Movie: 1492: Conquest of Paradise (Ridley Scott, 1992)
The pioneers of exploration committed far graver sins than Ridley Scott, but at least they were pioneers. Some of Christopher Columbus' harshest critics argue he can't be excused as a 'man of his time', pointing to writings from the Spanish Royal Court accusing him of disproportionately cruel and inhmane acts in the 'New World'. Although the veracity of some of these accusations is disputed, what's true is damning enough. However, the Spanish monarchy didn't issue these warnings out of some sincere concern for the rights of indigenous people and its standards for the treatment of its colonised subjects were in no way morally justifiable. Discussing the extent to which they were more humane than Columbus is just splitting hairs about acceptable levels of brutality. Columbus did however meaningfully diverge from his time in his insistence on using science to fight for the truth, in defiance of the conservative dogma's of his society. Should progressives dismiss that so easily?
Towards the end of the film Columbus (Gerard Depardieu) tells his main rival, the fully fictional Sanchez (Armando Assante), Qoeen Isabella's (Sigourney Weaver)'s chief advisor "No matter how long you live, Sanchez, there is something that will never change between us. I did it. You didn't." It's a wonderful line, that resonates even more a bit later when Sanchez admits to one of his allies "if your name or mine is ever remembered it will only because of his." I got a kick out of these moments ahd have always liked the mythology around Columbus, but no, he didn't prove to his contemporaries that the Earth was round - it had been established knoweledge for centuries. What's more, many had a better idea of the difficulties of his journey west than he did. Although nobody thought there would be an entire continent between Europe and Asia, there were significant doubts whether Columbus had correctly calculated the time it would take him. Those doubts were proven correct. Scott's film points this out in such a roundabout way that you never really get a clear sense of Columbus' views on the matter. It's an example of one the film's key issues; it wants to both print the legend and avoid accusations of being completely ahistorical. So it starts with a scene in which Columbus explains to his son that the Earth is round, followed by a moment in his workplace where he angrily pushes a ramshackle globe of his table, giving the impression that the globe is his own unique creation. However, In none of the discussions with the rich and powerful he is seeking to convince to finance his journey does the point about the shape of the Earth come up. In one of those scenes there is even an actual 'royal' globe in frame, but it's not centered, nor fully visible. It just stands there, unremarked upon, denying a good view of what it represents.
I liked the film most when it most fully embraced the Columbus legend. Soctt takes an experiential approach to the first exploration of the Santa Maria, Pinta and Nina. He spends about half an hour on their voyage that took about three months in reality, choosing mood over story. He shows life on the ships at different points of the journey, but most of these scenes (the exception is a brewing mutiny Columbus stops with a powerful speech) don't represent a major milestone for the expedition, or have a strong narrative connection. Scott rather focuses on small and seemingly less significant moments that evoke how it must feel to be going into the great unknown. That's an interesting approach reflective of the mindset of the explorers - they have no way of knowing when they have reached a crucial point, or what the beginning, middle and end of their journey would look like. Scott's approach continues when they finally reach land and we experience the jungle as a mythical untouched Eden alongside Columbus and his crew. And then the natives arrive...
Not knowing how to choose between the historical Columbus and the mythological Columbus, Scott manages to direct himself into a strange corner where the film itself comes off as more racist than Columbus. Part of that may be on Depardieu, who always has a whiff of a naive manchild, and fully leans into it in his portrayal of Columbus, turning him into a combination of Jesus and Forrest Gump. His Columbus is a man of pure heart and good intentions who has little understanding of the forces unleashed by his actions. All that matters is that he "did it" and the film seems to believe that this should absolve him of all his mistakes, which includes treating the 'others' as human beings to be reasoned with. All the violence the Spanish inflict here is presented as a consequence of actions by the indigenous peoples, and the direct result of Columbus' trust in their humanity. In the climactic battle scene Scott films the violence from up close, and without any inhibition. The natives all wear identical plants and leaves as camouflage and proteciton and when they attack the whites they are completely unrecognisable and unidentifiable. It's as if the Spansh are attacked, as ltierally as possible, by savage nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment