The Count of Casa Bayona: Kind or Drunk?

By Andrea D. Espinoza, with comment by Ed Tabor

[1] In La Ultima Cena (The Last Supper), director Tomas Gutierrez Alea gives us a gruesome vision of eleven heads on pikes that tower above a plantation. These heads belong to eleven of the twelve slaves that the Count of Casa Bayona invited to dinner after handpicking them out of a line-up. The story Gutierrez Alea tells us is that the Count had their heads mounted after they betrayed his trust and almost destroyed his plantation. However, Gutierrez Alea also tells us that the slaves did these actions only after the Count reneged on the promises he made to those slaves at that very dinner. So the question that arises is this: When the Count made those promises to the twelve slaves, was he being kind and sincere or was he merely drunk?

[2] To begin, the mission of the Count de Casa Bayona at the start of the film is to win the hearts of ALL his slaves. So he decides the quickest way to do that is for him to show his entire slave population that he cares about their “Welfare.” How does he do it? It’s very simple. He chooses twelve of his male slaves, and he decides to make examples out of them. Now, the number twelve is incredibly important to Christians everywhere, especially Roman Catholics, because it is the number of disciples that Jesus had. In my opinion, I feel that the Count chose twelve slaves because he thought that by winning them over, he would eventually win over the entire slave populace: “And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19).

[3] This action then prompts one to think critically. Does the Count consider himself to be the Son of Man? As the owner of the plantation, he is indeed at the top of the pyramid. He is the person who pays the salaries, receives the profits, and represents the ideal way of life to those who are under him. His farcical comparison of himself to Christ continues when he decides to re-enact Christ’s washing of his disciples’ feet during Holy Thursday Mass. The slaves, not used to such treatment, laugh because their feet are ticklish, and they end up splashing water on the Count, which is humiliating, to be sure, but he still goes through with it as though nothing is wrong at all.

[4] However, the true question arises from events that take place at the dinner prepared for the Count and the twelve. This dinner is prepared as though the people who are eating it will not be alive to see another day. I guess we could say that this is why the title La Ultima Cena was chosen. There is a great amount of food, and the lechon asado (roast pig) in the middle of it all truly illustrates the decadence of the sumptuous dinner. I found this incredibly hilarious considering the fact that in the days of the Count, no Catholic was supposed to eat meat during Lent, especially during Holy Week. For me, that is an incredibly important observation, since the Count seems to place a great deal of importance in the Church, and yet he disregards one of the most important rules at the time in order to show his “disciples” a good meal.

[5] As the meal continues, the diners become more and more open with the Count about life, and he becomes more and more proselytizing. He brings up the story of the Last Supper, in which Christ and his disciples feasted on bread and wine. The lie that he tells them is the most fascinating and, in my opinion, one of the most blasphemous: “the saints, his disciples, who were his slaves.” That threw me for a loop, because the last time I checked Christ’s disciples were not his slaves. They chose to follow him. This is also the time at which he frees Pascual from his final year of slavery. This is the true “aww” moment in the film. A master freeing his old slave from slavery. Doesn’t it make you want to cry? It made me laugh instead. However, a fascinating event happens to the Count after this. When the Count summons the renegade slave Sebastian to sit next to him, he asks Sebastian this question: “I ask you in the name of Christ, who am I?” He gets his response as saliva in the face. The Count recovers from this insult and says “Like Christ, who was stoned and spat at, I can humble myself before my slaves.” Now, any person seeing this would at first think that he was being kind. However, in reality, what master would free his slave right before a necessary order goes out? Furthermore, what master would allow a slave to live after the slave spits on him? I’ve never heard of this at all. Now, the film says that it is based on a miracle that happened on Maundy Thursday in 1789, and the fact that a slave master is feeding his slaves at his own table is a miracle enough.

[6] During the his time of story-telling, the Count tells two stories that give us a clue into his persona, and these tales both end with the moral that the slave must accept his suffering, because he would be rewarded in Hereafter. (Translation: Slavery is truly divine, and those who happily accept its yoke shall be seated with God in heaven upon death.) Eleven of the slaves are happy about this, because there is no control over them in Paradise. After these two tales, the count falls blissfully asleep.

[7] This last part of the dinner scene is one that is truly important to understanding what exactly happened at that dinner table. Why would he tell these specific tales? The first one was about Saint Francis and Brother Leo, and the second tale was about the loss of the Garden of Eden. Does the count think that Blacks are Eve, drawn into sin through the temptation of the serpent? Are they so weak-willed that slavery is a necessity to keep them away from life’s ills? Does the Count think that the perfect joy is to suffer for the Lord? To endure hardships willingly with a lovely smile? Does he believe that the slaves are above him because they willingly suffer? I ask these in questions because his actions are confusing. He frees one slave yet still exalts slavery as though it is a task he would gladly take on in order to enter heaven.

[8] Natalie Zemon Davis says this about the events of Holy Thursday:

The washing of feet on Maundy Thursday and the Last Supper as reenacted by the count are both examples of ‘rites of inversion’ --of the world turned upside down. High becomes low, and low becomes high; boundaries of social and political hierarcy are temporarily effaced. For some, the topsy-turvy experience is blowing off steam, to be followed by a return to normal order. But for others, the reversal can flow into regular life, as the memory of liminal openness changes expectations. Both of these consequences emerge from the Count’s dinner, partly because his guests had something of their own to say. (66)

I agree with Davis’s analysis of this entire film wholeheartedly. La Ultima Cena is a perfect example of social role reversal. While this social experiment was induced by the role of privilege, it still turned everyone on its head. The Count went into this experiment expecting his slaves to become more loyal to him. However, because he gave up more of himself than he intended to, through the washing of feet and humility at the dinner table, the slaves realized that they did indeed have rights, even though what the Count promised them was supposed to be a standard law in Spanish lands. (see comment by Ed Tabor)

[9] One of the tales told at the dinner table by the slaves involves Truth and Lie. The god Olofi made Truth beautiful, and Lie ugly, but Lie had a machete from Olofi, because of his pity. During a fight one day, Lie cut off Truth’s head. Headless Truth found Lie’s head, ripped it off of his body, and put it on. Lie found Truth’s head and put it on. The Count de Casa Bayona is a perfect example of Lie walking around with the head of Truth, or vice versa. As a result, his actions at the dinner party are called into question. Was he being kind, or was he merely drunk when he made the promises he did? We may never know. All I know, however, is this: A person cannot put ideas into the world and expect no payback from the universe. That is like putting pumpkin seeds in a vegetable patch and not expecting a harvest.

Comments

Ed Tabor 8/18/12

While I like Davis’s reference to the “world turned upside down,” I’m not so sure that the Count intentionally flips the world to make his slaves more loyal. Usually such moments of freedom are permitted to avoid rebellion rather than create camaraderie. Cynric Williams wrote (in 1823) about the danger of interrupting these kinds of topsy-turvey moments. Many slave owners, perhaps the Count included, realized they were dealing with fire when it came to rebellious slaves. Whether such festivities actually made the slaves feel that they had rights is also up for debate. If we view only the actions of the Count, at the re-enactment of the Last Supper, we will see mostly kind actions. On the other hand, if we look at what he says, we find he desires nothing more than to squash any hope of freedom.

Works Cited:

Davis, Natalie Zemon. Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision. 1st ed. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000. 41-68. Print.