- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 26,482
- Reaction score
- 4,406
I see where you coming from to some degree, and yes if you are attempting to analyse a historical time period in isolation and ignoring wider context and longer-term trends simply in order to make a particular point is certainly bad history (not that I am agreeing that the cost-benefit was necessarily worth it). However, it's also true that specific chunks of time need to be isolated and discussed on their own terms. I would say history, as it's studied nowadays, is more about building a picture up from from the 'small picture', than constantly trying to fit things into a 'big picture'. That is the influence of the dreaded post-modernism, but the eschewing of grand narratives is a good thing in my view, those are more likely to lead to a misunderstanding of the past more than anything else. Context is crucial, but the small details are just as important.
In any case, I feel like this film operates much more emotionally than it does analytically. Given that it is so closely bound up with the experiences and perspective of the Amazonian people themselves I think that it makes sense that takes a strongly 'anti-Western' tone. And I would say much of this is valid criticism anyway, of course explaining why it happened and placing it within it's wider context is important, but the explanation does nothing to reduce the actual human suffering. And this suffering and loss is what this film is primarily concerned. Perhaps you think the cost was worth it, or an inevitable consequence of modernisation and globalisation, but lamenting the loss of life and complete extinction of many of these cultures is worth it in my view.
I also agree with @europe1's point, that "the movie sort-of proves Theo correct. Despite him dying, his writing made it back to Europe. As the epilogue says, the writings of Theo are some of the sole-remaining sources we have about extinct cultures. Without them -- their names would be forgotten forever. That seems like a pretty powerful congratulation of Western memorabilia to me on the movies part."
Old Karamakate comes to realise this in the end too. I do agree with some of what you say about being 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' though, but in the film much of young Karamakate's statements to Theo are from the perspective of an angry young man whose entire world has been torn apart by Western colonialism. And again, there was a lot to be angry about whatever the reasons you might use to explain it.
You and @europe1 with all your levelheadedness and diplomacy. You two clearly aren't students of the Patches O'Houlihan school
The "isolating history" bit is a fair point. I was actually playing Devil's Advocate in my own head and thinking about how I enjoyed the anti-religion bit but it's not like irrationality and death is all that religion has contributed to the world. And, after all, Ayn Rand's definition of art is "a selective recreation of reality." I can't very well bitch about a film being selective. You can only do so much in two hours.
Still, it just wasn't a satisfying treatment of these themes and issues. It had its moments, but only the little moments (Karamakate laughing at Theo "expressing affection," the "worst of both worlds" lamentation) packed any punch. The big moments, where big thematic points needed to be articulated or where we needed to follow Karamakate's transformation, those were where they dropped the ball IMO.