Die Abenteuer des Cabeza de Vaca

Very interesting and visually stunning movie, which paints a unique portrait of pre-European life in this region.

However, most of the story is fabrication, as other reviewers have pointed out, which is a shame and takes much away from the 'insight' that this film seems to give.

On the point of geography- This film joins the expedition part way through their journey after they have left the Florida peninsula and just before they land in the Galveston region. It is worth pointing out that at this time THE WHOLE OF THE REGION FROM THE Florida PENINSULA TO NORTHERN 'NEW SPAIN' (MEXICO) WAS REGARDED AS Florida, and so film characters talking about the land as Florida is historically accurate.

Very good film though and definitely worth a watch.

"Cabeza de Vaca" may be viewed as a surrealistic rumination on the nature of early contact between Europeans and North American Indians, but it has very little to do with the actual narrative of events as presented to Charles V by Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca in his 1542 report.

Viewers who may wonder about the rapid transition from Florida to the Southwest in the movie should realize that the opening scene depicting the separation of the rafts of Captain Narvaez and Cabeza de Vaca took place off the coast of Louisiana WEST of the Mississippi more than a year after their first landfall in Florida, despite the meager information provided in the opening credits. Cabeza de Vaca is also presented as Treasurer to the King of Spain, when in fact he was merely treasurer of that particular expedition.

And although the long sequence early in the movie showing Cabeza de Vaca's period of slavery to the Indian sorcerer and the armless dwarf is quite interesting to see, there is no corresponding incident in the explorer's writings. C de V did report on a brief period of enslavement, but that is all. No sorcerer, no dwarf.

Similarly, the bond created between C de V and the young Indian who he cures by removing an arrowhead is not in the original narrative, but rather a conflation of several different episodes from the journey.

The key scenes of capture and near-murder by the blue-painted Indians are wholly the creation of the screenwriter.

The movie has an inconsistent approach to nudity. Most of the Indian tribes encountered by C de V went entirely naked during the warm season, but are almost always shown with at least some kind of loincloth. However, during the "blue Indian" sequence and later, when the survivors are taken in by friendly Indians for a while, full nudity is present among the females, and even full-frontal on the part of an Indian girl who offers herself to one of C de V's men. Meant to be tittilating? I don't know. It wasn't. In C de V's report, he notes a number of times that he and his Spanish companions were, for a long period, "naked as the day we were born," but there is no male nudity whatsoever in the film.

So what is accurate? The suffering endured, for sure, and the apparent success of the Spaniards in "curing" Indians through the power of God. The arrival in Mexico toward the end, and the capture of the Indians there as slaves. That's about it.

Nevertheless, the film holds the attention throughout, and the final scene of Indians bearing the enormous silver cross through the desert is quite arresting.

6 out of 10 for me.

In a strange and fantastic film, the Spanish explorer Cabeza de Vaca interacts with American Indians before any other Europeans and becomes integrated into their world before he his torn out of it by the arrival of more Spanish.

To answer a common question . . . Why does Florida look like Arizona in this film? Because it's not Florida. It's not even supposed to be Florida.

The makers of this film (and the makers of this film's packaging) have their facts wrong but their scenery right. Cabeza de Vaca landed in Texas, probably at the site of today's Galveston. That explains the slow-moving, brown water streams and the thick vegetation and mosquitoes. He then walked west or southwest. West Texas and northern Mexico do have semi-desert conditions and modest sized mountains and mesas and some canyons. The real Cabeza de Vaca left Florida on a flimsy raft -- depicted in the film -- hoping to make it to Cuba. Instead, he landed on the Texas gulf coast. I don't know why the filmmakers labeled the landscape as Florida.

This film is odd. It is exceptionally slow paced. There is little intelligible dialogue: lots of grunts or dialogue in indigenous languages (but no subtitles). We are as lost as Cabeza de Vaca. This film is from his point of view, and no explanation for his healing powers is offered. Nor do we receive an explanation of the tribal dynamics (some accept him, some enslave him, another seems to wish to execute him).

One chapter of the conquista - the subjugation of the Native American peoples by Europeans. We follow Alvaro Nunez Cabeza de Vaca's adventures and misadventures in the New World from a crash landing of his ship through his saving and capture by the Indians, his forced immersion into the Indian culture, his almost mystical pilgrimage from Florida through the American Southwest to California (or was it Mexico?), up to the bitter end at the hands of his European compatriots. Spectacular visuals lend the film the power of myth, but this is still more realistic depiction of the tragic clash of the cultures in the 16th century America than all the Hollywood productions, including Roland Joffe's "The Mission (1986)" (which, by the way, I do like). The only feature film with this topic that I consider equal, or perhaps even superior, is "Jerico (1988)" made by a Venezuelan ethnography professor Luis Alberto Lamata.

This dramatization of the true story of an odyssey that was as amazing in some respects as Homer's account of the voyage of Ulysses. The film puts the European invasion of the continent into more appropriate perspective, revealing the veil of lies about slavery and genocide that are common in histories of events in this place during this time. Although this film is politically compromised, it should be promoted to at least open the door on reality for those who don't know what this story is about.

Unfortunately, the result of this compromise is that most products of U.S. public education and other provincial audiences, who generally don't know the story of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca and what he had to say, will miss the significance his "report" to the Spanish monarchy but it may inspire those who do see the film to examine Nuñez' account of his journey in relation to the vast ignorance, greed and stupidity of the Spanish monarchy and the hierarchy of the Catholic church to whom he addressed his comments when he wrote what turns out to be the only accurate portrait of indigenous people of this continent, in which he showed the "conquered" victims of the invasion.

Missed in this film is the greatest irony of ironies: that the church responded to Cabeza de Vaca's report to Isabella and Ferdinand & Co. by creditng the myth of the fountain of youth to reinterpret Cabeza de Vaca's statement about personal transformation and the humanity of the indigenous people. De Vaca's revelations exposed the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic pretense that Christian idealism and not individual and collective greed motivated the conquest, the brutality, the slavery, the genocide. Ponce de Leon was sent out ostensibly to find the fountain of youth, while in the process, robbing, enslaving and killing indigenous people. Cabeza de Vaca died in poverty and is unknown to most students of the period.

A movie uses visual and aural spectacle, music and narrative to hypnotize viewers to tell a story, which means evoking experience and emotions associated with events, places and people. With movies, language, custom, commerce, politics and the attention span of viewers limit possibilities. From the perspective of indigenous North American people, this film is too compromised but it's a step in the right direction, which explains comparisons to Dances With Wolves.

After films are made, we may examine the ways films fail and we see why and this is valuable. In this film, the failure was not in execution but in the vision of the script. It conveys something important but does it leave out the part that makes it really relevant to our lives and contemporary practices that mirror the attitude of Isabella and the Vatican in the 16th century? Perhaps, it is better for a review to say nothing about this to avoid prejudicing viewers but the box office shows the opposite. It doesn't matter what we write in our reviews. You can't spoil a really good movie with a review.