Led Like Dogs

By Kelsey Cannon

[1] In “And They Did it Like Dogs in the Dirt: An American Indian Analysis of Black Robe,” Ward Churchill criticizes Black Robe director Bruce Beresford for what he sees as anthropological errors so egregious that they must have been intentional. Such errors as the murder of the Algonquin child and the projected murder of Annuka, decisions by men rather than the Clan Mothers, relate particularly to the portrayal of the Iroquois tribe and their violent nature. Churchill states:

In a project as exhaustively researched as Beresford’s, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that “errors” of such magnitude were unintentional. Hence, it is difficult to conclude that the extent to which the Mohawks [Iroquois] were misrepresented, and the nature of that misrepresentation, were anything other than a deliberate exercise in vilification. (126-27)

In spite of Churchill’s objections to what he sees as Beresford’s deliberate vilification of the Iroquois, the scene in which the Iroquois capture Father LaForgue, Daniel, Chomina, Annuka, and the young boy serves many other symbolic purposes in the movie. Given the dark scenery and foreboding music, it is obvious the viewer is supposed to interpret the group’s predicament as dire and likely terminal when they are prisoners of the Iroquois tribe. However, the adversity the group faces—after previously being splintered by differing opinions—serves as a catalyst for character development that ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the film. Arguably, it is this change in their collective relationship that sets up Black Robe as a progressive film.

[2] Roughly lead by ropes around their necks, the group—French and natives alike—are treated like animals being taken to slaughter. The aggression of the Iroquois towards LaForgue and Daniel did not surprise me, given their status as foreign invaders and LaForgue’s efforts to convert the natives to Christianity. However, the degree of hostility towards Chomina, Annuka, and the native child did confuse me at first. Even knowing that different tribes were often at odds with and aggressive towards one another, as a viewer I would still interpret the relationship between native tribes to be one of alliance rather than maliciousness in the face of a common enemy, the French. Of course, Beresford’s depiction is historically accurate (the Iroquois were allies of the English), and, in agreement with Churchill’s argument, the Iroquois act as the villains—an odd contrast to the mostly peaceful Algonquin tribe.

[3] Instead of upholding any kind of alliance based on native culture, the forebodingly painted Iroquois force Chomina, Annuka, and the child to meet the same fate as their French companions, further reflecting the Iroquois as the savage villains that serve as the subject of Churchill’s lamentations. The Iroquois, dressed elaborately in animal skins and painted dramatically with dark colors, starkly contrast the more subdued images of natives previously seen in the movie, thereby portraying them as more savage and barbaric than the others. Essentially, the separation of the Iroquois from the tribe of Chomina and Annuka (and at the end of the film, the Hurons) creates, in a movie praised for its projection of equality, inequality by conveying different levels of savagery. It is as if there are tribes of natives more savage than others, so while Beresford’s work serves to depict the dueling struggles of natives and settlers in an equal light, the use of a native group as the “villains” does project the idea that natives who cooperate with the Europeans are inherently “better,” more civilized, and less savage.

[4] While the relationship between LaForgue, Daniel, Chomina, and Annuka breaks the mold of previously conveyed stories of natives and foreign missionaries, the contrast of the actions of the Algonquins and their general (though sometimes begrudging) acceptance of the French to those of the indiscriminately hostile Iroquois creates a secondary social food chain of refinement. Clearly, the French missionaries, with their technologies—like the clock, writing, and various instruments—and their tightly buttoned European clothing, exist at the top of this newly formed social pyramid. Where all other natives fall, previous to the encounter with the Iroquois, would be “below” the French. However, once the violent Iroquois tribe enter the viewer’s psyche, the Algonquins float somewhere in the middle of the social hierarchy simply by becoming victims of the more brash and aggressive Iroquois. Consequently, this social mobility aligns the Algonquins closer with the French than their own native geographical neighbors—an alliance which endures for the remainder of the film.

[5] The alliance between the French and Chomina and Annuka evolves into a relationship of mutual respect, and perhaps even friendship, when the four characters face captivity together. After being lead like dogs on leashes back to the Iroquois village, the three men are forced to endure a run through a tunnel of Iroquois men beating them with clubs and sticks as they go by. Chomina, already weary from the earlier fight, falls while he takes his turn running through the tunnel of brutalization. Instead of saving himself, Father LaForgue, having made it most of the way through already, runs back to Chomina to help him to his feet, protecting him from many of the remaining blows as they run together to the end. This scene of captivity, while Churchill finds it disagreeable—and it is, to some extent unfair in its portrayal—is an episode in which the four main characters, lead by Chomina and LaForgue, evolve into that of a team rather than a cooperating quartet. In spite of the fact that dissension still exists among them, each member does contribute to protect the others in some fashion (LaForgue doesn’t cry out when he loses his finger, Annuka gives up her body to free the others, etc.), leading the viewer to believe that they are, in fact, a team.

[6] Consequently, we can argue in opposition to Churchill. Yes, the Iroquois are villainized, perhaps deliberately. However, their vilification serves a purpose -- uniting the protagonists of the film across their cultural barriers. The situation they face with the Iroquois brings them closer together, each making effort to preserve their pack, first out of promises and then, perhaps, out of fragmented friendship.