Sean Lakind
Hist 178
Dr. Lohse
November 15, 2009
The Mission and its Usefulness as a Credible Historical Source
As a medium through which one can gain a knowledge of the Spanish missionaries in South
America during the mid-eighteenth century, The Mission provides a thorough and concise overview of
the historical context and political environment of the era. However, as a source from which one can
gain an understanding beyond an introductory level of the aforementioned period, The Mission falls
significantly short of the mark. In fact, at certain points in the film, several inconsistencies arise that may
conversely confuse the viewer, rather than providing the intended education. This can be seen in the
fact that throughout the film, the natives are referred to as savages, backed by the ideal, parallel with
the overall mood of the film, that they have no religion. On the other hand, in an attempt to defend the
native peoples’ integrity from Don Cabeza’s accusations of savagery, Father Gabriel describes them as
“naturally spiritual” (see Saeger, p. 402). Thus, in spite of the intentions of the filmmakers in creating as
historically accurate of a portrait as possible of eighteenth century missionaries in South America, even
bolstering the truthfulness of the events depicted in the film at it’s very conception, due to the
overwhelming inconsistencies within the film itself, in addition to those related to primary source
documents, as well as the very nature of movie production, The Mission, as well as a vast majority of
movies based on true historical events, does not offer enough accurate and consistent historical
information to be considered a useful and credible secondary source.
The scene in which Altamirano, Father Gabriel and his fellow Jesuits, and the natives are
together above the falls discussing the fate of their mission offers two key theatrical perspectives that
prove to be significant historical blunders, as evidenced by the primary source documents of the time,
such as the letter of Nicolas Nenguiru to the governor of Buenos Aires. First, the movie portrays the
discussion between Altamirano and the natives as going through the medium of Father Gabriel, as he is
one of the few who understands both the native and European languages, and is certainly the most
pronounced in his comprehension. However, there is a considerable amount of evidence that the
natives would have been bilingual, as well, and would have not needed a translator in their diplomatic
relations (Colonial Latin America, p. 309). The fact that a representative of the Guarani people
thoroughly and thoughtfully penned a letter to the governor in defense of his people is representative of
this fact, not only conquering the task of speaking in the European tongue, but representing a thorough
and absolute understanding of European governance as well as the church, citing repeatedly the
legitimacy of their settlements as endorsed by the Spanish crown, as well as the word of God. Granted,
while it is improbable that the entire Guarani peoples would have spoken Spanish or understood the
workings of the Spanish government, “their true words,” are represented in the letter, and in the
historical context, must be taken at face value (Colonial Latin America, p. 313). As it may seem,
transactions by way of letter writing may not make for the best of entertainment, but as evidenced by
the primary documents of the time, the deliberation scene above the falls was simply not the case.
Secondly, the movie portrays an unnatural bias by way of “Jesuit/good and Spaniard/bad,”
which is just not supported by the primary sources (Saeger, p. 399). In the film, the Jesuits are strongly
on the side of the natives, with little or no question as to whose efforts they are going to back. They
immediately question Altamirano’s decision, and in his very presence offer resistance to his cause,
guaranteeing the children that they will stay and protect them. However, in the very same letter from
Nenguiru, the Jesuits, while being given credit for their support and protection in earlier years, are
regarded as enemies, speaking “wrongly to persuade us to leave our pueblos and lose our well-being.”
Nenguiru then continues to question their very purpose in coming to the Guarani, as it makes little
sense as to why the Jesuits would have taken their grandparents from the mountains, to “congregate
and teach them just to send them away now” (Colonial Latin America, p. 312). While this does not
wholly condemn the Jesuits present in the mission as enemies of the Guarani, it certainly does deflate
their apparent steadfast and true nature as presented in the movie.
In light of the overwhelming evidence against the historical accuracy of the film, Saeger’s article
offers several contrasting, perhaps even unfounded, criticisms of the movie, which ultimately poke the
proverbial holes in his argument. Almost immediately, Saeger reviles the movie for its vast
ethnocentrism, as “Native Americans appear throughout, but no Indian viewpoint emerges, even though
creating three-dimensional Guaranis is as easy for film makers as it is difficult for historians” (Saeger p.
394). In this conception, Saeger scrutinizes the film-makers for not creating more of a Guarani-based
viewpoint. However, as Saeger notes, it is nearly impossible for historians, even those whose entire lives
are devoted to studying and understanding these cultures, to do so. Thus, by encouraging filmmakers,
who are most likely uneducated in the field other than a brief introductory knowledge, the end result of
a Guarani viewpoint would be, at best, speculative, and at worst, complete guesswork. The idea that
Saeger is here promoting the very concept that he is vilifying is completely detrimental to his argument,
leading to confusion and disorder amongst his following assertions.
Saeger also references a line from the very beginning of the movie where Altamirano is dictating
a letter to a scribe, saying “the Indians are once more free to be enslaved by the Spanish and Portuguese
settlers,” in an effort to convey the “ideological confusion” apparent in the film (Saeger, p. 395).
However, this line delivered by Altamirano is never recorded in the letter, and is even retracted upon
when he states that it was not “hitting the right note,” as he begins his dictation completely anew.
Instead, he focuses on the ingenious nature of the natives, taking to music and the gospel in manners fit
for Rome, supported by the proclamation issued in the first lines of Altamirano that some of the music
in Rome was, in fact, performed by natives of South America. Whether this is true or not is not the
matter at hand. Instead, the usage of the line immediately dismissed, even by the movie itself, does not
make for a sound argument for the “ideological confusion” evident in the movie; instead, it offers
dramatic effect, and little more.
By this, it is apparent that The Mission, and movies like it, should not be taken at face value, and
are not efficient learning tools by which to understand the nature of history. Specifically to the
perception of South American Jesuit missions, the Mission falls quite short of being wholly historically
accurate, but such is the nature of feature films. While the filmmaker’s immediate intentions might be
to create as accurate of a portrayal as possible of the intended subject matter, the fact is that there are
too many variables in movie production that can and will cause the film to drift from its anticipated
course. Things such as the unique character portrayal by the actors in their own vision of the story,
engaging dialogue added by writers and editors, and scenes removed and added by producers and
production companies to ensure the overall entertainment of their audience all account for means by
which the historical accuracy of a film can be diminished, often quite rapidly. Ultimately, it is imperative
to remember the primary goal of producing a film: to make money. In order to do so, filmmakers are
required to make their projects sufficiently entertaining, and when historical events and progressions do
not offer the entertainment sufficient enough to engage an audience, filmmakers are required to fill in
the gaps with their own creations, thus skewing the historical accuracy of the project. Thus, The Mission,
in spite of its flaws, can be seen as an excellent and engaging educational tool to be used by, perhaps,
high school and introductory college level courses, in order to provide a brief but thorough overview of
the situation affecting the South American missions in the 1750’s. However, to be used as more than
that, whether as a source for a scholarly paper, article, book, or otherwise, would be completely
irrational, as the sources and information available to the modern scholar, whether primary or
secondary, are far more informative and determinative than two hours worth of artificial dialogue, and
bare undertones of historiography.