Tonantzin and the Virgin Mary: Two Bodies, One Soul?
By Andrea Espinoza, with comment by Kelsey Cannon
[1] In Salvador Carrasco’s La otra conquista the idea of a higher power is one of the most prevalent themes. Glorification of a higher power is named as the reason why both the Aztecs and Europeans engage in practices that our modern civilization would deem to be at best unusual and at worst horrific. What is so special about this film, however, is that the higher power is not the usual male figure as we have seen in other films that focus on European colonization and absorption of other cultures. This higher power is specifically female, and she starts out as Tonantzin, the Mother Goddess of the Aztec religion, a figure that the main character Topiltzin looks to as the ultimate keeper of the balance in his world. Once the Aztecs are conquered and forced to assimilate into a European lifestyle, Topiltzin goes through an experience in which he sees the fusion of the Mother Goddess of the Aztecs with the Virgin Mary of the Spaniards. This fusion serves to illustrate the message that two radically different cultures can have a joint belief system, even though they may interpret those beliefs in different ways.
[2] When the movie starts, the first image that we see of the Aztec Mother Goddess herself is of a stone statue in a sacred underground niche (0:11:16). The stone statue has a face that is made of blue painted wood, and it is nailed onto the stone. The statue is mounted up on a dais that makes it tower above the people who seek to pray in front of it. The Aztecs call her Tonantzin, which means Mother Goddess. Her presence, however, is not confined to that mere sacred space in the hidden niche. Topiltzin’s cry of “Mother!†when he sees the desolation that the Spaniards have done to the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan shows that the presence of the Goddess is not merely a stone statue in a cave but a tangible comfort that is felt by the people who believe in her (0:04:08). I believe it is that very force which inspires the human sacrifice the Spaniards try to prevent. Once the Spaniards come along and destroy both the Aztec codex and the statue, the Aztecs’ entire demeanor as a group changes. The fact that both the physical manifestation of their female deity and their recorded history are destroyed in one swoop gives the Spanish an advantage ecclesiastically. The ecclesiastical advantage is the fact that the Mother Goddess is intricately connected to their way of life, and once she is demolished, they feel hopeless and helpless. That makes it even easier for the Spaniards to interject the idea of the Virgin Mary as the true mother of God.
[3] The statue of the Virgin Mary is everything that the statue of Tonantzin was not (0:21:45). (see comment by Kelsey Cannon) Whereas the statue of Tonantzin is merely an ornate face on a series of stone blocks, the statue of Mary is modeled as a human being. She has hair the color of wheat, which is real human hair, lips redder than a rose, and robes of a rich cornflower blue. She also wears a crown on her head, which is befitting her status as the “Queen of Heaven.†Furthermore, she holds in her arms a figure of Baby Jesus. Basically, she is the classic Madonna and Child figure. What I find interesting about her is the fact that the filmmakers show her as an actual presence who empathizes with her children. We see this later when the tears of blood are running down her cheeks as the Captain tortures Topiltzin (0:54:50). The sight of her here, however, is a dark contrast from the sight of Tonantzin. I believe that Carrasco is trying very hard to illustrate a dichotomy between both Tonantzin and the Virgin at this moment. Whereas Tonantzin is merely represented as a stone statue that cannot do anything for her devotees, the Virgin Mary is a real presence who cries when one of her sons is being mercilessly tortured.
[4] However, as the film progresses into the period of España Nueva five years later, we can see that the dichotomy between Tonantzin and the Virgin Mary begins to close gradually but dramatically in the eyes of Topiltzin. One place where we can see the alternation of Tonantzin and the Virgin is in his hallucination scene (1:13:35), at which point it looks as though Mary is about to sacrificed but, instead, the Mother Goddess takes her place. That is the first place we see the idea of convergence between Tonantzin and the Virgin Mary. The flashing back and forth between the two images for Topiltzin signals a conflict that is warring within him. He knows that he is called to the Virgin Mary, but his heart still yearns for the past. His cry out to the Virgin Mary “Saintly Mother! You may have my earthly body, but my heart and soul, never!†echoes a sentiment that many cultures feel as they are absorbed into a larger society (1:13:13). There is a desire to connect to the new religious belief system, the new political and social structures, and the new lifestyle. However, the old ways of life cannot merely be forgotten because they are tied to memories of happiness, sadness, passion, anger, and a host of other emotions. The old ways of life cannot be forgotten because they are tied to the history of the previous life, the history that their ancestors fought so hard to preserve for them.
