The greatest movie ever made..!

That was an excellent one.

A lot of fun.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.

This is a pseudo-documentary about a French mercenary whom is executed, ends up as a prisoner of the Portuguese and then is the "honored guest" of a cannibalistic Brazilian native tribe. The film is based on the 16th century account of a German explorer, Hans Staden, who was captured by the Tupinamba. The Frenchman becomes part of the tribe, is even given a wife and a hut, until he is to be eaten in a massive ceremony. During this time he tries to figure out a way to escape, by conforming to the tribe.This film was originally banned in Brazil and was rejected from the Cannes Film Festival because of excessive nudity. The subject matter is portrayed in a documentary style, complete with shaky hand camera footage and including the spoken languages of French, Portuguese and Tupi. With the exception of the few European characters, the majority of the cast spends the film either bottomless, topless or both (also both sexes). The production value appears at first to be quite underwhelming, but I think instead it tries to emulate the simplicity and actuality of the situation rather than some ornate (or romanticized) recollection.At the same time it is trying to be an objective observer, it is also a critique of mercantilism and its descendants; monetarism and capitalism. There is no real judgment being issued here, but rather is a look at the encounter of the cultures, in an anthropological or rather a more realistic reinterpretation of what occurred when these cultures interacted. Some have said this a black comedy, but I did not find too many places to break out into a roaring laughter (though I did chuckle a few times at the cultural misunderstandings). This may sound like a rather dry film (which it is), but the relatively short running time makes it seem more like a PBS special than an actual feature film. The movie would also seem to resonate more with the situation and culture of Brazil (past and present). Brazil is a unique country, with a diverse history and culture. It was one of the first films that tried to relate to the "savages", in light of the audience's identification with the Europeans. Even 30 years later, its relevance continues.

Nelson Pereira dos Santos' 'Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês' (renamed 'How tasty was my little Frenchman' for its US release) is a good example of the cultural centrism and the difficulties in translation of the movement towards a new cinema. In it's realistic, non-judgmental portrayal of 16th century Brazil, Santos is able to speak for people who could never have spoken to us today. Yet the differences in culture on the natives of that land are difficult to understand through the lens in which history is written by its victors.Santos' involvement in the cinema novo style is immediately apparent, as it manifests in photographic realism. The lighting in each frame looks entirely natural (and than likely it only uses natural light) and camera movement is limited if any happened at all. Sound is clear and loud, but the near absence of post-production sound effects immerses the viewer in voices and nature. The main exception to the natural style of the film is the occasional inclusion of tribal music in the background, which use some reed-type instrument that might not be accurate for the tribal theme.The main obstacle for the viewer is a culture that they have very little concept of before the film. Unlike Hollywood films that sanitize their portrayal of native Americans with stereotypical clothing, Santos' rightly presents the native peoples' of Brazil as they were – without clothes. At times the film looks more like an issue of national geographic than a fictional story. The indifference to the tribe's practice of cannibalism not only comes from the perspective of the tribe, but even the Portugese in the film act in apathy towards it. If anything, the film comes just short of glorifying cannibalism until it justifies the act through vengeful rights. Indeed the mistaken Frenchman too accepts his place in the history of the oppressed natives, and as our protagonist he leads the audience to accepting it as well. The marriage of the tribe's woman and the Frenchman parallels Brazil's past and future, but in some ways encourages that a co-existence is possible if tolerance can be given. All of these cultural differences form a boundary to the audience that can be broken down if one can accept the history of oppression and integrate them into the themes of acceptance in the film.

How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't. Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you. I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.