"The Lost City of Z" and downplaying history's racism
I've recently watched "The Lost City of Z" (mostly because Tom Holland was in it (and he was only in like the last thirty minutes which was disappointing) but that is neither here nor there). (Also, disclaimer, I haven't read the book but please don't come for me.)
In case you haven't watched it, "The Lost City of Z" tells the story of Percy Fawcett, a British Indiana Jones-type explorer who was sent to the Brazilian jungle to map the border of Brazil and Bolivia. He went on several more expeditions in hopes of finding The Lost City of Z, an ancient South American city he believed to have existed. He eventually disappeared into the jungle with his son and his son's friend in 1925. (I have, of course, mostly butchered the story so if you have the time I'd recommend watching the movie or reading the book.)
I was really struck by how the film dealt with racism compared to how history, well, was racist.
In the movie, Fawcett often defended the native South Americans from his colleagues' racist ideologies. There's an entire scene where Fawcett stands in front of a crowd of old stuck-up British dudes and argues that this supposed ancient city would have been as technologically as many European races at the time. He dedicates his life - and death - to proving this. He's gentle with the indigenous Brazilians while others treat them as slaves. This was very rare at the time.
So rare, in fact, that it didn't happen. As it often turns out, reality is far more complicated than fiction would have you believe. While Fawcett did believe in an advanced ancient race, he also believed such a city must have had Europeans origins. Sure, he was an advocate for nonviolence against indigenous South Americans but called them "villainous savages, hideous ape men with pig-like eyes". Yikes.
I think it's obvious why the director and the writers left particular ideologies of Fawcett's out of the movie. In this day and age, audiences can't get behind a racist hero. The end. In order to make the movie work, they had to leave certain aspects of the past in history. Characters have to be likeable in a fictional movie. If it was a documentary it might be a different story but that is not the situation we're in today.
While I understand why the writers made this decision, I'm not sure I agree with it. I watch historical movies to better understand the world I live in, but if those movies are airbrushed to show a lighter version of history then how can we learn from our mistakes? Skipping over the nastier aspects of history might make for a better movie but it contributes to the false fantasy that our history and its heroes are as clearcut as we want them to be.
Humanity is complicated. While I understand fiction can't always portray history as it was, we can at least go searching for the truth and take a long, hard look at ourselves to see if we reflect our (often) ugly origins.
Sources:
History vs Hollywood
Wikipedia
Bustle
Time
Spectator
In case you haven't watched it, "The Lost City of Z" tells the story of Percy Fawcett, a British Indiana Jones-type explorer who was sent to the Brazilian jungle to map the border of Brazil and Bolivia. He went on several more expeditions in hopes of finding The Lost City of Z, an ancient South American city he believed to have existed. He eventually disappeared into the jungle with his son and his son's friend in 1925. (I have, of course, mostly butchered the story so if you have the time I'd recommend watching the movie or reading the book.)
I was really struck by how the film dealt with racism compared to how history, well, was racist.
In the movie, Fawcett often defended the native South Americans from his colleagues' racist ideologies. There's an entire scene where Fawcett stands in front of a crowd of old stuck-up British dudes and argues that this supposed ancient city would have been as technologically as many European races at the time. He dedicates his life - and death - to proving this. He's gentle with the indigenous Brazilians while others treat them as slaves. This was very rare at the time.
So rare, in fact, that it didn't happen. As it often turns out, reality is far more complicated than fiction would have you believe. While Fawcett did believe in an advanced ancient race, he also believed such a city must have had Europeans origins. Sure, he was an advocate for nonviolence against indigenous South Americans but called them "villainous savages, hideous ape men with pig-like eyes". Yikes.
I think it's obvious why the director and the writers left particular ideologies of Fawcett's out of the movie. In this day and age, audiences can't get behind a racist hero. The end. In order to make the movie work, they had to leave certain aspects of the past in history. Characters have to be likeable in a fictional movie. If it was a documentary it might be a different story but that is not the situation we're in today.
While I understand why the writers made this decision, I'm not sure I agree with it. I watch historical movies to better understand the world I live in, but if those movies are airbrushed to show a lighter version of history then how can we learn from our mistakes? Skipping over the nastier aspects of history might make for a better movie but it contributes to the false fantasy that our history and its heroes are as clearcut as we want them to be.
Humanity is complicated. While I understand fiction can't always portray history as it was, we can at least go searching for the truth and take a long, hard look at ourselves to see if we reflect our (often) ugly origins.
Sources:
History vs Hollywood
Wikipedia
Bustle
Time
Spectator
So I have not seen this movie or read the book. But I have noticed this happening in media. People are hyper aware about racism which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but they start being scared to be truthful about historical accounts or stories because they don't want to be racist. They don't want to offended anyone with how racist the past was so they water it down and "modernize" 'it. But honestly, it's more offensive to hide behind this fear because then they end up delivering a message that says "oh, things weren't *so bad* in the past." Things were awful in the past! History is full of racism and ignoring that means we can't face our past wrongs and can't understand how the past is affecting the present which all in turn means we can't or aren't doing anything to make things better today.
ReplyDeleteI definitely would recommend watching it if you have a spare hour or so, I learned a lot. Absolutely, and I kind of understand why people would be afraid to dabble in stories that feature racism. I think for me, myself, I would be afraid to deal with those stories because I wouldn't want to hurt anyone by not handling it well. However, I think some people write racism out completely because it might be seen as them trying to be an undercover racist or something. Yes! It's more offensive to erase the experience of people of colour (or women, or LGBTQ+, or [insert here]) than to ignore everything that happened. Stories help us understand where we/our ancestors have gone wrong, and can help us move forward. Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
DeleteThis particular subject grates on me so much! The modern audience can't seem to get it through their heads that people in other eras thought (sometimes vastly) differently. It didn't make it right, but it was a fact. So, rather than showing that Fawcett's views of protecting the natives was actually radical for his day, we have to shape him to be like us an hold our values--even though that was so far out of his line of thinking that it would have been ludicrous for him even to consider. This leads to people denigrating those who have achieved a lot in the past and refusing to recognize them, even though they held what would have been radical ideas, simply because they don't live up to our modern standards. People aren't clear cut black and white in their moral achievements. Thank you for writing this!
ReplyDeleteI find it so interesting how people can struggle to understand not only how people in other eras thought, but also how your neighbour or parents think. Yes! His views were so radical for his time and just because it doesn't hold up to today's values it doesn't mean we should change the story. It helps to show the evolution of morality and can be really educational. Thanks for commenting!
Delete