Jaguar (1967) is a movie by famous French moviemaker, anthropologist, explorer and storyteller Jean Rouch. He has spent more than sixty years making movies in Africa, thus creating a new movie style called ethnofiction. He is widely considered to be the father of Nigerien movie industry (Niger, not Nigeria) as he is the first director to ever explore various social, political and cultural issues in the small Central African country of Niger. Ethnofiction, also known as docufiction, refers to movies that fall on the border between documentaries and fiction films. While using real life people, who are involved in what seems to be a well-designed plot, his movies explore the cultural differences, the traditional practices and rituals from an anthropological perspective. Despite the fact that many African filmmakers have accused Jeah Rouch of distorting African realities, one thing is sure: unlike most Europeans living in his time (he was most active in 1950s, before African independence) he gave the opportunity to various African people he interacted with to express their concerns, opinions and share some of their daily routines. That is why his entire work has been characterized as one based on “shared anthropology,” the idea that every movie is produced after laboriously researched ethnographic work that is subsequently presented in a fictitious way to the audience.

Jaguar is a movie that follows Rouch’s style and trademark religiously. It is about three young men who want to leave their small village of Songhay, Niger and go to Ghana (back then known as the Gold Coast) in search for economic opportunities that will lift them from extreme poverty. There are only a handful of problems with their plan: they have no documentation (passports or identity cards whatsoever), no money and no means of transportation. But the prospect of redefining their social statuses in their local community, something other members have achieved precisely by going to Ghana, is so attractive. So they do whatever anyone with such limited resources would do: they leave for Ghana by foot, even if that means having to walk for over one month to achieve their target. But before going to the Gold Coast they need to have a talisman that will watch over them and guide them to financial success. Lam Ibrahim, a Fulam herder, emphatically declares: “we need a vulture’s beak.” Just when I was preparing to say “good luck with that, buddy” the men are shown on the peak of a local mountain looking for a vulture. When they find one, they beat the hell out of the vulture and decapitate it on the spot. After admiring its beak for a second, Lam declares that they are ready to go. This type of crude realism, one that would almost never be seen in contemporary cinema as it would spark outrage among the viewers, points to the documentary value of the Jaguar, as Rouch introduces us to practices that we, in the West, would not be comfortable with seeing.

The movie was shot in 1954-55 and edited more than a decade later.

The movie follows the journey of three different men introduced one by one by the voice of the director: Lam (the herder), Illo Goudel’ize (a fisherman) and Damoré Zika (a tax collector). The most interesting aspect of the movie might be the focus on temporary or seasonal migration, a phenomenon as central to African life today as it was back in the 1950s. In search for economic opportunities, young men leave their families behind and migrate towards the rising city centers throughout Africa. It is not an uncommon process, but one that has been well-document all over the continent. But the Jaguar is different, in that is creating this type of visual anthropology, that allows the viewers to follow the real-life characters and see exactly how they experience the cultural and social differences of other Africans as they migrate towards unknown, significantly different urban centers.

Jaguar was filmed without sound because the portable equipment required to record synchronized sound simply did not exist at the time. But this did not prevent the movie from being a fabulous anthropological experience as the director had Lam and Damoré watch the movie and discuss every scene in it. Their commentaries were then incorporated in the film soundtrack, thus making the movie a delightful visual and audio experience. One might never know if what the two men say in the movie represent their own thoughts and beliefs or a staged interpretation, but their playful and joyous comments are absolutely fantastic. They genuinely seem to experience the journey and live through every moment of it. Their comments are hilarious, astute and provocative.

Director Jean Rouch in action

There is an interesting contradiction between the focus and the dexterity of the camera and the subliminal nature of the movie. Jean Rouch seems to empower the protagonists of the movie by allowing them to share their story without any interruptions on his behalf. His voice can only be heard at the beginning and the end of the movie. He provides viewers with the context in which the movie is set, the background and the main characters, and the necessary conclusion that is designed to make people more aware of African realities, their specificities and their differences. On the other hand, his camera – and everything we consequently see on our TV screens – is far from distant. It is in fact a very implicated actor in the movie. Most rituals – from consulting a local witchdoctor, attending the traditional dance of the Somba people, or bargaining in the local markets – are shot from a close-up angle, which creates a sort of involvement and participation of the viewers watching the movie. None of these rituals are dismissed as irrational or obsolete. Instead, they are presented to the viewers and dubbed by playful commentaries (in one scene both Lam and Damoré make fun of one old man’s penis for example, which is just one example of the hilarity of the movie). Most people filmed, including large crowds of people don’t look straight to the camera, which suggests that the director alerted the people to look away, thus strictly controlling the environment where the movie is set. This is in line with the concept of cine-provocation, where the camera disrupts the social interactions by making people act in ways they would normally not.

One last aspect about the focus of the camera and the characters in the movie that should be noted is that, after all, even Lam and Damoré’s freedom of expression is conditioned and controlled by the camera. They comment solely on what they see on tape, thus the director is the one who ultimately controls what we see, despite the illusion that the characters might be in charge.

In his career, Jean Rouch also became famous for his technique of “jump-cutting” which entails jumping from one scene to another without making any apparent connection between them. This can be a very confusing thing for those watching the movie, but in Jaguar, the informed commentaries of the two characters, who narrate the story in a careful and progressive fashion, provide continuity from one scene to another.

In case you think that the movie is called Jaguar because it has something to do with African wildlife or nature, think again. According to Lam, a jaguar is a young man who smokes cigarettes, wears sunglasses and spends the entire day walking around the local market in Accra, with a proud and snobbish attitude. It is implied that you become a Jaguar once you made enough money from working in the capital of Ghana or in the gold mines, and that being a Jaguar signals your social and economic status.

Lastly, I could not help noticing the bias of the movie. Some of the commentaries made by Lam and Damoré are meant to discredit the British colonial system and their officials. I am by no means a defender of any colonial power whatsoever – they have all been equally wrong -, but I sensed that those bitter comments might have more to do with the director’s own background and the French-British rivalry. There are no mentions or criticisms against the French colonial system despite the fact that the three men come from Niger, a French colony, which even in the movie is clearly depicted as being in a much worse state than Ghana.

The final scenes of Jaguar reinforce the ethnographic value of the movie. When the three men come back to their native village, they are partly strangers to themselves and the others. “I can only speak English and French now,” jokes one of the characters. “Give me a week to get back to normal.” Back home, Lam rejoins his herd,Illo, catches a hippo and divides his money among the members of his extended family; and Damoure is looking to get married.

Why watch the movie?

This is a brilliant, engaging and amazingly funny movie. A classic example of how colonialism and cultural sensitivities can be explored through movies. It is also a brilliant expression of the  myths and the ideals surrounding the practice of seasonal migration. Certainly, most young people who leave for the big cities become trapped in daily economic chains and transactions, and do not become as succesful as the “three heroes.” Nonetheless the movie speaks of a familiar world, with true expectations and desires. I am definitely looking forward to watching other classic movies by this very interesting,  intriguing and controversial French director.

This movies is rated 10/10