Indigenous Illustrations: Hollywood Representation of Latin America
Erika Lobati

In a highly digitalized society, consumers understand the power of media. Film, television, social media, advertisements, and technology all have the ability to inform, to encourage, to advocate, and to prompt positive change. However, in the same way, media can distract, misconstrue, and assert a false reality. This paper specifically aims to analyze the global hegemony of United States cinema and further evaluate the depictions of Latin American indigneous populations. When considering indigenous representation, it's important to recognize that the American film industry is a crucial market with global influence. Film and television in the United States has the ability to not only inform its own citizens, but also those in Latin American countries. One study published in the Revista de Comunicación de LaSEECI even found that while surveying a population of consumers in the Andes of Ecuador, Hollywood had a significant influence on viewer’s conceptions of real life as well as their preferences in audiovisual media (Jimenez-Sánchez et al. 61). This calls further attention to the cruciality of appropriate and accurate representation in media. When compared to other countries like Guatemala, Hollywood cinema has variable representations of Latin American indigenous cultures complicated by the construction of films through either the studio system or independent production companies. Despite the presence of both problematic and more accurate depictions of these communities, it is evident that the film industry in the United States has room to improve indigenous representation through more collaborative, advocacy-based initiatives and filmmaking processes.

The Hollywood film industry has a long and problematic history regarding minority representation and more specifically depictions of indigenous cultures that continues to persist today. Whether it be through eurocentric perspectives, inadequate research, or misleading information, there have been various scandals within US cinema of questionable portrayals of these populations. One prominent example includes the 1922 film Nanook of the North directed by Robert J. Flaherty. Flaherty presented this film as a documentary meant to capture the everyday life of an Inuit tribe, but in reality many of the scenes in the film were directed and constructed by Flaherty to present his own presumptuous perception of the community (Flaherty; Ettleman). For example, one of the scenes presents the father of a family, Nanook, trying to eat a music record as if he had never seen the device before, however, in truth, that particular community had listened to vinyl records for years prior to Flaherty’s production (Ettleman).

Mel Gibson's 2006 film Apocalypto, for example, utilizes a eurocentric perspective similar to that in The Captive God. The film details the story of a Mayan hunter named Jaguar Paw who has to escape the forces of a nearby rival Mayan tribe (Gibson). The film has many issues especially regarding its implication that Spanish colonizers and conquistadors provide a sanctuary and save the tribe from their savage ways (“Racist Apocalypto Accused of Denigrating Mayan Culture”). Additionally, this year a film is currently in production called Killer’s of the Flower Moon and stars Leonardo diCaprio and Robert De Niro. Despite covering the true story of mass assassinations of an Osage Native American tribe, the film is being directed by Martin Scorsese, a white man with no personal or ethnic connections to Native American or indigenous cultures (Vlessing). These films only provide a glimpse of the exploitation of indigenous stories at the hand of white filmmakers for profit in the industry.

Despite this controversial reputation, film in the United States generally has a wide variety of BIPOC (term in film studies to refer to Black, indigenous and people of color) and indigenous representation, but to further understand its range, it's important to distinguish between the two major types of film. Films in the American market fall into one of two categories being studio film and independent film, although according to film and television lecturer Geoff King, these lines are increasingly becoming blurred (129). Traditional studio films are produced through the oligopolistic studio system for a mainstream audience (127). Hollywood production companies combine to create large media conglomerates such as Columbia Pictures, Paramount Pictures, or Warner Bros which provide funding for large scale projects. With these comfortable budgets, studio blockbuster films can afford big name cast and crew members, ambitious set designs, glamorous hair and makeup, as well as complex post-production elements such as computer-generated imagery and special effects. In contrast, indie films are produced by independent production companies with smaller budgets. These movie plots typically depend on character development and tackle subjects for a less conventional audience. In fact, the movement of US independent cinema was born following post-war economic collapse, prompting for more frugal, avante-garde, experimental, and artistic cinema (128). Unlike mass consumable studio films, indie movies hold the reputation of being “intellectual discourse” and typically find popularity amongst more academic audiences (140). Despite these vastly differing characteristics, as the US film market progresses, media conglomerates have integrated more into independent filmmaking by creating indie-style films with large studio budgets.

So how do these two production styles influence indigenous representation in American cinema? At first glance, one might assume that logistically studio systems have the financial resources to depict these unheard communities with precision. However, as evidenced by Mel Gibson’s controversial Apocalypto, this isn't quite the case. Hollywood blockbuster films are limited not by their resources, but by their consumers. These movies attempt to reach as wide of an audience as possible, meaning overly niche narratives, such as stories capturing the every life of an indigneous Latin American village, might not appeal to a mass audience. In contrast, independent cinema has a limited reach, so filmmakers have the space to be as experimental or controversial as they want given that they do not live in the eyes of the public. Indie movies are capable of reaching niche audiences of viewers that are open to uncomfortable conversations and critical consumption. With these two very different points of access, indie film, although limited in financial resources, has a greater ability to explore ethno-racial stories with greater nuance and accuracy. Take for example a comparison of two US films from the 1980s that depict indigenous communities. Peter Weir’s 1986 film The Mosquito Coast features the story of an American man who moves his family to a Caribean island to escape consumerism in the United States. While on the island, he tries to create a utopia through the invention of gadgets to improve the primitive lifestyle of the natives (Weir). The film was produced through the studio system and prioritizes a Western perspective taking on a white savior complex similar to that in The Captive God. In contrast, the 1984 indie film El Norte, directed by Gregory Nava, emphasizes the indigenous perspective. The film tells the story of a brother and sister’s journey from a Mayan village. After the destruction of their community by the government following a strike to improve work conditions, the two siblings escape to the United States to live as undocumented immigrants (Nava). These are just a few examples of the wide range of indigenous representation in the US film market.

