Dersu Uzala Through a Structuralist Lens

            In “Cinema: A Visual Anthropology”, Gray (2010:53-55) outlines structuralist film theory, which draws heavily on the work of structural theorists like Lévi-Strauss and linguists like Saussure. Structuralism’s salient tenet is that “humans engage with, make sense of, and function in the world through sets of binary oppositions” (Gray 2010:53). Moreover, these binary oppositions have a ‘grey’ area in which there are aspects of both sides. This transitional area can be understood through studying its, often liminal, stages. According to structuralism, these transitional areas are frequently explained by humans through myth and ritual (Gray 2010:54). By applying structuralist film theory, any film can be analysed in regards to the binaries and their margins, like good/bad, inside/outside, nature/culture, etc. For example, Gray (2010:53-54) discusses a structural analysis of Star Wars, as it follows a ‘universal script’ that perpetuates the binary of good/bad. With a structuralist lens, I can think of binaries in every movie I have ever seen; however, for the purpose of this blog, I discuss the film Dersu Uzala through a structuralist lens and its primary binary of nature/culture, and other supplementary binaries that manifest within it.

            Gray (2010:55) discusses Peter Wollen’s analysis of the cinematic works of the director Ford. In his films, Wollen notes a strong binary of nature/culture that is perpetuated by further oppositions like settler/nomad, European/Indian, civilised/savage, book/gun. While watching Dersu Uzala, I was struck by how many of these binaries were present in its plot. Dersu Uzala (1975) is a Soviet-Japanese film from 1975 that describes Vladimir Arseniev’s exploration and experience of rugged regions of Siberia. Similar to Ford’s films, the plot of the story perpetuates the larger binary of culture/nature, and its manifesting binaries: European/Aboriginal, civility/wilderness, and advanced technology/ ‘primitive’ technology. These dichotomies are very strong towards the beginning of the film, where Uzala is seen as uneducated and primitive, and progress to be less clear-cut, through the portrayal of the grey, transitional areas.

            In the film (Dersu Uzala 1975), Captain Arseniev meets an Aboriginal Nanai man, Dersu Uzala, who guides him and his men through Shkotovo in 1902 and once again in 1907. Throughout their journey, Dersu Uzala represents the seemingly inferior ‘nature’ binary, while Arseniev and his men represent the contrasting ‘culture’. Within this framework, Dersu Uzala is on the binary end of being Aboriginal, connected to the wilderness, and using ‘primitive’ nature-based technology. Conversely, Arseniev and his men are on the opposite end by being European, civilised, and having advanced technology in their culture. Nature and Dersu Uzala are initially portrayed as inferior; however, as the plot leads on Uzala and his connection with nature are responsible for saving the lives of the ‘cultured’ peoples twice: once from a blizzard by constructing a grass shelter and again in the second journey where Uzala saves Arseniev while crossing a treacherous river in a raft by getting him safely onto the shore. The binaries are further symbolically demonstrated at the end of the expedition when Uzala leaves the soldiers in a civilised area, by railroad tracks, and returns to the wilderness of the Siberian environment.

            Towards the end of the film, the binaries are blurred and less clear-cut when Uzala’s hunting abilities deteriorate with age, rendering him unable to hunt; He is therefore not as connected with the wilderness and ‘primitive’ technology. Arseniev brings Uzala into the city, which is symbolic of moving the Aboriginal person out of the wilderness and into the other side of the binary, civilisation in European modernity. There, Uzala is prevented by civilisation to do the things that he would do in the wilderness: hunt, chop wood, and build huts. Eventually he leaves back to the wilderness; however, Arseniev gives him a rifle—something that is ‘advanced’ and related to culture, and therefore does not belong in nature. I found the end of the movie to be very ironic and ultimately symbolic of possible trouble that happens when the binaries are mixed like this: Zuala was killed because somebody wanted to steal his rifle.

            Applying a structuralist lens to film is interesting in understanding contrasts that, as argued by structuralist, inherently manifest in the brain (Gray 2010:53). This framework seems to be very universal, as every movie I can think of, especially Dersu Uzala (1975), involves the binary of good/bad at some point, as well as a form of the nature/culture contrast. These large binaries can be dissected in their manifesting binaries, as Wollen has done of Ford’s film and I have done of Dersu Uzala, that may ultimately be significant in understanding the cultural framework of the movie’s producers, and the culture of the people portrayed in film.

References Cited

Gray, Gordon

     2010   Film Theory. In Cinema: A Visual Anthropology, Pp. 35-73. Oxford, New York: Berg.

Dersu Uzala

     1975   Akira Kurosawa, dir. 141 mins. Mosfilm. Soviet Union (Russia).