[5] Once Topiltzin moves past this stage of rebellion, he seems to have accepted the Virgin Mary as his maternal deity completely. He grows to love the Virgin, even going through great lengths to be able to see her. His conversations with Fray Diego and the nun in the kitchen truly echo the theme of this film (1:17:06; 1:29:59), and it is here we reach the fusion of the Mother Goddess and the Virgin Mary into one all-powerful maternal figure of higher power in the eyes of Topiltzin. Once this fusion takes place, the path that the film takes is solidified in its goal to unify both Aztec and Spanish spirits into one cohesive ideal. This is shown through Topiltzin’s determination to get into the sacristy to be one with the Virgin Mary (1:41:03). In this scene, he is wearing his Aztec clothes, and the dexterity we saw from him in the beginning of the film returns, allowing him to sneak out of a window with bars and move with a graceful elegance. He seems at home as an Aztec in a monastery as he leaps and jumps in order to be closer to his heavenly mother. The ending, though tragic, achieves a fusion that is both natural and unnatural all at once. It is natural in the sense that a man and woman lying on a bed together is one of the most common scenes in the world, but unnatural in the fact that an Aztec is laying on the bed with an alabaster European-derived statue (1:42:24). Originally, the statue was on top of him, but the ending image of the film is that of Topiltzin and the Virgin lying together side by side (1:45:31).
[6] One interesting fact about the two figures is the fact that their names illustrate two completely different ideologies but, according to Louise Burkhart, they mean exactly the same thing. Tonantzin, she says, means “our most revered Mother.†In fact, during the 1570s, many Aztec Indians referred to the Virgin Mary using the same name of Tonantzin, a fact that angered their European ecclesiastical conquerors (Burkhart 207). This is an important detail because it shows that this movie is drawing from a real-life concept and not manufacturing such an ideal for the purposes of heightening the cinematic dimensions. Furthermore, I believe that the idea of the Aztec fusing of Tonantzin and Mary is a form of cultural transubstantiation. Through a bloody war that destroyed the culture and history of the Aztecs, the figure of Mary was turned into a symbol of hope, not only for the Aztecs but also for the Europeans, who used her powers as a way to control the Aztec population.
[7] However, there were dissenters to this fusion. According to Jeannette Peterson, the Spanish friar Sahagún saw the fusion of the Virgin Mary and Tonantzin as nothing more than a cover-up. The Aztecs were doing nothing more than making pilgrimages to shrines devoted to Mary in order to pray to their own desecrated Tonantzin. This was dangerous since this fusion created a new Mary out of the ashes of the Mother Goddess and la Virgen. This new Mary was a force created by the Aztecs that, from the way she looked to her very name, the Europeans had no control over (Peterson 40). Since the Aztecs symbolically created her, the Europeans had no power over the use of her image. If they had no power over the religion of the Aztecs, then there was a chance of the same event taking place in other aspects of their lives.
[8] Both Tonantzin and the Virgin Mary are symbols of a higher power in La otra conquista. Although they are rooted in two very different cultural traditions, they gradually fuse together into one being. This phenomenon is not merely crafted for the film but was actually inspired by real-life events. Furthermore, it illustrates an ideal that many multicultural societies still aspire to reach today: the creation of a society in which one collective ideology is believed by all because many interpretations are able to flourish.
Comments
I find this notion compelling because, I agree, the statue of the Virgin Mary seemed to be more interactive than that of Tonantzin. Due to her human-like figure, the Virgin Mary statue can exchange glances with someone, she cries, she bleeds, and we can't ignore that Tonantzin does not. What is Carrasco's methodology behind this distinction? Is it purely a depiction of different sets of beliefs? Perhaps, though, these dramatic differences are just reflective of different beliefs and different deities. The Aztecs may not have a concept of Tonantzin's statuesque representations having human characteristics like tears or blood -- what are considered miracles to the Christians might not be in the concept of the Aztec religion. The viewer can be easily trapped by the personification of Mary, viewing her representation as superior to that of Tonantzin; however, it is remiss to compare the two deities through their material forms.
Works Cited:
Burkhart, Louise M. "The Cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico." South and Meso-American Native Spirituality: From the Cult of the Feathered Serpent to the Theology of Liberation. New York: Crossroad, 1993. 199-227.
Peterson, Jeanette. "The Virgin of Guadalupe: Symbol of Conquest or Liberation?" Art Journal 51.4 (1992): 39-47.