When compared to the United States, film markets in Latin American countries utilize different methods of research and collaboration when crafting stories of indigenous life. Take for example Guatemala. Through three independent works Temblores, La Llorona, and Ixcanul famous director and writer Jayro Bustamante has been able to boost the local film industry while simultaneously commenting on discriminatory systems present within his home country. In her article published in the journal Pandora: Revue d'études hispaniques, researcher Diane Bracco explains how each of these films calls attention to a specific locally relevant social issue whether that be homophobia, ethno-racial injustice, or patriarchal systems (Bracco 2). Temblores features the story of a gay creole man who faces pressue from family and the church to change his “lifestyle” through their support of conversion therapy (3). In contrast, La Llorona is a fantastical film that blends Mesoamerican mythology with suspenseful policitcal intrigue to discuss the disappearance and genocide of an indigenous community at the hands of the Guatemalan government.

Ixcanul similarly discusses indigenous experiences, with special attention towards the oppression of women. The film details the story of a Mayan family living by a volcano with a daughter who is given up for marriage to her father’s business partner but becomes pregnant by another man (2). Ixcanul is Bustamante’s most acclaimed work even receiving the Alfred-Bauer Award at the Berlin International Film Festival. What makes this film so special is this not only its story but its production. To hone in on the indigenous perspectives, Bustamante shot the entire film in the Kaqchikel language and hired real indigenous people rather than professional actors. This production strategy encouraged inclusive research for his story as well as provided an opportunity to integrate indigenous communities into the Guatemalan film industry which ultimately has elevated the local market at a global level (4). In other words, he is a trailblazer. Although he grew up in the city, Bustamante does hold ethnic connections to indigenous culture as a mestizo man (4). His father was descended from Spain while his mother descended from a Kaqchikel line. These roots motivated Bustamante to use his professional film training from Guatemala, France, and Italy to uplift the voices of those affected by colorism and discrimination (5). Bustamante continues to advance the Guatemalan film market and even established the Ixcanul Foundation which uses cinema as a vessel for education and social change in Mayan and mestizo communities.

This developing industry, however, presents interesting questions surrounding the modernization of indigenous lifestyles. Is it better to integrate indigenous communities into the field of cinema or could this type of assimilation be considered a form of neocolonialism? According to Roberto Tzaj, a native speaker of K’iche from the Nahualá municipality in Sololá, Guatemala, the answer is not black or white. Tzaj reports that communities are adapting to a more technological way of life through access to the internet and other electronic products. Many community members do not analyze this digital shift in the light of colonization, but rather from an economic perspective (Tzaj). In a modern-day globalized culture that is increasingly dependent on telecommunication and cyberinfrastructure, many indigenous peoples can no longer survive financially solely by farm raising. So on the one hand, this technological advancement provides a new means of survival, however, it's a double-edged sword since many people still cannot access the tools necessary for this lifestyle. Tzaj reports advantages such as the ability to talk to long-distance relatives with cellphones as well as the increased digital competence of younger generations. However, disadvantages arise with the abandonment of ancestral agriculture and the inability of most community members to afford computers and other products that would allow them to stay up-to-date within a digital space. Bustamante as well recognizes the separation of indigenous and mestizo groups which fuels him to continue his initiatives in La Casa de Produccion and the Ixcanul Foundation. Despite the 71% indigenous majority in Guatemala, only the 9% creole population has access to movie theatres that only play Hollywood blockbuster films (Bracco 4-5). Therefore, it is evident that media does not appeal to indigenous groups even in countries where they are most prominent.

Considering the international hegemony of Hollywood cinema, there are multiple strategies that US filmmakers and artists can use to improve not only indigenous representation in media but also collaboration within and integration of these communities. Improvement within the Hollywood market could occur by hiring more BIPOC writers and filmmakers on productions that cover indigenous stories. This could help improve accuracy of their depictions, although some might argue that this strategy isn’t sufficient considering that indigenous people are not a monolith. So ultimately hiring one indigenous writer, director, or producer does not automatically ensure verisimilitude in film. Another solution might include improvement in the research process which could be performed in a variety of ways. Writers could do extensive research of articles about these cultures, travel to villages abroad, or speak with indigenous peoples directly.

To further verify the accuracy of their writing, creators could send translated scripts to these villages and have a representative indigenous group provide input on the screenplay. This method, however, presents the same monolith issue of the previous solution and also implies that non-indigenous creators need to be held responsible for indigenous stories when it could be argued that it is not their place. However, the US film industry could:

• venture into more internationally collaborative strategies to eliminate imprecise indigenous caricatures and phase out exploitative filmmaking methods.

• partner with prominent studios in Latin American countries to help forward their stories and back them with large budgets.

• (given the rise in streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime) step out of the production process altogether and rather elevate industries with access to indigenous populations so that those communities can reap the economic benefits of their vulnerability.

These collaborative methods exceed the effort of preventing problematic storytelling by engaging in advocacy for the unheard. The international influence of the US film market has the power through advertisement and endorsement to help develop cinema in Latin American countries and bring their industries into the global spotlight.

Despite the controversies surrounding ethnic caricatures in Hollywood, the United States film market does have a variety of indigenous representations that hold cultural and societal weight on a global scale. When compared, indie and studio system films often differ in the accuracy of these depictions as a result of their diverse target audiences. To remedy lapses in ethno-racial and cultural understanding, Hollywood can improve by partnering with film industries in Latin American countries on productions or even endorsing independent projects within these markets. This advocacy-based approach not only improves representation and education of indigenous cultures, but also ensures that these communities reap the economic benefits of their vulnerability.