Emasculation by Digestion
By Alexander Vernak, with comments by Kelley Higgins, Jonathan Zubkoff, Andrew Tye, and Anthony Pascale
[1] Atanarjuat deals quite intimately with the relationship between good and evil. Though much of this involves aspects of the supernatural, there are many instances in which a practical application of both good and evil takes precedence. One such instance takes place when Tulimaq is given the hind parts to eat by Sauri. In this scene, evil manifests itself in the form of an adulteration of the patriarchal society in which Atanarjuat is set. Tulimaq, the character who represents good, is emasculated and ostracized from the community by Sauri, the character who is a representation of evil, and his allies. (see comment by Kelley Higgins)
[2] Before this scene, Tulimaq’s fate is made quite clear. After Kumuglak’s death in his fight with Tuurngarjuaq, others predict the humiliation that Tulimaq must suffer. Because he was Kumuglak’s assistant, he was obviously at risk of suffering in his absence. As the scene including Kumuglak’s death concludes, the camera focuses on Tulimaq’s face, and a voice can be heard saying, “Tulimaq is the one they’ll go after now.†With these words, Tulimaq’s fate quickly becomes reality. Everything from socializing to providing for his family becomes difficult. His struggles hunting and his suffering at the hands of Sauri, the new leader, are a necessity to establish the truly remarkable nature of his offspring’s eventual rise to respectability.
[3] As this scene begins, Tulimaq enters the igloo having just returned from an unsuccessful hunt. Because he did not have success hunting, he is offered some food “for his wife’s empty belly.†Immediately the discord between him and other characters in the igloo is clear. As Tulimaq enters, Sauri is sitting licking his knife while belching and mocking the clearly dejected Tulimaq. The licking of the knife, which is covered in blood, depicts the savagery of Sauri. The imagery of blood, the life force of another creature in many traditions, shows a general disregard for life. The fact that this act of licking the knife is preceded and followed by belching and rude language just furthers Sauri’s savage character. This behavior is not that of the prototypical patriarch. The lack of refinement in language and behavior undermines the form of societal structure that existed before Kumuglak’s death .
[4] Looking more carefully at the dialogue of the scene further reveals Sauri’s motives. Most of his words towards Tulimaq are in an effort to completely emasculate him. Addressing the difficulties he has been having hunting, Sauri says to Tulimaq, “Tulimaq! The great Hunter! Your share is the rear end as usual.†He says this all while laughing at him. It is during this moment that one would expect a man to stand up for himself. Tulimaq, however, knows that he must absorb this public humiliation in order to provide for his family. For this reason he holds his tongue and accepts the ridicule. Sauri knows Tulimaq must accept whatever insults are hurled his way. The humiliation of Tulimaq is Sauri’s vehicle to assert his superiority amongst the men of their community. Picking on a man who is in a position of weakness, especially one who advocated the previous patriarch further bolsters his prominence. (see comment by Kelley Higgins)
[5] Sauri’s attempts to assert himself do not end there. “Maybe your wife is a better hunter?†says Sauri. “You can stay home tomorrow and do the cooking and sewing!†In a patriarchal society where hunting is the primary source of sustenance, the role of the men is to hunt and provide for their families. The simple act of him having to be given food is already emasculating enough. Further questioning his manhood by suggesting he and his wife should switch roles is beyond comprehension. Not only does that insult him, but also his plight to feed his family is obviously at the forefront of his mind. This most definitely puts a strain on his already weathered pride and general feeling of a lack of purpose while he struggles with poor luck hunting.
[6] The other element of this scene worth examining is the reaction of Panikpak. While all others in the igloo laugh as Tulimaq is ridiculed, she sits by herself and seems to feel for him. Tulimaq was one of the few people who stood up for her husband, the previous patriarch, in his death. She is also alone, which explains why she provides Tulimaq and his family with more food in the next scene. Those who represent good in Atanarjuat seem to realize that if they maintain their bond better times will be on the horizon. Until then, however, it is their common misery that they must realize and their solidarity that they must maintain. (see comment by Jonathan Zubkoff)
[7] In the scene following Tulimaq’s emasculation, the foreshadowing of his offspring’s eventual rise is made abundantly clear. When Penikpak brings them the food, she says to Tulimaq, attempting to ease the humiliation he just suffered, “They [the children Atanarjuat and Amaqjuat] will help us all some day.†Despite his current state of distress, he must realize that the future holds brighter times. Before the film flashes forward, he seems to make this realization. “When my sons grow up I’ll never be treated like this again,†he says. Despite the terrible disgrace he suffered at the hands of Sauri, Tulimaq maintains his hope for the future. As the film unfolds, we see that his hope was not in vain.
[8] This scene in Atanarjuat is a perfect precursor for the rest of the film. It establishes the lack of balance between those who represent good and those who represent evil. The wonderful thing about the evil depicted in this scene is its basis in reality. The horrors of corrupt power and the pain of mockery are very real manifestations of evil. For this reason, the emasculation of Tulimaq serves as more than a simple example of public mockery. It is the real world application of all that is evil and corrupt in the society in which Atanarjuat is set.
