Cannibalism Isn’t So Bad
By Zachary Carter, with comment by Kim Weber
[1] How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman (1971) is a film in which the title gives away the climactic ending. The Tupinambas are a cannibalistic tribe who decide to eat a captured Frenchman. The Frenchman spends the film assimilating into this foreign culture, and the audience comes to recognize that the Tupinambas are not very much different from other Indian cultures around the world and featured in other films. This final scene illustrates the chasm between the Tupinambas’ culture and Europeans. In the last scene of the film, the ritual performed works to makes the Tupinambas look less barbaric and just a culture with a completely different set of values than the audience’s. The scene dispels initial revulsion to the title of the film and gives the audience a context in which we can understand why the tribe practices cannibalism.
[2] Upon careful analysis of this last scene, a few revealing details become clear that explain why this scene is so instrumental in bridging the gap between outsiders and Tupinambas. Before the Chief strikes the Frenchman, he says, “I am here to kill you because your people have killed many of ours, and eaten them.†He provides justification for his actions and is seeking revenge for his people. This portrays the Tupinambas as even more humane than most European countries that lock up prisoners or seek revenge by raping and pillaging other countries. The Tupinambas provided a comfortable stay for him and, in doing so, allowed for him to die valiantly. He learned their language and understood their culture so that he could appreciate the meaning of the ritual and make his claim of vengeance. Although reluctant at first, the Frenchman does say his scripted line about his people avenging him. The audience does not see the Frenchman bludgeoned by the Chief because the shot cuts to a high angle and a very wide shot. We also do not see the tribe cook or eat the Frenchman. Only his wife Seboipebe is shown chewing. These intentional shot choices work to separate the audience from the physical act of cannibalism by showing it from afar and not showing the preparation at all. We do not see people reaching for arms and legs, just the ritual leading up to the meal and the afterword. (see comment by Kim Weber)
[3] The audience can develop sympathy for cannibals through dos Santos’s efforts to make this a film from the point of view of the Tupinambas. Todd Konrad praises Nicholas Peirera dos Santos for not falling into a stereotypical pitfall that most films do which deal with foreign cultures; the audience is given the point of view of the natives, and the European main character does not take control of the film. By not making the Frenchman “our protagonist†but, rather, “our guide†through the Tupinambas culture, audience biases against cannibals can be averted. Konrad claims, “while th[is] intention may be altruistic, time and again films with these sorts of plot lines become paternalistic and vaguely patronizing; essentially giving the heretofore unexamined culture legitimacy only when embraced by the outsider.†This authenticity and loyalty in creating a story about the Tupinambas is evident in the last scene of this film. A cannibalistic ceremony is carried out and the Frenchman is devoured. There are long and drawn out shots of the ceremony, in which we can see the carefully decorated Chief and Frenchman as well as the elaborate ritual. The Frenchman is not made a hero, nor have his efforts to assimilate and escape amounted to anything. We can look at the Tupinambas culture and understand how and why they operate in the way that they do without having to embrace the relatable outsider.
[4] Another humanizing quality to the cannibalistic ritual is explained by Roger Greenspun. He explains that the Indians kill prisoners for their crimes and eat them for their powers. This is an interesting concept that makes some logical sense; eating someone means you can take on their power and abilities. Although this may seem ridiculous to a Western audience, our notions about the world are based on our cultural customs as well. The mindset the Tupinambas have is foreign and threatening to most audiences, but upon watching the film and especially this scene, we can see that they are not much different than any other culture or tribe. They have a ritual and ceremony for those who have wronged the community. In this instance they kill the perpetrator. Their culture and society operate in a similar way to other Indian tribes, and the cannibalistic aspect has religious and spiritual undertones. There are strange things our society does in the name of religion, which may seem equally shocking to other cultures. For example, in Hinduism cows are revered as a symbol of life and may never be killed. These people must think Americans are barbaric and terrible people. This is similar to foreign opinions of cannibalism. This goes to show that these opinions are all a matter of perspective.
[5] This last scene is a capstone to a tribute to the Tupinambas culture and their intricate and interesting customs. This ritual is shot in such a way that we do not feel that cannibalism is barbaric, but rather a religious and spiritual ceremony with great meaning and honor placed upon those who are eaten. With long, drawn out shots, the details of the ceremony become clear. When the actual cannibalism takes place, the wide shots do not expose the gruesome aspects of eating another person. The function of cannibalism in Tupinambas society becomes evident as a legal and religious custom. As the finale to a film about cannibalism, this scene does a great job in dispelling preconceived notions about what to expect from a bunch of cannibals.
Comments
Unlike Carter, I found this lack of actual cannibalism to be disappointing. I felt like I was waiting and waiting for the cannibalism throughout the film and was disappointed with the lack of actual "feasting" that was shown. Although I do agree with Carter that this decision did distance the natives from the controversial practice, I didn't want them to be distanced. It is obvious throughout the movie that the tribe is cannibalistic, and we all knew the Frenchman's doom was only a matter of time, so why not emphasize the one scene that was probably the reason most people watched the film in the first place? I am quite repulsed by the notion of cannibalism and found myself relieved that I didn't have to watch much actual eating, but I was still quite surprised and disappointed. So much buildup and anticipation that didn't yield much payoff . . . .
