe's work and would say if Mr. Saeger thought that movie was bad, he would die if he had to watch Pearl Harbor (which was a horrible movie and had nothing to do with the tragedy that unfolded there)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)