User Reviews

What I found interesting about The Other Conquest is its ability to tell a story of colonization that relates to many, if not all cultures on some level. It not only tells the story from the point of view of the Spanish, but also from Aztecs that were being conquered. Coming from the Philippines, I have noticed several similarities between our culture, and that of Mexico. Not to mention, both have been conquered by Spain and Catholicism is the predominate religion in both countries.

Topilzin, the main character of the story, represents a conquest for one's identity. He battles between his own cultural beliefs and those instilled upon him by the Spanish invaders. In doing so, he becomes torn between two ideals, which ultimately leads to a compromise of the two. He accepts Christianity, but won't relinquish his own belief system.

In many ways, this story is symbolic for how cultures assimilate other cultures into their own. The Philippines, for example, is a fusion of many cultures. It is a mixture of many beliefs, knowledge, values, and ideas. And yet, they are still able to call it their own.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who is trying to get in touch with their roots. It tells an amazing story of facing adversity and still being able to recognize where you came from.

Perhaps one of the most difficult things to do when watching "The Other Conquest is to not pass judgment. It is almost impossible to not pass judgment on the Spanish conquistadores, who torture Topiltzin in order to convert his "savage soul" to Catholicism, and in general it is difficult not to pass judgment on the Spanish period. But not to pass judgment is exactly what director Salvador Carrasco wants us to do. In many lectures and interviews, Carrasco has stated that "The Other Conquest" is not a Manichean story of good versus bad, but rather one that states the facts about the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Facts on how the Spanish treated the indigenous people from their Catholic dogmatic point of view; a point of view that indeed was Manichean and very brutal. Carrasco wants us to look at the movie and form our own opinion, but with a Renoirian pair of eyes. The Spanish were convinced that their ways of conversion were just, and handling from that dogmatic point of view, does not allow any room for other input. The movie then deals with Topitlzin's struggle to maintain his culture through non violent resistance. We see Topiltzin save his own life, when he shows an obsession with the Virgin Mary, convincing the Spanish that he indeed can be saved. But most probably he projects his own religious symbols upon the statue thereby keeping his own religion, but also because it contains similarities with his native religion. Topiltzin continues to speak his language with Dona Isabel, his half sister while friar Diego tells him that he "must choose between two worlds and can't have both". Topiltzin's resistance is cultural resistance, and not one of violence. It is a form of resistance that is more difficult perhaps, than one of violence, but more effective in the end. Topiltzin's physical and spiritual struggles in his conversion even cause friar Diego to ask for spiritual help from an Aztec authority in hiding. To me, this says that friar Diego is struggling with the question if Topiltzin needs to be converted. Even if Topiltzin has different Gods, his basic values are the same as Diego's. After Topiltzin has managed to bring the Mary statue into his room, having died or committing suicide under the weight of the statue, friar Diego tells a servant to inform Cortes of Topiltzin's death: "come to the monastery to witness the miracle of how two different races can be as one through tolerance". Friar Diego doesn't judge Topiltzin anymore, when he realizes that coexistence can happen in the light of differences, even religious differences. Acceptance with respect and tolerance is the only way to coexist.

I found Topiltzin's story very powerful and it told me a lot about the struggle of native Mexicans at the time the Spanish conquest. A part of history of which I had very little knowledge. Obviously, Topiltzin's story is the story of all native people all over Central, South and North America. It is the story of any oppressed and persecuted people, which is what makes it a powerful movie. It makes you think about what went on in history and how this has carried over to present time. It is a shocking movie, but that is what makes it powerful. But again, I found it difficult to not judge. The Spaniards converted out of a dogmatic conviction in which it seems anything was allowed in name of God. To the Spaniards there was no other truth than that of Catholicism; their paradigm that said that the world should be converted. From that point of view, where the Spaniards believed they were handling according to God's will, nobody could've talked sense into them. Conversion is fine, but imposing that conversion through violence is not. I think friar Diego questions the method himself, as we see him become progressively confused and in the end realize that real conversion cannot be imposed by any type of coercion, but has to come from within. He realizes that being different in any way does not make you a worse person, it just make you different. There is equality in difference; even in religious difference.

It took me 10 years to see this film, finally, on Netflix. I am avid about Mexican culture, history and pre-Colombian history but the spirits must have revealed to me that there was no urgency to see this film. I wanted so much to love it.

There are about 70 previous comments about this film and some eloquent and personal connections about race, culture clash and what all. It evidently spoke to some in an harmonic-vibration, viva-la-raza way but I was disappointed.

