I saw this with my brother in Edinburgh. We both have a keen interest in the real history, so I really wanted to like it, but I was, I suppose, inevitably disappointed with the artistic liberties taken in a film that is obviously not intended to document the real history. I could forgive them if they added something meaningful, but I'm not sure they did. The two of us endured rather than enjoyed an intensely brutal film. To me, the important core message was slightly spoilt by some fictitious & pointless violence, which slightly diverts attention from the small part of the very real genocide in the Tierra del Fuego depicted earlier & the whitewashing of events that came later. The truth is horrific enough. Why add the weird, apparently insane & even more psychopathic Colonel Martin character?
The real violence in the Tierra del Fuego wasn't random & insane like the Colonel's, it was calculated & cynical. Much like happened in every European settler colony, a landowner (really a wealthy squatter on native people's land), sends his henchmen to deal with the marginalised indigenous people who have resorted to living as "brigands" by stealing his sheep. It soon becomes clear that in this case, the mission is not to make a treaty or even take the Indians to the nearest courthouse, but simply to get rid of the problem ie kill all of the Indians, men, women & children. I personally feel there was too much focus on the goriness of the killings, which detracted from the humanity of the victims. Their deaths would have been more emotive, instead of being merely physically shocking, if we knew them a little as individuals. The massacre is followed in short order with a fictitious scene of random & pornographic violence between European settlers that as far I can tell, added nothing truthful or meaningful to the story. The weird, apparently pointless violence of the mysterious Colonel Martin diverted attention from the real history depicted before & after it, but to what end? Alexander MacLennan was a real person. By contrast, the fictitious Colonel Martin character seems to be like a Kurtz-like character, maybe more in the vein of 'Apocalypse Now' than 'Heart of Darkness'. I'm not sure I see the necessity for him in the story at all.
I can forgive the inclusion of an American mercenary. I suppose the cowboy was there to add some extra international interest in the film. European colonisation was often an international affair. I've not heard of any American mercenaries that far south, but it's not inconceivable. There were certainly settlers of varied nationality on either side of the border in Patagonia - as well as Spaniards & internal migrants, there were Italians, Welsh, Germans & Croats, for example.
I also would've preferred a more rounded & realistic, less over the top cynical depiction of life on the huge estancias at the start of the film. Many of the real shepherds in the Tierra del Fuego were Gaelic-speaking Scots who made reasonable incomes in the midst of the Highland Clearances. Some of those same settlers clearly didn't find life as a shepherd in the South Atlantic unbearable. Many either stayed put or when their contracts were up for renewal, if they didn't return to the Highlands & Islands of Scotland, a notable few were encouraged by the local British diplomatic representative to take part in the comparatively peaceful (ie genocide-free), early British colonisation of the relatively nearby Falkland Islands, where they continued to herd the same breed of Merino sheep with its high quality, expensive wool.
The depiction of the state propaganda of an independent settler society at the end - the making of the local version of the comforting national myth all New World countries like to tell themselves - rescued the film a bit, but overall, the film seemed to enjoy violence just a bit too much for me. Sometimes less is more. Even 'Schindler's List' was less horrific than this. We don't get to know the victims of genocide as people before meeting their doom in this film. I think this is another fatal flaw. There is merely a shocking gore-fest with a disturbing obsession with sexual violence for good measure instead.
The real violence in the Tierra del Fuego wasn't random & insane like the Colonel's, it was calculated & cynical. Much like happened in every European settler colony, a landowner (really a wealthy squatter on native people's land), sends his henchmen to deal with the marginalised indigenous people who have resorted to living as "brigands" by stealing his sheep. It soon becomes clear that in this case, the mission is not to make a treaty or even take the Indians to the nearest courthouse, but simply to get rid of the problem ie kill all of the Indians, men, women & children. I personally feel there was too much focus on the goriness of the killings, which detracted from the humanity of the victims. Their deaths would have been more emotive, instead of being merely physically shocking, if we knew them a little as individuals. The massacre is followed in short order with a fictitious scene of random & pornographic violence between European settlers that as far I can tell, added nothing truthful or meaningful to the story. The weird, apparently pointless violence of the mysterious Colonel Martin diverted attention from the real history depicted before & after it, but to what end? Alexander MacLennan was a real person. By contrast, the fictitious Colonel Martin character seems to be like a Kurtz-like character, maybe more in the vein of 'Apocalypse Now' than 'Heart of Darkness'. I'm not sure I see the necessity for him in the story at all.
I can forgive the inclusion of an American mercenary. I suppose the cowboy was there to add some extra international interest in the film. European colonisation was often an international affair. I've not heard of any American mercenaries that far south, but it's not inconceivable. There were certainly settlers of varied nationality on either side of the border in Patagonia - as well as Spaniards & internal migrants, there were Italians, Welsh, Germans & Croats, for example.
I also would've preferred a more rounded & realistic, less over the top cynical depiction of life on the huge estancias at the start of the film. Many of the real shepherds in the Tierra del Fuego were Gaelic-speaking Scots who made reasonable incomes in the midst of the Highland Clearances. Some of those same settlers clearly didn't find life as a shepherd in the South Atlantic unbearable. Many either stayed put or when their contracts were up for renewal, if they didn't return to the Highlands & Islands of Scotland, a notable few were encouraged by the local British diplomatic representative to take part in the comparatively peaceful (ie genocide-free), early British colonisation of the relatively nearby Falkland Islands, where they continued to herd the same breed of Merino sheep with its high quality, expensive wool.
The depiction of the state propaganda of an independent settler society at the end - the making of the local version of the comforting national myth all New World countries like to tell themselves - rescued the film a bit, but overall, the film seemed to enjoy violence just a bit too much for me. Sometimes less is more. Even 'Schindler's List' was less horrific than this. We don't get to know the victims of genocide as people before meeting their doom in this film. I think this is another fatal flaw. There is merely a shocking gore-fest with a disturbing obsession with sexual violence for good measure instead.