Scene Analysis
1:14:08

Really for the Reel?

by
Megan Snyder

[1]  In his Relacion, Cabeza de Vaca charts his transformation from conquistador to shaman during his eight-year sojourn in native culture.  One of the key signs of this transformation is a characteristically curt scene in which Cabeza de Vaca describes raising a seemingly dead man back to life: “This caused great wonder and awe, and nothing else was spoken about in the entire land” (80).  Nicholas Echevarria – whose purpose, as Paul Galante says, is to depict the transformation of Cabeza de Vaca into the “mestizo in Mexican national identity” – also has a key resurrection scene.  But Echevarria spends a lot of time on the scene and makes the subject a woman.  The question I would like to ask is, does the difference in how Echevarria presents his “Raising the Dead” scene [1:14:08] detract from the sentiments from which they were originally recorded?

[2]  Echevarria makes an effort throughout the entire movie to depict the “new man” in Cabeza de Vaca; however it seems as if he uses significant “artistic license” when depicting this scene.  First, the scene depicts a woman.  Quite simply, this is the opposite of Cabeza de Vaca’s actual account; he describes the person as being a “sick man [who] was dead” (80).  It seems that throughout this movie Echevarria uses women in conjunction with Cabeza de Vaca’s shamanism to inject sexual tension into scenes.  For example, there is a scene not in the original text in which Cabeza de Vaca and his “crew” are held captive by a cannibal tribe [0:58:16].  This tribe happens to be led by quite an exotic and erotically painted and portrayed group of women.  Similarly, the dead woman depicted in the movie is naked; there is a full frontal image of her when she arises and walks out of the tomb.  This is starkly different from the fully clothed men around her.

[3]  Moreover, when Cabeza de Vaca is applying the restorative rituals over her body, he goes about doing so in a very sexually ambiguous way.  The woman is correctly portrayed wrapped in what Cabeza de Vaca notes in his book as a mat (80).  However, he then inserts his hands into the mat, and the audience is left wondering where his hands are.  In addition, Echevarria’s camera slowly pans across her body, finally settling at her genital area.  It seems that these licenses are what drive the wedge between the real and the reel, thus making it a more audience-appealing account than what Cabeza de Vaca records in his matter-of-fact statements.  (That is not to say that this movie is entirely flawed; I don’t believe that is the case.  Echevarria is a very skilled producer who is exceedingly fluent in the native traditions in Mexico.)

[4]  To answer the question I posed above, this “artistic-choice” completely detracts from Cabeza de Vaca’s original intentions in the Relacion and ultimately does a disservice to what Echevarria is trying to achieve himself throughout the entire movie: the theory of a “new” and enlightened Cabeza de Vaca.  To further strengthen my point, I must bring in Richard Gordon’s thoughts on Echevarria’s exoticism.  He states that by portraying women in the way he does Echevarria “reproduces Hollywood’s traditional objectification of women….[and] through [this] detrimental representation…the director is simply trying to ‘get a rise’ out of his audience” (109).
 

 
Copyright (c) 2002 by Megan Snyder, Undergraduate Student at Lehigh University.

This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of the U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access.  Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author.