Analysis Of Cannibal Tours

Cannibal Tours is a film directed by Dennis O’Rourke that follows a group of Western tourists on their vacation in Papua New Guinea. The film represents the contrasting differences between the tourists, who live a modern life, and the locals who appear to live a primitive life. As a result of their differences, Cannibal Tours allowed me to truly comprehend the “The West and the Rest” discourse that shapes cultural encounters in todays world.
The tourists in the documentary are a group of Europeans and North Americans and it is evident in the way they dress and their cameras, that they are wealthy. On the other hand, the natives of Papua New Guinea dress differently, wear body paint, handmade jewelry, don’t have luxurious items, and use nature …show more content…
The tourists even go further and call their way of life as “primitive”. A few things are problematic about this statement. First of all, the tourists can’t say that the locals are primitive, because they aren’t stuck in the past, in fact they are living at the same time as them. Secondly, since tourism came into play the past 100 years, it has affected Papua New Guinea, causing them to adapt and modernize. Furthermore, this means that these people are in fact “a people with history”, especially since the Europeans took over and forced them to change. Another problem with the way they spoke about the natives’ is that they were using “stereotypical dualism” that is discussed in Staurt Hall’s “The West and the Rest”. Stereotypical dualism is when a stereotype has a good and bad aspect to it, and most of the time the good just outweighs the bad. They would say that the locals’ way of living in nature is a primitive way of life and that it’s not a way to live, which is condescending towards the natives, and then the next moment they would wonder if that way of living is better because they seem to be happy and well fed. Another example, is …show more content…
The tourists are not only being intrusive in the natives’ lives by taking photographs of their every move, but they are also treating them like animals you would see at the zoo or an object at the museum. I found it rather offensive because the tourists are making it as if they are an exotic kind of species when in fact they are regular human beings just like them. One of the natives even says that he is confused why they keep taking photographs of them and its clear in his voice that he is annoyed with it. Another purpose of the film is to show the problematic relationship between the tourists and natives. Since the natives view the tourists as much wealthier than them, they depend on them to buy their crafts in order to make money. However, the Europeans either don’t always buy or they try to barter for a lower price, even if it already is at a reasonable price. I agree with one of the native men who is upset when they barter because not only is this one of the only ways they can make money, but he also feels his work is worth more than what they want to pay. Although, the tourists think the villagers live a “peaceful and simple life”, this is not the case because they still need the money in order to pay for their children’s education and clothing so they can’t really afford to go a lower price if they want to actually live a peaceful and simple