1492: Conquest of Misconception
By Jaime Miller, with comments by Caitlin Prozonic, Margaret Watters, Jena Viviano, Thomas Bianchi, and James
[1] Christopher Columbus is considered to be the patriarchal hero of America. He is thought this for one reason: Columbus "found" America. He found it, he named it, and we are all here because of him. In the eyes of America, he is a legend. He is a myth whose fiction diverges from the facts. Five hundred years after his discovery, we pay "homage" to him in a film based on his voyage. In 1492: Conquest of Paradise the audience supposedly sees an accurate portrayal of Columbus. But in a story filled with misconceptions, the movie version makes no distinction between fact and myth.
[2] From the moment the film begins, there is automatically a misconception. In the prologue, even before the introduction of the characters, the audience is prompted to see Columbus as hero, an icon, a man to be remembered for many generations. The prologue describes a ruthless Spanish Inquisition "that persecuted men for daring to dream. One man challenged this power." Yes, Columbus did challenge the power. But it is very unlikely that he was the sole man who challenged Spanish authority. No doubt there were other men, not as famous, who never received the recognition Columbus did. This heroification of Columbus is a complete construction on the part of writer Roselyne Bosch and Director Ridley Scott. (comment by James "Alec" Murphy)
[3] Columbus's first biographer is his youngest son, Fernando, notorious for portraying his father in high regard. The prologue ends (0:03:05) with the voice of this Fernando reminiscing about the words of his father: "Nothing that results from human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. And those who are enlightened before the others are condemned to pursue that light in spite of others." There is no record that Columbus actually said these words, nor others in the scene; they are a complete recreation by Bosch to establish Columbus as the mythic visionary explorer. (see comment by Caitlin Prozonic)
[4] This opening scene is meant to depict Columbus as the good father, the teaching father. (see comment by Thomas Bianchi) While he may have been these things, this opening scene is primarily aimed at us, the audience. We are to look at Columbus through Fernando's eyes and react like him. In close-up we see Columbus the tender channel of new knowledge; in close-up we see honor in Fernando's eyes. With a twinkle in his eye, Columbus -- patriarchal hero -- gently guides his biological child and his cultural children to view the "new dawn" so effectively lit in the scene.
[5] But the scene is plainly ineffective. Director Scott uses an orange to help Columbus demonstrate the world as round. Perhaps this strategy would have worked better had Fernando not looked as if he were ten or eleven. In fact, ignorance about the shape of the world is another misconception. Fernando is not supposed to know that the world is round, but in Spain at the time of Columbus, it was already known that the world is round. Thus, had Fernando attended school, he would have learned this lesson already, and to begin the film in this way is to insult the contemporary audience.
[6] And thus this movie about Columbus on the 500th anniversary of his feat begins -- filled with misconceptions and misquotes.
Comments
Jaime claims "this movie about Columbus on the 500th anniversary of his feat begins -- filled with misconceptions and misquotes." While this criticism is not untrue, it is the direction of Miller's blame that may be slightly misplaced. Roselyne Bosch and Director Ridley Scott, who, in this essay, are blamed for transferal of false quotes, inappropriate characterizations, and a lack of temporal continuity are only story tellers, not historians. While Miller's tone more than suggests a negative attitude toward them doing so, it is not their job to write the history book, it is their job to entertain. We also should realize that the misconceptions are not being created by them. The lack of societal knowledge of those who challenged Spanish authority and the portrayal of Columbus as a omnipotent hero are simply Bosch's and Scott's reflection of these widespread misbeliefs. Don't kill the messenger. Just because they add in a few catch phrases and symbolic ornaments does not mean their intent is to "insult the contemporary audience." Lighten up.
It is clear that many facts in this movie have been falsely portrayed. However, maybe the point of this film is not to concentrate on the facts of Columbus’s history as we, Americans over 500 years later, should know or may not know, but to focus on the love that Columbus’s son, Fernando, had for his father. Jaime Miller even admits that Fernando was known to give his father high praise. Though this is not a clear interpretation by the way that the film is presented, could it be possible that we are to view this film through Fernando’s eyes? When the movie begins, we, the viewers, have Fernando as our narrator and as the child attentively listening to Columbus. Fernando, both as a child and once grown, clearly idolizes his father. Even at the ending, it finishes with Columbus talking to his son as Fernando writes about his father’s life. The film is bookended with Fernando showing the respect that he has for his father. Is it possible that maybe this film is so biased towards Columbus not necessarily because Scott was trying to be historically accurate or politically correct, but because he wanted us to see Columbus as his son Fernando would have seen him, as a great explorer and leader? A son typically looks up to his father, and we, as Americans, are, in a sense, the children of Columbus. He has become the father of our illustrious history. Therefore, we honor his great achievement of discovery, even if his actions were not exactly always honorable. But we, like his own son, can look past his faults because we are his “children.†(see comment by Margaret Watters)
Along with the opening scene portraying Columbus as a teacher, there was the constant association of him with peace. During first contact, Columbus was the one to give the Natives a chance. He commanded that the other Spaniards put down their weapons. It appeared to me that he was the only one who truly wanted a relationship with the Natives throughout the movie. Every time a disregard for the Natives was mentioned in front of Columbus you could see the look on his face become partly upset and unsettled. When he arrived back to Spain after his first trip to the new world to meet with the queen, I could feel Columbus being bothered when all the assembled royalty ask about is gold. Eventually Sanchez even says that the gold the Natives had was nothing special anyway. The royalty also were extremely unsatisfied with the Natives themselves, their religion, and their general characteristics. The expression on Columbus's face seemed really bothered. Columbus even took responsibility for Moxica's treatment towards the Natives and puts him under arrest, and he also kills the Spaniards who freed him from jail. Not only was Columbus the teacher and the heroic sailer who discovered the new world, but he was also shown as the justice peace-maker.
It is true that Fernando never seems to become disillusioned with his father, while those around him, including his brother Diego, seem less enchanted. But when using a film to showcase history are artistic liberties such as those that fill this movie the right way to go about commemorating such an event? I don’t believe the film chose to “look past†Columbus’s faults but ignore them completely. But would it be so bad to portray Columbus accurately? I believe Americans can accept that no one, not even those figures in history whose actions have been romanticized, are perfect. Would it not be better to show Columbus as we know he was and celebrate how far we have come since the imperial time period? (see comment by Jena Viviano)
I agree with Margaret's thought, "[But] would it be so bad to portray Columbus accurately?" Would we really be harming our culture, our society as a whole? Doesn't the old adage go, "The truth will set you free"? I feel that 500 years later it is about time we understand how the European white men came and commandeered a perfectly flourishing society. It's about time that we realize the harm we caused the Natives and how we forced our beliefs and lifestyle on them. Some people may argue that destroying Columbus's image and unearthing the truth about him may cause immense controversy in regards to Columbus Day. In my opinion, I think that it is about time that Americans finally understand their heritage, to realize the mistreatment of the Natives, and to then press forward, comprehending that our society has come a long way since then. Columbus Day can still be a day of celebration: celebrating the advances we have made socially as a nation and as a modern culture. No, Columbus may not be the man we all thought/wanted him to be, but he was a part of our history. And whether he actually "discovered" America or not, Columbus still played a key role in the world we know today.
