Felipe Galvez Readies to Ruffle Some Feathers with ‘The Settlers,’ a Western about Chile’s Bloody Colonial Past: ‘I Love to Be Controversial’

Debuting Chilean director Felipe Glvez doesnt shy away from controversy. On the contrary: he actually welcomes it.

I love to be controversial, he tellsVarietyin Cannes, where he is introducing blood-soaked Western The Settlers, posing some uncomfortable questions about his countrys colonial past.

If something is controversial, its a good sign. It means its interesting. I am trying to provoke with my film, because this conversation is far from over.

Set in 1901, The Settlers sees three men (Benjamin Westfall, Mark Stanley and Camilo Arancibia) hired by a rich Spanish landowner (Alfredo Castro) to mark out his immense property. One is American, one Scottish, one of Indigenous descent. But what is really expected of them is to get rid of the Indigenous tribes.

One of Chiles most anticipated debuts in recent years, The Settlers is produced by Chiles Quijote Films, and in pedigreed backing, co-produced by Argentinas Rei Cine, the U.K.s Quiddity Films, Frances Cin Sud Promotion, Denamrks Snowglobe and Swedens Film i Vst. Frances MK2 handles international sales.

For me, this film is about the present. All of this is still happening its enough to mention our ongoing conflict with the Mapuche. Right now, the Chilean government is talking about finally recognizing the Selknam people. But once you do that, you also have to give them their land, he explains.

Our new constitution, if it ever comes to fruition, would describe Chile as a country of many nations. And there are many who still disagree with that concept.

Chiles current constitution was written in 1980, under the regime of Augusto Pinochet.

Talking about the hidden genocide erased from the official history for decades Glvez decided to play with the tropes of a Western, as his anti-heroes keep getting lost, and getting in trouble, in the wide open spaces.

The biggest irony here is that Western, as a genre, was often used as a propaganda tool. Its a dark joke that, I hope, is reflected throughout the film.

He calls his feature debut, based on some real events and real people such as businessman Jos Menndez Menndez historical but not realistic.

I didnt want to claim that this is exactly what happened. I wanted to be critical of our history, of us, because we are part of the problem, but also of our cinema. Cinema allows us to manipulate reality. Back then, whoever had the camera, had all the power, he says.

Glvez, who co-wrote the film with Antonia Girardi, wanted his characters to remain ambiguous despite their horrifying acts.

I am sure that in Chile, some people will be able to identify with Menndez and defend his position, as well as that of his daughter. I welcome that: I think the audience should make all the decisions. For me, there are no bad guys in this movie. If there are, its just your personal opinion.

He tried to reflect peoples views at that time, he notes, however disturbing they might seem now, in 2023.

I have worked as an editor for many years and I am always thinking about how to maintain the relationship with the audience. Especially with a film like this, because its so violent and I know I am making it very hard to empathize with these men.

Still, the idea was to put you in their position. I am not sure if back then, they even thought they were doing something bad. I wanted my actors to think like them and forget all about todays political correctness.

But they are not the only aggressors in the film, with violence seemingly ingrained into the land of Tierra del Fuego and attacking them from every direction.

This landscape is beautiful, but its also so scary. There is this piercing wind all the time, you feel it everywhere. There is something aggressive about it, something violent. You certainly feel that, he says.

He would like to be optimistic about his countrys future and its approach to the past, he states. But for Glvez, optimism needs to be earned. And it has to start with a conversation.

Right now, there is no conversation. At least not about these events, he observes.

If some viewers wont agree with the perpetrators, maybe thats optimistic? I think its better to show all the violence, to be honest about it, and then have a calm, rational discussion about it. To me, making someone think and come up with new ideas is more valuable than a simple happy ending you will immediately forget.