The Mission – 1986 film

The film, “The Mission,” conveys one author’s historical treatment of one Jesuit settlement (Reduction) in the northeastern Province of Guayra, around the 17^th Century. When you see it, you quickly think ‘this must be among the most beautiful waterfalls in the World.’  The film won Best Cinematography at the Cannes Film Festival. https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/films/the-mission

The story in the film likely is a synthesis of several historical accounts of the Jesuit missions in Mesoamerica.  The film’s viewpoint is in search of realism, and the struggles of the Jesuits, and their temporary success in establishing a productive, cultured, civilized village does homage to the missionaries’ great works.  From that, the film makers may presume some history and assume how evil worked effectively to subvert the Jesuits’ goals and selfless efforts to advance the lives of the native peoples.  It descends into savagery, inhumanity, double-dealing and paints all the Europeans and the leaders of the missionaries as having lost their religion and willing to destroy the Eden-like settlement that took much hard work to create.

What the film lacks, as it the case with many of the films, is expression of the viewpoint of the native people.  In a few scenes, their leaders make comments that suggest they are just ‘going along’ with the Jesuit plan, rather than being true converts.  True or false?  Perhaps the more accurate depiction was that they ended up being pawns in a game they could not win, and having no voice in what was to happen or be decided.  The Guaraní were, to quote one writer, “not actors in their own history.”  Jackson, Robert H. “Missions on the frontiers of Spanish America.” Journal of Religious History 33.3 (2009): 328.  At best, the film gives a philosophical voice to the words of the Guaraní chief when he rejoins thoughtfully, and with religious curiosity, to ‘His Eminence” Altamirano and his directive for the natives to leave the mission San Carlos – ‘Who speaks for God?’  The dialogue in that scene expresses the Guaraní experience, before and after the intrusion of the righteous Europeans.  As a people, the Guarani provide background noise or a backdrop to the acts of others in the film, not unlike a “Greek chorus” in a tragedy, which Noah Webster’s bestseller defines as that “chorus in a classical Greek play typically serving to formulate, express, and comment on the moral issue that is raised by the dramatic action or to express an emotion appropriate to each stage of the dramatic conflict.”  The Guaraní chorus surrounds each scene in large numbers and singing hymns and psalms which end with the Miserere (seeking mercy).

The film does align with historical accounts of the Jesuits’ mission to the Guarani.  It aligns with the Treaty of Madrid, which separated the missions from the safekeeping of the Spanish, and portends the threat, later carried out, of the Jesuits being banished from the Latin American colonies.  I think, but might have to re-watch it, that the film shows the final assault on San Carlos as being carried out by a combination of Portuguese and Spanish troops (think there were two set of uniforms being worn that indicated that), and indeed, those armies did the dirty work together.  As the opening lines of the Cardinal’s letter reported: “The Indians are once more free to be enslaved by the Spanish and Portuguese settlers.”

The film does not harshly judge anyone of the power figures, which maybe was a directorial choice to portray them each as sub-agents of higher powers in Spain, Portugal, Rome and Hell.  Even the Cardinal whose expulsion order leads to mass murder does not get his head cut off, literally or figuratively, leaving the viewer to wonder whether the Vatican has lost its moral authority to hold back the secular powers of Kings and expansionist traders.  The Cardinal was just the messenger. Maybe, I don’t know.  Still if the Popes and Kings were united in a mission to convert the South American pagans to Christianity, then why would they yield to those mere mortals who would end that and kill all the converts?

The notion of depicted or recreated history rides on the uncertain ledge of what to include and what to leave out.  The film leaves a lot out, but what was left in probably is close enough to tell the long story in a meaningful but compressed and dramatized way.

“The Mission” portrays a host of disjointed & combined allusions to Christian and pagan symbolism.  The opening scene recalls the Crucifixion, then, Jeremy Irons raising himself up the rocks connotes the Resurrection (seemed like his swim & climb from the tomb of his martyred brother took 3 days).  Rodrigo kills his brother – Cain & Abel – after which he was cursed, and Rodrigo says, as Cain said to God “”My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.” (Genesis 4:13).  Then, in reverse chronology, Rodrigo returns to the land of the Guaraní, which Cardinal Altamirano declares is a “Garden of Eden” and others refer to it as a paradise.  To reach that near-Heaven-ly land, Rodrigo takes on the yoke of the penitent, dragging a sack of Conquistador armor up the mountain, repeatedly, which recalls the pagan myth of Sisyphus.  For offenses to the gods Zeus and Hades, Sisyphus was condemned to the unending task of taking a big boulder up a steep hill, but each time he got it to the top, the rock would roll back to the bottom and he would begin the task again.  (see, greekmythology.com).  Then, too there’s the Guaraní cast as a Greek chorus foretelling a tragedy. The cross-overs from the apostolic to the apostacy are presented in what may be a Mardi Gras parade or Carnival populated with both Christian icons and pagan or native ritualism.  Other instances are, outside the mission churches, the Guaraní dance and act out what appear to be not-forgotten native, non-Christian rituals.  All this in one movie came across as a grab-bag of shambolic symbolism, intended to elevate its filmic proportions or imbue importance or hidden-meanings to the film.  Just too much (even though I understand that history informs that some native populations took to the conversion, but kept touch with their pagan beliefs).

It was a good movie, I enjoyed it as a counterpart to the history, however much the accurate history probably got edited and revised later by the Europeans.