The Virgin of Gualalupe, mother-goddess (Tonantzin) theme is nothing new. I don't fault the film for playing it again, only for doing it in such an artsy and mystic way. The script began to drag just when the culture conflict could have made this a great movie. It became unrealistic when it could have shown the true conflict the Coluha-Mexica (Aztec) experienced when their own gods deserted them.

And what a lame ending! What was this "miracle" the friar sent for Cortez to see anyway? I replayed it several times to see if the Virgin's eyes had turned brown, or his had turned blue, or if his bruises were roses..nada. Especially with the long, dramatic build-up for the "miracle" scene with the camera pan and the music and all but nada. Just the friar's assertion that the scene somehow depicted the racial harmony that understanding and compassion could bring. The film should somehow have revealed that, not just asserting it with dialogue; especially since it isn't a truth of Mexican history.

Okay, the cinematography and score were great. It got off to a good start. There was some wonderful dialogue, as discussed in other posts: the "They want to take our souls" mis-translation, for example. I don't really quibble, as some have, about the the historical inaccuracies. I personally would rather have seen constructed or generated sets that depicted the original beauty of the pre-Colombian architecture than modern-day ruins.

The film was too easy on the Spanish..they did monstrous things out of greed and soul-saving. Hundreds, maybe thousands, were literally burned at the stake for not forsaking the pagan gods, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, otherwise died as a consequence of the conquest. It was way easy on the Mexica, tens of thousands were sacrificed to their gods and they all didn't go as willingly as that sexy, naked virgin-babe. Many were children.

I wanted to like this film but I can't even recommend it except to neo-Nahua kooks. It beat all hell out of Apocalypto though.

Most of the film is tedious because it doesn't take the issue very seriously, instead, it wants to rely on absurd set-pieces where the Spanish are yelling obscenities at the indians, or symbolic art vignettes.

The acting is torrid, looking like a very dismal and cheap soap opera.

The sets are too well lit, the actors too clean, and it is too sympathetic with the Catholic church, which in actuality at the time of the conquest, was a brutal, oppressive and dominant force with its own army, Inquisition and wealth.

The intentions are there, but there is no drama, no story and no interest for the educated viewer. It might be good for people easily manipulated to tears, or those who don't know about history, but lovers of great film should stay clear except to watch, on "how not to make a film".

La Otra Conquista is a brilliant film directed by Salvador Carrasco. It's rare to find a film like this where it tells the other side of the story, in this case of the Aztecs. Carrasco does not however bore us with a historical documentary styled drama but paints a very honest picture of the conquest. We feel so powerfully about this film because the message is so universal. Whatever background (nationality, race, culture, ideology, etc.) you come from, we have all experience some sort of "conquest", and we have all raised some kind of resistance to such conquest. Topiltzin, the protagonist embodies this resistance and we feel an immediate connection to him. It was very interesting that the actor casted for Topiltzin was actually a dancer and casted for that very reason. It was a risky but very brave choice for Carrasco to cast Damian Delgado as the protagonist rather than a "brand name" actor. Delgado does deliver a memorable performance especially for a first-time actor. One thing I felt that did not quite work was the dialogue. I don't know if it was just the translation, but sometimes I felt the dialogue was very didactic and slow. I do however understand that the reason for this was probably because most of the story was told through the imagery and mise en scene of the scenes. Maybe Carrasco wanted to redirect the attention from what's being said to what's being shown. Overall, the film is beautifully shot, especially on such a tight budget. Carrasco actually commented that the scenes showing the Aztec ruins is actually smack in the center of a very urban city, but the cinematographer was able to cleverly conceal the anachronistic elements behind the ruins. Carrasco also commented that the scenes showing the inside of the ruins were actually shot few years apart but through the flawless editing of the film, it's undetectable.

I thought that this was a very educational movie for me. I never once in my life knew what actually happened in the south America during the Spain's conquest. I used to think that the great Spaniards rode into the south Americas, colonizing it and freeing them from their savage ways. I also used to think that live sacrifices were barbaric and savage. I still don't think that it was right but now I see why they did such things and that the sacrifices weren't always forced to do it, but also felt honored to become one with their god. Watching the movie let me realize that no culture is superior to other but it is all up to the eyes of the beholder. I was also inspired by the spirits of the Aztecs, in how they would offer up their bodies to the Spaniards but never their spirits and their mind. For example the main character gave in to Spaniards physically in that he let himself be held captive in the church but his spirit never died out and in the end he seemed to even shake up the Spaniards that kept him captive. Overall I thought that this movie was a great eye opener for me, and I would recommend it to anybody that aren't familiar with the history of Aztecs.