It is seven years since the Norwegian film director Håvard Bustnes started developing the film. Seven years ago, the world was different regarding perceptions of what was appropriate to say and do. Bustnes shares his troubles and realszations during the making of the film Phantom of the Sierra Madre after the world premiere at CPH:DOX, together with two of the characters in the film, Pius and Lars K. Andersen and the executive producer Bird Runningwater.
Helge Ingstad
Andersen has been fascinated by native Americans since he was a small boy, and the fascination followed him in his adult years. Inspired by the Norwegian explorer and author Helge Ingstad, who, back in the late thirties, made an expedition to the Apaches in New Mexico, searching for chief Geronimo’s lost tribe. Now, Andersen wants to follow Ingstad’s footsteps and investigate if anyone is left of the tribe. The road movie sets off. Andersen is a character in the film and also the scriptwriter. Bustnes is the director who also appears in the film.
It seems like a very honest film. Andersen declares in the beginning: «I walked into a world that was not mine» and «we thought we had every right to do what we were doing.» Luckily, Andersen gets in touch with Pius, but first, after approaching people on the streets and calling for help in a radio program – Andersen speaks Spanish, which is helpful along the way. Pius makes contact, declaring that he is the great-great-grandson of Geronimo. Pius is very helpful in taking Andersen to his relatives and helping to investigate a question he also finds interesting. He asks his uncle if it is right or wrong to look for them, and when the uncle gives his approval, the film continues to ask: Are any of the Apaches left in Mexico?
Are any of the Apaches left in Mexico?
Geronimo
We also encounter two Mexican sisters who claim to be descendants of an unknown daughter of Geronimo. The meeting takes place in no-man’s land between the USA and Mexico. Pius, a family member, and Andersen are present. The sisters argue loudly, and it is clear that the Apache inheritance and identity are crucial.
The film is full of humour, surprises and, to me, new knowledge about how some people try to benefit from being descended from Geronimo. It is a film that also discusses who is entitled to tell other people’s stories. At a point, the film is shown to Amanda Fayant, an indigenous Canadian with a degree in indigenous studies. Andersen is waiting for her opinion: «It is a sad film. Colonialists have told the story. Now, it is time for the indigenous to tell their story. We need to consider: do we have the right to know everything?»
We witness an uncomfortable argument between Andersen and Bustnes driving in the car. An anthropologist, Dr. Medina, has contacted Andersen and claims he knows where the Apache are, but they don’t want to be found, and he will not tell or talk to Andersen. Back in the car, Andersen is upset. Bustnes argues that Medina is right. Maybe it is not their business to look for them. Andersen gets furious and wants the camera turned off. It is fantastic and cringe.
Stolen artefacts
In the next scene, Andersen is hospitalised with a possible heart attack. It is truly a road movie. Luckily, Andersen survives. He travels to Norway to Ingstad’s old house and meets his grandson. In the attic, a big suitcase belonging to Ingstad is still intact, with some of his possessions. The grandson unwraps a secret artefact that Ingstad improperly brought to Norway, but he might not have known better at that time. It is a delicate scene. Andersen promises to return the artefact to Pius so he can return it where it belongs. Pius is very upset by Ingstad’s ignorance. Again, the film points to the different opinions one had 80 years ago versus today, but we still have some miles to go.
Back in Denmark, Lars is writing the ending scene: Pius and Lars travel to Sierra Madre to return the stolen artefact – but he deletes his name and concludes, after all, it wasn’t my story. Thanks to Andersen, Pius and Bustnes for inviting us to see the story from a wider perspective, focusing on ethical dilemmas. I left the theatre much more clear about what I find appropriate today. What Ingstad did is almost a century ago, but is that an apology? I don’t think so, even though I understand the lack of knowledge. What I am certain about is that without Pius, the film couldn’t have been made today.
