Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Eva Lopo is an extremely active character throughout the book, she observes, she understands, but more importantly, as the novel progresses, she becomes increasingly more informed about Portuguese presence in Mozambique. Throughout the novel, the audience experiences a transformation in the attitude and outlook of the main protagonist. We are taken on a journey with Eva Lopo, from the young and naive Evita, to the aware and informed woman we see at the end of the novel. At the start of the novel, Eva was a very passive character, she would obey orders from her husband, for example when he told her to nao olhes tanto and albeit short-lived, she would comply with the typical requirements of a military wife. We can pinpoint the start of her shift in character from when her husband Luis went to war and when he did, we assume she felt a sense of liberation and this is when her journey as a character and the principal narrator truly began. She was no longer restricted by her husband with what she could see and do and this only fueled her curiosity to experience and understand what was going on in Mozambique. Given the typical role of a military wife, Eva challenges this and transforms into a very active character throughout. Vieira (2013) makes a comment on this active behavior, comparing it to that of the passive nature of the other colonial wives. It would be true to say that, by making Eva the principal storyteller of this version of events, she immediately shifts from the passive military wife to an active subject writing about history.
Not only does Eva Lopo display a very active personality in comparison to other characters, Faulkner and Martins (2016) have also suggested this level of curiosity and dynamism has led her to adopt the role of detective as the narrative develops (p.51). Through her transformation from a passive to an active character, the audience witness Evas increasing curiosity and willingness to know and understand what is going on in Mozambique. This can be exemplified with an example, in that after Luis goes to war, we see Eva in every single scene where an atrocity takes place. She watches the dead body ride by on a tractor, and even involves herself in Mateus death. In this increased curiosity, we see Eva start to unpick the stories and lies she has been fed by the ones close to her, and instead opt to put herself in the midst of the action to really get to the bottom of what is going on. As an extremely active protagonist, she also encourages the audience to question the colonial war and form their own opinions.
By using Eva as the main narrator throughout the story, the audience is exposed to an unfamiliar style of war writing. Typically, most war novels are told from a mans perspective, but through Jorges writing, the reader is able to appreciate what was a very phallocentric environment through a womans gaze. Medeiros (2008, cited in Faulkner and Martins, 2016, p.38) argues that there is a contrast between a very dominant male gaze and a female one and how the latter may replace the former to generate a border gaze . By giving a very female oriented perspective on Mozambique and Portuguese colonial powers, the viewer is allowed to exclude an explicitly male point of view and replace it with an alternative version of history proposed by the female. In her role as the principal narrator, Eva seems to deconstruct and reform what readers are used to in war film and writing and through her we are encouraged to criticize the norm and consider the postmodern turn in relation to the unconventional writing with women at the center (Ferreira, 1992, p.272).
By using a female narrator, we are given a lot more information than when a male narrator is the main interlocutor. This is presented through the difference between the Os Gafanhotos section of the book, in comparison to Eva Lopos highly detailed account of the same events. Written by journalist Alvaro Sabino, Os Gafanhotos is a mere nineteen pages in comparison to the main body of the book which is well over a hundred pages. I think it is important to question this as, they both tell the same version of events however Evas is significantly more detailed than Alvaros. Can we suggest that Alvaro told the events in little detail as to not denounce all the atrocities and paint Portugal in a bad light. He purposely does not record the deaths of the black people in the media so we can only assume he has missed out other important events and details which in turn have an effect on the way the reader perceives history.
The evident double-narrative through A Costa dos Murmurios portrays Eva as an intrinsic character within the story, one who critically analyses but also witnesses various spectacles in Mozambique. Sabine (2014) asserts that we should pay attention to the double-narrative of Evita and how this has an effect on the way in which the audience views and identifies (or not) with, the films protagonists (p.91). As viewer, I found it hard not to empathize with Eva and what she was experiencing, and firmly believe had the story been written from a mans perspective, similar to that of Os Gafanhotos, but more detailed, my view on the colonial wars would have been very different. Through the double-narrative of Eva, particularly with the voice-over at the start and the end of the film, we are reminded that the viewers acts of objectifying and (mis)identifying are secondary to her equally voyeuristic agency, as her minds eye conjures for us her younger self, gazing on past events as they happen (Sabine, 2014, p.93). Through this double-narrative, I believe the audience is given, not necessarily a more reliable version of events, but a significantly more detailed and well-rounded version in that we are more exposed to the events in Mozambique and how this affected not only the country but the Portuguese colony too. In this, we are encouraged to form our own opinions, as we essentially have more information to base our views off and this lends itself to a more informed and curious spectatorship.
Undoubtedly Evas version of history implies what others omit however it is interesting that this correction isnt seen as essential but instead circumstantial (Sabine, 2014, p.89). Can we consider this to be because Eva denounced what the Portuguese wanted to repress? Or even assume this suggested circumstantial manipulating of events is perceived in this way because it comes from a woman? A key feature of the ever present double-narrative is the act of contemplation, we see a point of view from the young Evita mirrored with that of her older self, Eva. By contemplating these events, we are exposed to the ambiguity of the process of remembrance (Martins, 2012), and may even begin to question why Evas version events changed when she looked back on her time in Mozambique. We can even suggest that she may have got herself caught up with the role of a military wife and even concurred with the colonial processes at the time, but only after it was all over had she decided this wasnt acceptable.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.