In history, there are two sides to every story – the side of the “victor” and that of the “loser.” Often times, historical interpretations of past events and eras have an altered or biased view of the world that fails to rightfully acknowledge those who had been oppressed or conquered – those on the “losing” side. The film La Otra Conquista aims to dispel myths and hyperbolic interpretations of the Spanish conquest of the Americas that place only the Spanish as winners.
Using emotionally driven cinematography and a killer soundtrack to match, writer and director Salvador Carrasco enlightens viewers about the other conquest” and opens their minds to the underlying themes present during the conquest. Through symbolism, the film explores an overarching sense of duality, parallelism, and resistance found between two cultures – a friction between two competing interests that fear they are not too different after all. The film also portrays historical events with almost painful accuracy.
Within this context of duality, the film plays the role of a historical revisionist seeking to reinterpret the conquest as an event with two distinctly separate outcomes. Additionally, it uses historical references to comment on the roles of women, bureaucracy, and interpretation/language in Colonial Latin America. The following analysis will explore topics central not only to the film but also to the era. The Popol Vuh, also known as the “definitive Mayan bible,” outlines the story of a people’s creation.
This creation myth, unlike the one found in the Christian Bible, places strong emphasis on aspects of duality that are common on Earth – notions of good and bad, light and dark, man and woman – suggesting a common humanity. The film outlined several of these notions, highlighting the importance of similarities and differences between Catholicism and native ritual, Spanish and Indian cultures as well as between physical and spiritual realms.
The title of the story suggests a double meaning, implying that there were two conquests – possibly reflecting Aztec resilience and faith in the face of Spanish influence. The protagonist, Topiltzin, is brought back to the capital by his brother. Upon speaking with him again, his brother states that We must adapt to survive,” to which Topiltzin responds, “I don’t adapt, I know who I am!” This statement sets the context for the plot where Topiltzin ultimately meets his demise under the Virgin Mother.
When Topiltzin arrives, he is given the name Tomas. This name means twin” in the biblical sense, and it sets Topiltzin’s destiny. He serves as a dual protagonist, caught between two conquests. On one hand, he represents one of his native deities (possibly Quetzalcoatl). On the other hand, he represents the Catholic God. However, tension arises when Topiltzin only commits his body to the Virgin but not his mind. He states: “Holy Mother! Into your hands I commend my body! But my spirit never.”
This describes the mission of the holy Spanish crown: to wage a war that sought not only to capture a people’s mind, heart, ritual, and soul; but also to acquire physical and economic success in terms of land, gold, and subjects (slaves/new taxable citizens). Another parallel found in the film is a deep resistance on both sides to assimilate and adjust. As Burkhart states in Holy Wednesday, Despite the forces that obliged them to interact with one another, Nahuas and Spaniards inhabited separate realities. Nahuas imposed their own interpretations on the Hispanic world as Spaniards did on the Nahua world” (40).
During the scene where Topiltzin is publicly punished and the Virgin Mary begins to cry, as well as in the scene where the protagonist dies, it can be inferred that Topiltzin is not acting as a firmly individualized personality. Instead, he is an unstable assemblage of parts while wearing a costume of a deity. This makes him the manifestation of both Jesus and a Nahua god (44). In both scenes, the regalia represented the god via metonymic substitution. The god’s identity added itself to the aggregate of components that compromised the person while both personages were fully present (44).
Topiltzin’s assimilation into Catholicism was a ploy by indigenous peoples to keep their deities alive. This was done through the use of another culture’s icons and rituals. However, there was resistance and tension between both parties during the process. Tecuichupo translated for Cortes to Topiltzin but did not translate word for word. Instead, she gave a native version of the interpretation, communicating the Nahua reality.
As Tecuichpo told Friar Diego, Some things can only be said in Mexican, Your Excellency,” providing for what Burkhart called the “predicament of culture” that was often purposefully played out in Nahua interpretation of customs, language, and texts (40). The filmmaker highlighted the differences found on the surface while reinforcing the intrinsic similarities between Catholicism and Nahua ritual. The film also portrayed aspects of colonial Spanish bureaucracy that defined the era. It illustrated how men of the crown were often at odds with those of the military and cloth.
It is evident in the scene of public punishment where Friar Diego is left to interrupt the actions of Capitan Cristobal Quijano that were approved by Cortes. According to Phelan, the Church threw its considerable weight toward the protection of native rights while the law reflected something otherwise” (54). The law believed them to be inferior while the Church saw them as potential equals that needed to be converted and assimilated. At the time, the bureaucracy constituted multiple partly dependent and independent agencies that created tension between government ranks (Phelan, 63).
The different parties involved had different forms of conquest in mind. The clergy sought spirituality and a Christian New World, while the central government sought legitimized power and new revenues conferred to them in The Requiremento. The military establishment, on the other hand, sought conquest and power. As Phelan stated, the Spanish bureaucracy had a set of different goals and standards with no single guiding goal or objective” except for “self-perpetration” (62). In the end, the protagonist – or rather, the oppressed – has recovered their mother goddess in a display that demonstrates shared humanity and cultural tolerance found in both the Popol Vuh and Bible.
It also raises the question, Are we so different after all?” The film provides a deep level of insight concerning a less popular view of history, paralleling much of the primary source material from that era. After viewing the film, one is left wondering who really ended up as the victors and what implications it has on society today.
Finally, in the former scene, the mother whispers to her child, “This is my body, this is my blood. Even though your skin is white, I will never abandon you.” This acts as an indication that the subsequent mixed race will give birth to a new society – much like modern-day Mexico. The impact of this is evident today through modern Catholic ritual that suggests polytheism, modern Latin American bureaucracy that often conflicts with itself and the socio-political roles of indigenous peoples and women. As Topiltzin stated in the beginning: “All this happened to us. We saw it. It touched us. This was our fate. By putting it down on paper, our essence shall live on.”