Comments
The intimate relationship between good and evil is extremely relevant to the film because of its origin as an Inuit legend and not a fictional love story. Director Kunuk tells us that the story was one often told by elders to their children at bedtime, and therefore we are able to establish a connection between what we originally thought of as a very distant, peculiar plot and own our culture. Just as our parents told us stories of good vs. evil and we watched the creations of Walt Disney, which emphasized the same moral issues, Atanarjuat served the same purpose hundreds of years before in supplying a role model for the youth and a guide in the development of their characters.
The emphasis on the hind parts of the meat given to Tulimaq by Sauri is a representation of the maliciousness of Sauri, but a question worth asking here is why Sauri even shared any meat with Tulimaq? If Sauri filled the role of the villain and his motive was to completely emasculate Tulimaq, why include any aspect of good through the act of sharing? Sauri could have not given Tulimaq and his family any cut of the meat. Perhaps this is a point at which aspects of their hunter-gathering tribe-like culture counteracts complete evilness because these primitive societies were often marked by egalitarianism and valuing the group over the individual. Because an act of withholding all food from Tulimaq would not fit in with the customs of the Inuit culture, this may be a careful integration of the concept of evil while preserving the educational aspect of the film in revealing true Inuit beliefs. But, then again, if we’re focusing on a fable whose purpose was to preach good vs. evil, why detract from the evil at all considering sharing is an act representative of good motives? (see comment by Anthony Pascale)
With respect to the question of why to include any aspect of good through the act of Sauri sharing even just the hind quarter of the meat with Tulimaq, I think you are on the right track in saying that it has to do with their egalitarian society and their tribal culture. I believe that, due to the nature of their lifestyle, Sauri could not outright deny Tulimaq any food without risk of being considered a bad leader and potentially feeling repercussions from the other members of the tribe. These people are not in a position to waste food; someone must eat the bad parts; therefore the most evil he could do to Tulimaq was to give him the absolute worst cut of meat. Had Sauri completely denied food to Tulimaq and his family, I believe that the society probably would have removed him as their ruler. Without any justification, it does not make sense for Sauri to starve valuable members of the tribe. The Inuit people thrive by mutually benefiting from the resources and skills of each other. It would put the tribe at significant risk to lose even just a few members of the group; to continue his role as a good and strong leader, Sauri is most likely pressured to share at least the bad parts of meat with Tulimaq. His act of sharing is not an act of good but rather an act of necessity.
The reaction of Panikpak provides hope for both Tulimaq and us as film viewers. Up until this time, things are looking pretty bad for the "good people" in Igloolik. Their leader has been killed, and Sauri has taken over in a selfish rage. Panikpak providing food for the two little sons provides hope that these two will become the saviors of the village. However, it is not unreasonable to question why we are supposed to believe this. Why should we believe Panikpak who sat there while her husband fell over dead? How does she know something that will happen twenty years down the road? This is part of the reason why I personally cannot relate to the film, It asks the viewer to believe that spirits existed and that the elders knew of something happening years down the road. I ask myself that if they could see that happening, why could they not see the evil Shaman coming. Perhaps I am just rambling, but after viewing the movie twice now, there are many holes that I don't think can be answered and that we are simply asked to accept. (see comment by Andrew Tye)
Despite the obvious holes in the plot pointed out by Jon, i think our culture has many of the same "blind faiths" that may seem normal to us but are unusual to others. The example I keep coming back to is about death and tragedy. It seems like when people feel as though they have lost everything or something very important to them, they turn to a greater being for guidance and support. People always talk about how when someone dies they are "going to a better place" or that this was "God's intention." Although this may hold true in Inuit culture, I think the comparison to note here is that both Panipak's "mystisicm" and a belief in the afterlife/a greater being both serve to provide comfort and explain things that otherwise may be unexplainable. Although we see this "fortune telling" as a "hole" in the plot, do you think Inuit's or people in other cultures see our perception of a greater being as a hole in our culture? (see comment by Jonathan Zubkoff)
I think my whole point rested on the fact that I viewed the film as a linear story that I thought didn't make too much sense. I still believe this because I don't see how the Evil Shaman could have an impact twenty years down the road, without having much of one, as far as we know, before the Oki/Atarnajuat conflict. I do realize that this is a legend that is over 1000 years old and that the fact that I don't believe what the Inuit people believe probably clouds my judgment. My main point was that I don't think the people of Igloolik were doing very poorly under Sauri's rule. They still shared food, they built igloos together, and they settled things in the most fair, albeit brutal way possible. We see this happening before Oki decides to go nuts and start killing people, so to say that the Shaman was with them the entire time up to that point is a statement that I don't really accept. As far as our culture is concerned, I agree with most of what others stated. There are many things in our culture that I am sure the Inuit people would not make sense of. Also, the comments of the director show that we have already tried to force our culture upon them, because we did not find their beliefs acceptable/explainable. What I would be curious to know is if the Inuit people living today would agree with the plot holes that I pointed out. If they did, maybe this would show that "our world" has interacted with theirs beyond a point of going back. If that's true, then I would almost argue that this movie has lost a lot of its significance. The fact that there were two sequels makes me think otherwise.
