The ending of the film is also interesting because the film’s protagonist reaches self liberation after committing horrible acts. …. She was in an oppressive home and abused by her father physically and mentally. On the other hand, she blames the murder on the “gringo”. An individual who was going to leave to Lima with her, but she betrays him and leaves for Lima by herself. I thought this was a very interesting take on this liberation moment because it was created to show a slit in these two viewpoints.
The phrase “Made in USA” is only found on manufactured objects, such as clothes and other material objects. Therefore, perhaps we are meant to view Madinusa as an object—an object of affection, an object of desire, and an object of the town’s tradition.
The purpose of the film is to portray the effects of colonization, to highlight stereotypes, and the effect/incorporation of religion…. Madeinusa writes her own name over the poster in black, so as to show what she desires. The color of the poster signifies the ideal representation of a white woman and the black writing that covers the poster, then signifies the darkest desire of Madeinusa to become that idol at whatever cost. It also showcases how indigenous people were thought of and how Western culture influenced them to believe that being white is good and anything else was bad.
Llosa allowed the film to be almost a parody of the views of Native Peruvians within Peru. Madeinusa was the embodiment of a naive native woman who needs a white man to save her from her own innocence like realizing her name spells out “Made in USA”. Salvador, practically giving away his role through his name, represents the white savior.
Unlike Como agua para chocolate, however, in which two characters marry in order to represent the relationship between their two countries and cultures, Madeinusasubverts this nation-building trope. Instead, Madeinusa turns against Salvador, but achieves her dreams and goals nonetheless. In this reading, the film is not a criticism of Peruvian culture, but a critique of those who wish to come in and “save” a country and a people that don not need saving. It is a diatribe against the White Man’s Burden and against the savior complex of international and urban communities.
The last comment is a good example of a contrast of two different movies and representation of postmodernism in regards to the self-reflexivity within the film. The audience sees a parallel to the common narrative of the White Saviour and the White Man’s Burdern, and the film introduces a new perspective from a person of indigenous heritage. We see their culture, their autonomy, and the effects of the oppresion by the state and the constructed narratives by the dominant Western Culture.