Graham

Nikolaus Geyrhalter’s 2019 documentary "Erde" attempts a study of denialist material substance abuse underlying western colonial expansion from the unchallenged heteronormative male gaze. The film is an anthropocentric study in the patriarchal raping of earth’s geomorphology. The film's lack of textual context leaves something to be desired. While a pseudo-list of participants is included in the closing credits, the subjects’ respective qualifications and appointments are avoided entirely. The lack of citations appears to be a minim(elitist) ruse, masking mediocre scholarship to further exploit the film’s subjects who often appear marginalized in their own right. Of particular concern is an unidentified archeologist who works on the ancient Roman mines of Riotinto, Spain. Upon further research, the film’s unidentified person proves to be the corporate archeologist Luís Iglesias García, PhD., whose title and correctly spelled name Nikolaus misses altogether. When Luís is pushed to explain his own relationship to the problematic nature of his profession, he says, “let’s go back to the idea of the Paleolithic or such tribes that live in a world similar to the Paleolithic, they only hunt what they will eat, when they catch their prey…they ask the animal for forgiveness for killing it” (1:15:15). I wonder who Luís intends to other in his use of the word ‘tribes’. I wonder what specific hunting practice Luís is referencing. I wonder where and who are the “kids in Africa, walking kilometers just to get water” (1:20:06). It would seem Luís may be hard pressed to come up with apt answers to these questions because he is really not talking about people or Africa. He is constructing a subordinate ‘primitive’ other. The problem with western colonial discursive oversimplification of the tribe and the tribal, and Luís’ blindness to such linguistic colonial relics, gets to the heart of the privileged platform from which this documentary is made. While Nikolaus seemingly masquerades as a pseudo-aware documentarian, one has to question Nikolaus’ own credentials and why he gives such debased imperialist rhetoric a platform. The fact that there is no concession made about the problematic nature of this clip suggests that Nikolaus is blithely unaware of any of this. In closing, I am left asking, “is Nikolaus really any different ideologically from the people who contributed to the problems his film presents itself as exposing?” In reality, this film appears a construction of the documentarian’s own inner voice and patriarchal fascination with the vulgar: rape, mutilation, power, and colonial conquest.