La Ultima Cena for 12 Unfortunate Slaves

La Ultima Cena is the story of a slave owner, called The Count in the movie, who runs a sugar cane plantation in Cuba.  One Easter The Count visits his plantation to try to connect with his slaves by choosing twelve of them to reenact the events of the Last Supper, putting himself in the place of Jesus.  He also washes the feet of the twelve slaves.  He does this in order to teach his slaves about Christian beliefs.  Among the twelve is a slave named Sebastian who had recently attempted to escape and failed.  The overseer, named Don Manuel, does not like this idea, as it will interfere with the slaves’ work and put the plantation behind in production.  The Count promises the slaves they do not have to work on Good Friday, and Don Manuel tries to make them anyway.  This leads to the slaves revolting and the death of Don Manuel and his wife.  And eleven of the twelve slaves getting beheaded and have their heads put onto spikes.

Despite the unlikelihood of this event having happened in history, according to Mraz’s essay, it totally happened.  It is almost exactly how the event actually occurred.  According to the essay, the filmmakers did their research and stayed true to it, even from the slaves’ point of view.  So much so that the movie “provides an insightful glance into the functioning of paternalism and religion in slave society.” (114)  Slave rebellions were also apparently pretty common in Cuba at the time, being a “constant feature.” (119)

It is not that surprising then to learn that slavery laws were largely disregarded at the time, which can clearly be seen in the movie.  During the period of Cuban history depicted in the movie, owners were beginning to lose legal control of their slaves according to the article by Fuente.  Slaves also began to gain what could be perceived as legal rights in Cuba.  A similar event was occurring in Brazil at the time according to the article by Schultz.  Also according to Fuente, slaves were very independent at the time. (664)  They could request to be purchased by different owners and even buy their freedom.  However, most slaves who started to buy their freedom were seldom able to finish making the payments. (668)  Even “religious authorities encroached on the masters’ control over slaves,” as is exemplified by the priest on the plantation in the film. (666)  Unlike The Count in the movie, masters could not legally harm or kill their slaves.  They had to have “proper judicial order.” (669)  The Count bypasses this step and has the eleven’s heads mounted on spikes as examples to his other slaves.

    There are only eleven heads, because the slave who attempted to escape earlier makes it to freedom.  Sebastian is last seen running free like hawks, rocks, and horses.  All, including Sebastian, now imbued with power and freedom.  Unfortunately, the twelfth slave in the historical event was not so lucky.  He was beheaded and his head was “bespiked” like the rest of them.

Mraz said that the film was “good history and very good cinema, and that is an irresistible combination.” (121)  He is absolutely right.

The Mission Improbable

The Mission taken as pure fiction and not an account of actual events could be seen as a decent enough movie.  However the text at the beginning of the movie claims that it based off of true events. After reading the articles for this week, I now see that they meant very loosely based.  The only thing the filmmakers seemed to get absolutely right was the fact that there were natives, Spaniards, Portuguese, and the Jesuit missionaries.

            I am fine with filmmakers taking artistic liberties when it comes to adapting anything from books to history.  Saeger, in his essay, would agree with this view; “as artist they may legitimately reorder events, create new characters, and still retain historical integrity.”  He also mentions, often, that the filmmakers could have easily created dynamic Guarani characters and shown us how the natives were effected by the Jesuit missionaries’ presence in their. Instead they continue to perpetuate the view of indigenous people that historians have held for hundreds of years. One of the liberties they that is forgivable is the change in location that they make in order to give the setting a more untouched feel. 

            One of the more extreme liberties taken by the filmmakers is the “crucified” Jesuit missionary from the beginning of the film.  Since there is no reason given for his execution by the Guarani, “one inaccurately concludes that customarily killing whites was in their nature.”  This was not the case however.  At the time they not have familiar with the story of Jesus crucifixion, and would not have executed anyone in that manner, no matter how metaphorical it could be.  The Guarani people welcomed the Jesuits.  Of course that was mostly because the Jesuits gave the iron tools that made tree-clearing and planting crops easier for the Guarani.  The Jesuit missionaries also seem okay with the Guarani women being publicly nude.  The real Jesuits were not okay with that.

            Another questionable twist of the truth is the Guarani’s acceptance and eventual conversion to Christianity.  The Guarani were far from accepting of their new neighbors’ religion.  However, in the movie they seem to have no religion of their own and are “cultural ciphers” that easily accepted this new religion.  Its not like they had their own religion that they would have to deny in order to convert to Christianity or anything.  Oh wait, they actually did.  And they constantly rebelled against their Christian “masters.”  And it would be generations before they even tried to accept Christianity as their own religion.

            The real Jesuits were not as nice as the movie would have us believe.  They used “coercion, persuasion, and material rewards to bring Guaranis to missions.”  They were strict disciplinarians and kept the Guarani against their will.  Beatings in the Jesuit missions “were not unknown.”  The Jesuits, like most Europeans in the Americas, were there for their own economic gain under the guise of converting the ignorant.

            The most glaring misuse of artistic liberties is having Schindler/Qui-Gon Jinn/Rahs Al-Ghul/Aslan (Jesus)/Guy from Taken/Zeus/Liam Neeson fight on the side of the Guarani, and then have them lose.  Not. Even. Possible.